Marcus Marshall ACC POY

[Milwaukee]

People seem to forget that Days didn't shine until Laskey went down for a few games. Or maybe I should rephrase, Days didn't get the chance to shine like Laskey did until Laskey went down. Once Laskey came back late in the season (UGA and FSU I believe) they were more of a combo.

 

[lv20gt]

What are your thoughts on how the Laskey/Days combo provides a significant counter-example to this?

That it doesn't? During the first 7 games Days had 16 total carries and a couple of those were from the a back. Laskey went out and didn't play the next 3 and got 4 carries in his first game back. 11/12 regular season games didn't have anything that came close to a committee.

 

[RLR]

Marshall has established that he has a high ceiling. Other than that, we can't say a damn thing for certain about our B-back group. Whispers seem to be optimistic, though.

When I asked about BBs, my whisperer talked non-stop about Mills. Said he's the real deal, maybe even the best player on the team. I asked about Marcus Marshall & the whisperer said only positive things & that MM looks better than where he left off last year. . . the fact that he lead w/ Mills, despite praising an improved MM had me gitty.

May god have mercy on our offensive line this year. I'm a big believer in a Bryan-Burden-Shamire power combo. Also, i think Braun will be at least in the tackle rotation this year.

 

[Longestday]

I think Mills has "it" as well. This is a good thing to have so many riches at BB. Is Mills so good that they would burn his redshirt and limit separation?

 

[tech_wreck47]

When I asked about BBs, my whisperer talked non-stop about Mills. Said he's the real deal, maybe even the best player on the team. I asked about Marcus Marshall & the whisperer said only positive things & that MM looks better than where he left off last year. . . the fact that he lead w/ Mills, despite praising an improved MM had me gitty.

May god have mercy on our offensive line this year. I'm a big believer in a Bryan-Burden-Shamire power combo. Also, i think Braun will be at least in the tackle rotation this year.

People before seemed to think I was crazy when I said don't be surprised if mills gets playing time or even wins the starting job. Cpj already said he was pushing MM and we haven't even reached fall practice. I'm all for playing him if he's the best out of all the BB's.

By the way you should let us know more whispers lol.

 

[vamosjackets]

That it doesn't? During the first 7 games Days had 16 total carries and a couple of those were from the a back. Laskey went out and didn't play the next 3 and got 4 carries in his first game back. 11/12 regular season games didn't have anything that came close to a committee.

Seems like we didn't know what we had in Days until he got that chance. Seems he may have even been slightly favored over Laskey. When we did know about Days, and when both were healthy, it was very much resembled a "committee" in the last several games of the season - UGAg, FSU, MSU (maybe more?) - and those were some glorious games to behold from an offensive standpoint - perhaps the best of the CPJ era, and against some very stout defenses.

 

[vamosjackets]

Seems like we didn't know what we had in Days until he got that chance. Seems he may have even been slightly favored over Laskey. When we did know about Days, and when both were healthy, it was very much resembled a "committee" in the last several games of the season - UGAg, FSU, MSU (maybe more?) - and those were some glorious games to behold from an offensive standpoint - perhaps the best of the CPJ era, and against some very stout defenses.

Other teams do this too with great players - Brown and Williams, Gurley and Marshall, Chubb and Michel. Alabama, Clemson, FSU, etc often have their committees of 5*'s. The advantages of this is that it keeps guys fresh, injury at the position doesn't deflate the offense, keeps more guys happy and team moral up when more people contribute (fewer transfers/attrition), spurs healthy-friendly competition.

I think what you might be saying is that if we have a guy who is a bit more talented than the others, then you want him to get the biggest percentage of the carries accordingly - and I don't think anyone would argue with that at all. If we have one major hoss and then 4 others who are sub-par, then I hope the hoss gets 80% of the carries. What I would disagree about is that we have to have a guy who is much better than all of the others in order to be successful - and the Days/Laskey example proves this. Neither of them was quite Dwyer-level talent, but both had the goods for what the BBack position thrives on - power, balance, vision, and knowledge (and let's not neglect ball-security unless we want good stats despite losses).

 

[lv20gt]

Seems like we didn't know what we had in Days until he got that chance. Seems he may have even been slightly favored over Laskey. When we did know about Days, and when both were healthy, it was very much resembled a "committee" in the last several games of the season - UGAg, FSU, MSU (maybe more?) - and those were some glorious games to behold from an offensive standpoint - perhaps the best of the CPJ era, and against some very stout defenses.

