Food for thought. Should Jeremy Gallon be M's third down back?
Something to ponder during the bye week. If not this season then certainly next season, Jeremy Gallon is probably M's best option as a third down back. Gallon is so so smooth on the football field with the ball in his hands; I'd love to see more of it.
Gallon got his first two carries of the season against ND and the guy has serious running skills. I suspect Gallon has superior balance and vision, to go along with his toughness, quickness and good hands. Get this man the ball more!
I would like to see M experiment with Gallon in the backfield with Denard, with a receiving corp of Gardner, Roundtree, Funchess, and maybe even Dileo. I love me some Vincent Smith, but think Gallon is a superior runner and receiver.
September 27th, 2012 at 5:58 PM ^
Yes, let's take our second-best receiver off the field on critical third downs. Great idea.
Does Gallon have ANY experience at running back? Like blitz pickups and stuff? That's really the point of a third-down back...blocking and dumpoff.
I'm sorry, I really don't understand even entertaining this thought. This is offseason stuff.
September 27th, 2012 at 6:00 PM ^
Are you suggesting Vincent Smith is our second best receiver?
September 27th, 2012 at 6:06 PM ^
A third-down back almost always blocks. They can catch passes out of the backfield, but they usually block the pass rush. This is the quality you want in a third-down back. Putting Gallon there is a terrible idea...you put a dude with certain strengths in a position that doesn't play to those strengths. Asinine.
September 27th, 2012 at 6:14 PM ^
Well if that is the standard definition of a third down back and Gallon fails to meet the criteria, play him at RB is situations when his skill can be maximized. Gallon was a superior running QB in HS and I think he would be M's best option after Toussaint. I don't see it as outrageous as you.
September 27th, 2012 at 6:15 PM ^
He's our second-best receiver! Why would you take him out of a spot where he excels? We run the tunnel screen and do end-arounds to get the ball in his hands where he can run with it.
If you really think Gallon is the second-best running back on our roster, you might want to email the coaches.
September 27th, 2012 at 6:18 PM ^
Already did. Hoke gave it the old double point
September 27th, 2012 at 6:28 PM ^
September 27th, 2012 at 5:58 PM ^
You want to take our best/toughest backfield blocker (VSmith) off the field on passing downs?
And it isn't like he has the dropsies.
September 27th, 2012 at 5:59 PM ^
Gallon is probably our best skill player, and our most consistent receiver. I'd be more in favor of grooming Norfleet to jump into the role if you're looking for a playmaking third down back. Smith should be able to handle the blocking now though, considering we're in B1G play.
September 27th, 2012 at 6:44 PM ^
Id agree, Gallon may be our best skill player, but Norfleet clearly has the best speed of any skill player we have..
Id rather have Norfleet out there on third down.. V smith has been consistent for us, but he can't hold a candle to Norfleet's elusivness and speed..
Only reason why he isn't seeing the field i feel is that he hasn't learned the playbook fully yet?
Im excited for the future with norfleet in the backfield personally, not sure about anyone else
September 27th, 2012 at 6:02 PM ^
What made you think of this idea? I don't mean that in a snarky way, I'm serious. I never would have considered it.
September 27th, 2012 at 6:08 PM ^
Just watching Gallon run with the ball, particularly his ability to make people wiff on their attempts to tackle him, and then he has really goods hands as well, and other than freshman punts, I've never seen him fumble the ball.
September 27th, 2012 at 6:09 PM ^
you understand what a third-down back is for.
September 27th, 2012 at 6:23 PM ^
I remember a terrifying stretch of "Gallon back to receive the punt..."
September 27th, 2012 at 6:38 PM ^
You say that as if gordie didn't also point that exact thing out in his own post to which you are replying:
and other than freshman punts
You can argue that that's a bigger issue than he's making it seem, but don't act like he's ignoring or ignorant of Gallon's punt return troubles two seasons ago.
September 27th, 2012 at 6:08 PM ^
September 27th, 2012 at 6:10 PM ^
We have recruited a number of running backs., Some last year and some more this year. Most of them have not seen the field yet but I imagine after they graduate from Fred Jacksons dance school we'll be seeing more of them. Our backs do to much dancing around instead of putting their head down and run for some yards.
September 27th, 2012 at 6:22 PM ^
Because its always a great idea to take your best backfield blocker off the field and substitute him with a wideout.
September 27th, 2012 at 6:27 PM ^
September 27th, 2012 at 6:38 PM ^
September 27th, 2012 at 6:47 PM ^
can you show me a video of him laying out a 240lb LB?
September 27th, 2012 at 7:09 PM ^
I can't speak to the opposing players' sizes, but here are a few Smith blocks:
The OSU block is vintage Vincent Smith. The guy is notorious for being great at recognizing blitzes and fearless about throwing himself full force at much bigger players.