Slightly favored? Laskey averaged 85 ypg in the first 7. Days averaged 126 over the next 4 against better competition (and 119 total). He was more than a little favored over Laskey. Days was clearly the better back. And anyways, 3 games don't provide a significant counter example, especially since the FSU game featured mediocre production.

Other teams do this too with great players - Brown and Williams, Gurley and Marshall, Chubb and Michel. Alabama, Clemson, FSU, etc often have their committees of 5*'s.

Hey man, if it works for Bama, UGA, FSU, and Clemson it surely will work for us right? Oh wait, it's one of the strongest reasons for us to run the system that we do is because we don't get the same personnel situation that those schools get. Unfortunately we're not likely to have multiple star level running backs. We just don't recruit well enough. And another major difference is that those schools usually run one back systems so they have more high level backs for fewer positions. In the off chance that that we do have more than one star level back, one of them needs to be put at ABack, like we did with Allen.

 

[stingyoa$$]

Slightly favored? Laskey averaged 85 ypg in the first 7. Days averaged 126 over the next 4 against better competition (and 119 total). He was more than a little favored over Laskey. Days was clearly the better back. And anyways, 3 games don't provide a significant counter example, especially since the FSU game featured mediocre production.


I think the O line play was much better the second half of the year in 2014. As evidence, Laskey rushed for 140 yards in less than 2 quarters against UGA. I think they had a pretty good defensive unit in Athens to say he played against lesser competition. It's really hard to say what Days would have rushed for in the first 7 games while the "O" was figuring things out just as it's hard to say what Laskey would have rushed for the last 7 games if he would have been healthy. Laskey seemed to have the better physical tools (speed, lateral movement, quickness) to say Days was "clearly the better back. Maybe that's why one is still on a NFL roster and the other is not. If we have 2 similar BB's this year I'm hoping they both carry the load. It pays dividends toward the end of the year when we can wear out defenses.

 

[tech_wreck47]

Slightly favored? Laskey averaged 85 ypg in the first 7. Days averaged 126 over the next 4 against better competition (and 119 total). He was more than a little favored over Laskey. Days was clearly the better back. And anyways, 3 games don't provide a significant counter example, especially since the FSU game featured mediocre production.



Hey man, if it works for Bama, UGA, FSU, and Clemson it surely will work for us right? Oh wait, it's one of the strongest reasons for us to run the system that we do is because we don't get the same personnel situation that those schools get. Unfortunately we're not likely to have multiple star level running backs. We just don't recruit well enough. And another major difference is that those schools usually run one back systems so they have more high level backs for fewer positions. In the off chance that that we do have more than one star level back, one of them needs to be put at ABack, like we did with Allen.

It's hard to compare Laskey in the early part of the year to days in the latter. It's obvious our offense was running better at the end of the season even though we were playing better defenses. Plus they are two different type of backs Laskey was more of a guy that just ran north and tried to get as many yards as possible without dancing. Days was better at hitting the sideline when he got through the first and second line of the defense, but I definitely can see where you are coming from saying days was the better back, I just think it depends on what down and yardage you were lookin at. Personally I would rather have Laskey on short yardage downs, and to just be a guy you know will get the easy 3 and 4 yards, that's why imo cpj had him playing in overtime against UGA. Now if it's long yardage I would want days.

 

[AE 87]

OK, so, I've noticed that both in this thread and in the basketball forum, there have been attempts at rational conversation without perhaps fully understanding the nature of some dialogue partners.

TIFWIW:

 

[lv20gt]

It's hard to compare Laskey in the early part of the year to days in the latter. It's obvious our offense was running better at the end of the season even though we were playing better defenses. Plus they are two different type of backs Laskey was more of a guy that just ran north and tried to get as many yards as possible without dancing. Days was better at hitting the sideline when he got through the first and second line of the defense, but I definitely can see where you are coming from saying days was the better back, I just think it depends on what down and yardage you were lookin at. Personally I would rather have Laskey on short yardage downs, and to just be a guy you know will get the easy 3 and 4 yards, that's why imo cpj had him playing in overtime against UGA. Now if it's long yardage I would want days.

Yeah, our offense was running better. And it started pretty much after Days got the job. In the 7 games to start the year Laskey averaged 85 ypg on the ground on a 4.96 ypc. In the 3 games he was out Days averaged 138 ypg on 6.4 ypc. That's a 50 ypg and 1.5 ypc difference. Even if we look at 3 games before and 3 games after, Laskey's 3 games were 93 ypg on 4.73 ypc. Difference of 40 ypg and 1.6 ypc. That is a huge jump in production and the explanation that it was the rest of the team getting better instead of the different guy running the ball is just laughable. If it was a slight increase. Okay. If it was a gradual increase over the course of the season. Okay. But it wasn't. It was a drastic increase made the very game that the change in backs happened. There is a simple solution.

Also, your representation of what the difference was is skewed. You say that Days was better when he got past the first and second defenses. The real advantage was that he did get past them. Laskey rarely did. You describe the concept of a back having vision and being able to make cuts to make guys miss as dancing around to down play that ability. We need a back who has vision and cutting ability. Calling it "dancing" doesn't change that.

Also, in the 3 games prior to the injury Laskey had 13 runs of two yards or less. 22% of his carries. In the 3 games after his injury Days had 13 runs of two yards or less. 20% of his carries. So you're right that Laskey was better at getting 3 and 4 yard runs. The problem was that he was equal in getting 2 yard runs or less. He got more 3-4 yard runs instead of longer runs. Not shorter ones.

Also in the UGA game, Days tweaked something with about 10 min to play in the 4th and took himself out. With the ACC CG the next week we weren't going to risk making it worse by playing him more.

 

[tech_wreck47]

Yeah, our offense was running better. And it started pretty much after Days got the job. In the 7 games to start the year Laskey averaged 85 ypg on the ground on a 4.96 ypc. In the 3 games he was out Days averaged 138 ypg on 6.4 ypc. That's a 50 ypg and 1.5 ypc difference. Even if we look at 3 games before and 3 games after, Laskey's 3 games were 93 ypg on 4.73 ypc. Difference of 40 ypg and 1.6 ypc. That is a huge jump in production and the explanation that it was the rest of the team getting better instead of the different guy running the ball is just laughable. If it was a slight increase. Okay. If it was a gradual increase over the course of the season. Okay. But it wasn't. It was a drastic increase made the very game that the change in backs happened. There is a simple solution.

Also, your representation of what the difference was is skewed. You say that Days was better when he got past the first and second defenses. The real advantage was that he did get past them. Laskey rarely did. You describe the concept of a back having vision and being able to make cuts to make guys miss as dancing around to down play that ability. We need a back who has vision and cutting ability. Calling it "dancing" doesn't change that.

Also, in the 3 games prior to the injury Laskey had 13 runs of two yards or less. 22% of his carries. In the 3 games after his injury Days had 13 runs of two yards or less. 20% of his carries. So you're right that Laskey was better at getting 3 and 4 yard runs. The problem was that he was equal in getting 2 yard runs or less. He got more 3-4 yard runs instead of longer runs. Not shorter ones.

Also in the UGA game, Days tweaked something with about 10 min to play in the 4th and took himself out. With the ACC CG the next week we weren't going to risk making it worse by playing him more.

What's your point? I never said days wasn't better. I simple said they are different backs and that I would rather have Laskey for short yardage downs and days on the longer? Idk what you are trying to get at because you agreed in your message with what I said, you just went more into detail. Not to mention Days was getting way more carries than Laskey which tells me teams were trying to stop the dive more early in the season because the read obviously wasn't there if JT keep the ball, and if that is the case and teams started trying to stop the outside later in the season, would that not open up the middle more so someone could get more yards? Just a thought, not saying it's the case 100 %. but it's kinda hard to compare things like you did in our offense because there is so many different variables and not all teams have the same strategy as each other on what they are trying to stop. Some teams try and make you run it up the middle and some try and make you take the ball outside. So does that make your representation of what the difference was skewed? No it's just your opinion. But once again I never said one was better than the other.

 

[lv20gt]

Laskey and Days were not an example of a committee approach leading to a star back because for 11 games there was nothing even resembling a star back and by the short time we did do something closer to that Days had already established himself as a star back.

Laskey was not the more consistent short yardage back. In the three games before and after his injury, he had 2- yard runs as often as Days did. Those aren't late season stats either. Those were the three games on either side of the change. With comparable competition and the time span limits the impact of the development over the season.