September 27th, 2012 at 7:26 PM ^
To add to what you said. Fellow teammates described Smith as being the toughest guy on the team.
September 27th, 2012 at 8:07 PM ^
yea i know he can block, and don't disagree.. but i was more looking for a play where he actually lays someone out. That is why i asked the question.. I was just being snarky. Cause i don't think ive ever seen him actually lay a guy out from hitting him so hard
I know he can block
September 27th, 2012 at 7:57 PM ^
September 27th, 2012 at 6:34 PM ^
September 27th, 2012 at 6:42 PM ^
slot reciever throwing to slot reciever, i like that
September 27th, 2012 at 6:44 PM ^
September 27th, 2012 at 6:48 PM ^
Vincent smith isnt a slot reciever
September 27th, 2012 at 6:48 PM ^
he played QB in HS..
September 27th, 2012 at 6:39 PM ^
September 27th, 2012 at 6:54 PM ^
September 27th, 2012 at 6:57 PM ^
.....agree
September 27th, 2012 at 8:18 PM ^
September 27th, 2012 at 7:09 PM ^
uh oh, bye week is like summer when we get bored and start asking crazy questions.
the answer, simply, is no. a third down back requires certain skills, none of which has gallon practiced. gallon blocks as a WR, but it's a completely different kind of block than trying to cut a fast charging LB. also, gallon is a good third down option where he is at WR. putting him at RB would require us to put a less effective receiver in gallon's spot.
September 28th, 2012 at 1:03 AM ^
has failed to mention, is that Vincent Smith is pretty good at catching the ball out of the backfield in his own right. (well other than that ball that went off his hands against AF)
September 28th, 2012 at 12:02 PM ^
I say was on Denard.
September 27th, 2012 at 7:37 PM ^
Unless you're trying to get him injured or something, NO. Just no.
September 27th, 2012 at 8:03 PM ^
Think my next topic will be: should Devin Funchess be moved to Defensive End?
September 27th, 2012 at 8:08 PM ^
Defensive end? Please. Funchess is clearly the second coming of Jordan Kovacs.
September 27th, 2012 at 8:37 PM ^
Of all personel questions this one is second to last in the list of most expected. Right below it is "should we start Denard at DT too because of his quickness." It was a close decision and one I struggled with but that is how the list shook out.
September 27th, 2012 at 9:08 PM ^
Geez: a crushing loss to ND, and now half of the board has its collective panties in a wad.
If Michigan had scheduled a tomato can instead of Alabama, they would be 3-1, coming off a close loss to 10th-ranked ND, and everyone would be excited about the Big Ten season.
So, really, it's easy to keep an even keel here: just remember that this 2-2 MIchigan team is the same team that would be 3-1 with another tomato can, and that nobody is beating Alabama this year.
This team could win the next nine or ten games. They might not, but they aren't dead yet by a long shot.
September 28th, 2012 at 11:12 AM ^
I don't see why everone is going nuts about the ND game. The turnovers lost the game--a game that I thought going in would be a loss. During the game, I thought, if the turnovers stop, Michigan wins, but they didn't. I was actually surprised at how well the defense played. A B1G championship can still be had. There probably should be a few offensive tweaks, but it wasn't a season-ending debacle. As for the Nat'l Championship, it looks like a one team race with 3 potential teams losing to 'Bama: Oregon, LSU, FSU. I really don't think any other team could even hang with 'Bama.
September 27th, 2012 at 9:21 PM ^
OK - let's take the suggestion without malice and consider the proposal: on 3rd down, put a WR, Gallon, in the backfield.
1. Is there any historical basis for this type of move? Yes, actually, the Arizona Cardinals during the Super Bowl run a few years ago would run a set like this. It caused a mis-match with a speedy agile WR against a slower LB or force a switch of CB freeing up a lead WR like Larry Fitzgerald.
2. Is there any problems with this notion with the current Michigan team? Well, the teams who take advantage of such personnel switches and packages usually have a very accurate passer and a veteran line - often the ball has to gotten out quick and everyone has to be on the same page and break off routes depending on the coverage and if there is a blitz.
Conclusion: Probably not a good fit with this current team. DR#16 is not the ideal pocket passer, the line isn't as good as it has been in the past, and the current 3rd down back, Vincent Smith is actually a pretty good player - one could turn the proposal around and assert more efforts should be made to get Smith on the field if passing is going to be a big part of the game plan.
September 27th, 2012 at 9:23 PM ^
Gallon is going to lead Michigan in receptions by the end of the year.
September 27th, 2012 at 9:36 PM ^
September 27th, 2012 at 9:34 PM ^
September 27th, 2012 at 9:42 PM ^
all this talk about moving our second best receiver to running back on third down got me thinking... who do we view as the number 1 receiver?