The justification that teams were playing us later in the year different doesn't really hold. Days and Laskey combined for 66 carries the 3 games before the injury, and Days accounted for 66 in the 3 after. Even looking at it as a percentage of total runs, not including the carries accrued in the late minutes of blow outs, only shows a 5% increase in that regard. Of course when you have a guy rushing for 1.5 more ypc from a position you're more likely to give him the ball. Furthermore a constant staple of our offense has been when we get a decent lead, before it turns into garbage time, we often go to the bback more because it's more safe than pitching and prevents our QB from getting hit more. That same effect was present in the Miami game where Laskey accounted for 44.6% of the total carries, and Laskey and Days accounted for 49% with 63.6% of the last 2 real drives were Laskey runs when we were nursing a 4 and then 11 point lead. With an increase in ypc by 28% and more time spent with a comfortable lead, a 5% increase in % of runs coming from the bback doesn't really justify the idea that teams were playing us any different in regards to focusing any less on the bback.

Of course you didn't say one was better than the other. You said that Days might have been slightly favored, and strongly implied that the two backs were more or less equal and that they were just different types of backs whose production couldn't be compared because of mental gymnastics. That doesn't hold up because not only did Days have a significant edge in production, he also got 2 or fewer yards on carries no more frequently than Laskey did, so I have no idea where the idea that Laskey was the better short yardage back comes from.

Hell even late in the year, against FSU and MSU, Days still had a 2-1 carry advantage over Laskey so that was less a committee approach and more of a clear #1 but with a #2 that still played. In UGA, the game most by committee as I believe Days had the 16-12 carry advantage or something similar before going out, Days had 5 runs of 2 yards or less so 31.25% of the time. Laskey had 8 out of 26 for 30.8%. Not including a one yard TD run it was 7/25 for 28%. Laskey had a marginal advantage but he also picked up 13 of his 26 carries late in the 4th/OT against a tired defense after Days went out with a tweaked leg. Prior to Days going out Laskey had 4/12 carries of 2 yards or less for 33.3%. Either way there is no real argument for either back being more consistent at getting 3+ yards. Both got 2- yards at about an equal rate.

Lastly, the last two games, against FSU and MSU, Days still had a 40-20 advantage in attempts. That's not really a by committee approach, especially when you look at when each guy got the carries. Against FSU, Days had 10 carries before Laskey had one. Against MSU Days took 11 of the first 12 carries between the two. The yard count was 129 yards to 3 in favor of Days at that point. During these games there was a clear number one and a clear backup.

So to sum up the points....

2014 was not an example year of a buy committee approach. 11/14 games there was nothing resembling that. And 2 of the other 3 there was still a clear #1.
2014 was not an example year for should have been a by committee approach. One back clearly out performed the other by a significant margin, and both were about equally consistent with getting at least 3 yards. I've yet to see a reasonable argument why they should have been getting even in the neighborhood of equal carries.
All of this goes back to my original point that we should make it a point to have a true featured back, because our best years have almost all had a featured back up.

 

[takethepoints]

Days got to play more late because Coach is a "if-you-start-you-won't-lose-your-job-unless-you-are-hurt-or-someone-plays-much-better" guy. If Laskey hadn't gotten hurt, he'd have continued to start and would have had more carries and yards. And Days would have gotten about 30-40% of carries or maybe less.

Or, to put it another way, if players are doing about equally, the one starting will continue to start and get most of the playing time. That's just the way it works. Even last year Skov didn't get pushed out by MM; he got hurt (badly, by all reports) and lost the starting job. Same thing happened to Shamire when he had the concussion; Joe took over and did as good a job as Shamire, so he continued to start.

The point you seem to be trying to make is that we should always have a BB like Dwyer who is the true featured back. I couldn't agree more. Problem = we usually don't have that player and we end up using a committee system instead. Result in 2014 = slightly better then Dwyer. I fail to see the grounds for complaint here.

 

[stingyoa$$]

IIRC Laskey had a separated shoulder which caused him to miss most of the 2nd half. I believe his 1st game back was against Clemson which he got a few carries only bc it was senior day. The following week was a bye week leading to the UGA game. Not sure he was even close to 100% going into the UGA game.

 

[tech_wreck47]

Laskey and Days were not an example of a committee approach leading to a star back because for 11 games there was nothing even resembling a star back and by the short time we did do something closer to that Days had already established himself as a star back.

Laskey was not the more consistent short yardage back. In the three games before and after his injury, he had 2- yard runs as often as Days did. Those aren't late season stats either. Those were the three games on either side of the change. With comparable competition and the time span limits the impact of the development over the season.

The justification that teams were playing us later in the year different doesn't really hold. Days and Laskey combined for 66 carries the 3 games before the injury, and Days accounted for 66 in the 3 after. Even looking at it as a percentage of total runs, not including the carries accrued in the late minutes of blow outs, only shows a 5% increase in that regard. Of course when you have a guy rushing for 1.5 more ypc from a position you're more likely to give him the ball. Furthermore a constant staple of our offense has been when we get a decent lead, before it turns into garbage time, we often go to the bback more because it's more safe than pitching and prevents our QB from getting hit more. That same effect was present in the Miami game where Laskey accounted for 44.6% of the total carries, and Laskey and Days accounted for 49% with 63.6% of the last 2 real drives were Laskey runs when we were nursing a 4 and then 11 point lead. With an increase in ypc by 28% and more time spent with a comfortable lead, a 5% increase in % of runs coming from the bback doesn't really justify the idea that teams were playing us any different in regards to focusing any less on the bback.

Of course you didn't say one was better than the other. You said that Days might have been slightly favored, and strongly implied that the two backs were more or less equal and that they were just different types of backs whose production couldn't be compared because of mental gymnastics. That doesn't hold up because not only did Days have a significant edge in production, he also got 2 or fewer yards on carries no more frequently than Laskey did, so I have no idea where the idea that Laskey was the better short yardage back comes from.

Hell even late in the year, against FSU and MSU, Days still had a 2-1 carry advantage over Laskey so that was less a committee approach and more of a clear #1 but with a #2 that still played. In UGA, the game most by committee as I believe Days had the 16-12 carry advantage or something similar before going out, Days had 5 runs of 2 yards or less so 31.25% of the time. Laskey had 8 out of 26 for 30.8%. Not including a one yard TD run it was 7/25 for 28%. Laskey had a marginal advantage but he also picked up 13 of his 26 carries late in the 4th/OT against a tired defense after Days went out with a tweaked leg. Prior to Days going out Laskey had 4/12 carries of 2 yards or less for 33.3%. Either way there is no real argument for either back being more consistent at getting 3+ yards. Both got 2- yards at about an equal rate.

Lastly, the last two games, against FSU and MSU, Days still had a 40-20 advantage in attempts. That's not really a by committee approach, especially when you look at when each guy got the carries. Against FSU, Days had 10 carries before Laskey had one. Against MSU Days took 11 of the first 12 carries between the two. The yard count was 129 yards to 3 in favor of Days at that point. During these games there was a clear number one and a clear backup.

So to sum up the points....

2014 was not an example year of a buy committee approach. 11/14 games there was nothing resembling that. And 2 of the other 3 there was still a clear #1.
2014 was not an example year for should have been a by committee approach. One back clearly out performed the other by a significant margin, and both were about equally consistent with getting at least 3 yards. I've yet to see a reasonable argument why they should have been getting even in the neighborhood of equal carries.
All of this goes back to my original point that we should make it a point to have a true featured back, because our best years have almost all had a featured back up.

I get your pov I just think it's hard to compare the two because there are so many variables that go into our offense, for instance we are geared for big running plays, so the more touches someone gets the greater chance they brake out a big run. So if days got more touches because the dive was open more when he started then wouldn't he have a greater chance to brake out a big run over Laskey which would inflate his yards for the game and ypc?

 

[vamosjackets]

Laskey and Days were not an example of a committee approach leading to a star back because for 11 games there was nothing even resembling a star back and by the short time we did do something closer to that Days had already established himself as a star back.

Laskey was not the more consistent short yardage back. In the three games before and after his injury, he had 2- yard runs as often as Days did. Those aren't late season stats either. Those were the three games on either side of the change. With comparable competition and the time span limits the impact of the development over the season.

The justification that teams were playing us later in the year different doesn't really hold. Days and Laskey combined for 66 carries the 3 games before the injury, and Days accounted for 66 in the 3 after. Even looking at it as a percentage of total runs, not including the carries accrued in the late minutes of blow outs, only shows a 5% increase in that regard. Of course when you have a guy rushing for 1.5 more ypc from a position you're more likely to give him the ball. Furthermore a constant staple of our offense has been when we get a decent lead, before it turns into garbage time, we often go to the bback more because it's more safe than pitching and prevents our QB from getting hit more. That same effect was present in the Miami game where Laskey accounted for 44.6% of the total carries, and Laskey and Days accounted for 49% with 63.6% of the last 2 real drives were Laskey runs when we were nursing a 4 and then 11 point lead. With an increase in ypc by 28% and more time spent with a comfortable lead, a 5% increase in % of runs coming from the bback doesn't really justify the idea that teams were playing us any different in regards to focusing any less on the bback.

Of course you didn't say one was better than the other. You said that Days might have been slightly favored, and strongly implied that the two backs were more or less equal and that they were just different types of backs whose production couldn't be compared because of mental gymnastics. That doesn't hold up because not only did Days have a significant edge in production, he also got 2 or fewer yards on carries no more frequently than Laskey did, so I have no idea where the idea that Laskey was the better short yardage back comes from.

Hell even late in the year, against FSU and MSU, Days still had a 2-1 carry advantage over Laskey so that was less a committee approach and more of a clear #1 but with a #2 that still played. In UGA, the game most by committee as I believe Days had the 16-12 carry advantage or something similar before going out, Days had 5 runs of 2 yards or less so 31.25% of the time. Laskey had 8 out of 26 for 30.8%. Not including a one yard TD run it was 7/25 for 28%. Laskey had a marginal advantage but he also picked up 13 of his 26 carries late in the 4th/OT against a tired defense after Days went out with a tweaked leg. Prior to Days going out Laskey had 4/12 carries of 2 yards or less for 33.3%. Either way there is no real argument for either back being more consistent at getting 3+ yards. Both got 2- yards at about an equal rate.

Lastly, the last two games, against FSU and MSU, Days still had a 40-20 advantage in attempts. That's not really a by committee approach, especially when you look at when each guy got the carries. Against FSU, Days had 10 carries before Laskey had one. Against MSU Days took 11 of the first 12 carries between the two. The yard count was 129 yards to 3 in favor of Days at that point. During these games there was a clear number one and a clear backup.

So to sum up the points....

2014 was not an example year of a buy committee approach. 11/14 games there was nothing resembling that. And 2 of the other 3 there was still a clear #1.
2014 was not an example year for should have been a by committee approach. One back clearly out performed the other by a significant margin, and both were about equally consistent with getting at least 3 yards. I've yet to see a reasonable argument why they should have been getting even in the neighborhood of equal carries.
All of this goes back to my original point that we should make it a point to have a true featured back, because our best years have almost all had a featured back up.

Slightly favored? Laskey averaged 85 ypg in the first 7. Days averaged 126 over the next 4 against better competition (and 119 total). He was more than a little favored over Laskey. Days was clearly the better back. And anyways, 3 games don't provide a significant counter example, especially since the FSU game featured mediocre production.



Hey man, if it works for Bama, UGA, FSU, and Clemson it surely will work for us right? Oh wait, it's one of the strongest reasons for us to run the system that we do is because we don't get the same personnel situation that those schools get. Unfortunately we're not likely to have multiple star level running backs. We just don't recruit well enough. And another major difference is that those schools usually run one back systems so they have more high level backs for fewer positions. In the off chance that that we do have more than one star level back, one of them needs to be put at ABack, like we did with Allen.

You make some pretty good and interesting points. And, I don't think we would disagree when it comes down to it. So, let me ask you this to perhaps close our discussion: What would you want to do if we DID have 2 good backs? Would you want them to split time in a reasonable way (50/50 or 60/40 or something) or would you rather one guy dominate the PT, and why?

It is not as unheard of as you want to make it sound for GT to have 2 very good backs on the roster. We had Daniels and Choice at the same time, Choice and Dwyer at the same time ... back in the O'leary days, we had Phillip Rogers, Charlie Rogers, Sean Gregory, Joe Burns, and others who escape my memory. Friedgen used a committee system when the personnel called for it. What would you do if you had 5th year senior PJ Daniels and Sophomore Tashard Choice both on the roster? Or what if you had Senior Choice and Freshman Dwyer on the roster?

I imagine you would say put one of them as a starter at ABack. A reasonable answer. But, what if both backs' skill sets were much more suited to BB than AB? Not hard to imagine. Days was a very pedestrian AB and a very dynamic BB. So, what would you do if you had 2 power backs who both had a chance to be very good BB's and wouldn't be better at AB than what we're already putting out there?