RUNNING BACKS $$$$$: "I DON'T KNOW WHY.....?

TOPHAT

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
947
Reaction score
0
http://nfl.aolsportsblog.com/


I Don't Know Why Teams Give Up So Much for Running Backs by mjd

I was blown away to see that the Ravens gave up three draft picks, including two third-rounders, to Buffalo for Willis McGahee. It's nothing against McGahee, he's an okay running back. It seems to me, though, that running backs are the most easily-replaced players on the field....
 

kmac

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
849
Reaction score
0
Location
Milwaukee
Running Backs are more easily replaceable than any other position on the field. See: Denver Broncos, Indianapolis Colts.
 

pyledriver80

Cheesehead
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,391
Reaction score
0
Running Backs are more easily replaceable than any other position on the field. See: Denver Broncos, Indianapolis Colts.


thats absurd. Those teams are the exception, not the norm.
 

kmac

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
849
Reaction score
0
Location
Milwaukee
2007 champs-Colts. Lost a pro bowler in the offseason, replaced him with a rookie.

2006 champs-Steelers. Best HB was an undrafted free agent, Willie Parker.

2002/2004/2005 champs-Patriots. Had HB by committee in 2 of the 3 years, highlighted by such stars as J.R. Redmond and Kevin Faulk. Dillon obviously helped in '05, but was not the reason for their success.

2003 champs-Bucs. Wasn't Michael Pittman their premier back? Yeah, they struggled to replace Warrick Dunn.

After that, you run into teams with better HBs until the 1996 Packers, who's starting HB had 1 1000 yard season in his entire career. My point is, the last 6 Super Bowl winners didn't need a marquee HB to be successful. HB by committee and backups stepping in and performing as well as their superiors has become the norm in the NFL.

This year, the Jets far exceeded expectations with a committee of has-been Kevan Barlow and a couple of never-was young players. The afore mentioned Colts won a title a season after losing a Pro Bowler. I don't think you can point to a large dropoff in the play of a team and point to the loss of a HB as a direct result for it happening.

Find a position that is easier to replace than HB.
 

pyledriver80

Cheesehead
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,391
Reaction score
0
I would say there are fewer spots harder to replace. You talk about Committee's in the backfield. Thats the problem. You now take up 3 roster spots for something 1 guy could do if he was good enough.

Replacing a solid RB is hard unless you are Denver. Sure you can plug a guy in and get 700 yards a year from him but you better have weapons around him.

Having "A" running back and "a good RB" are horses of a different color. I would think that damn near every position on a football field is easier to replace outside of QB and CB.
 

kmac

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
849
Reaction score
0
Location
Milwaukee
Okay, prove it. Give some examples. You can't just say "you're wrong" and expect to have some credibility. Prove me wrong.
 

porky88

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
3,991
Reaction score
0
Location
Title Town
I would say there are fewer spots harder to replace. You talk about Committee's in the backfield. Thats the problem. You now take up 3 roster spots for something 1 guy could do if he was good enough.

Replacing a solid RB is hard unless you are Denver. Sure you can plug a guy in and get 700 yards a year from him but you better have weapons around him.

Having "A" running back and "a good RB" are horses of a different color. I would think that damn near every position on a football field is easier to replace outside of QB and CB.

A 2 Back System has become far more creditable as of late. New England, Indianapolis, Chicago, and New Orleans used 2-Back system this year and those were your conference championship game representatives.

Also what are you referring to with 3 roster spots that 1 guy could do? Most teams keep 3 backs on their roster regardless if they rely on one guy or two. The Chargers have Tomlinson, Turner, and Sproles. The Chiefs have Johnson, Bennett, and Dee Brown. Both those teams rely heavily on just one guy.
 

pyledriver80

Cheesehead
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,391
Reaction score
0
pyledriver80 said:
I would say there are fewer spots harder to replace. You talk about Committee's in the backfield. Thats the problem. You now take up 3 roster spots for something 1 guy could do if he was good enough.

Replacing a solid RB is hard unless you are Denver. Sure you can plug a guy in and get 700 yards a year from him but you better have weapons around him.

Having "A" running back and "a good RB" are horses of a different color. I would think that damn near every position on a football field is easier to replace outside of QB and CB.

A 2 Back System has become far more creditable as of late. New England, Indianapolis, Chicago, and New Orleans used 2-Back system this year and those were your conference championship game representatives.

Also what are you referring to with 3 roster spots that 1 guy could do? Most teams keep 3 backs on their roster regardless if they rely on one guy or two. The Chargers have Tomlinson, Turner, and Sproles. The Chiefs have Johnson, Bennett, and Dee Brown. Both those teams rely heavily on just one guy.


As did Cleveland, the Giants, Jets, Steelers, Raiders,Texans,etc......but let's only mention the conference winners.

First off using a 3rd down back is not what Chicago did. They had 2 guys running the ball at different times. I am talking about how Faulk is the 3rd down back for NE and Jacobs was the goalline man for the NYG.


Noone is saying we should not have 3 RB's on the roster. Comparing Morency, Herron and Beach to Tomlinson, Turner and Sproles is night and day. The Chargers have TOMLINSON that is there feature back just like Johnson is in KC. I just want a feature back which Green was. Your only hope is either getting one via trade or drafting one because there is not much left in FA.
 

porky88

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
3,991
Reaction score
0
Location
Title Town
porky88 said:
pyledriver80 said:
I would say there are fewer spots harder to replace. You talk about Committee's in the backfield. Thats the problem. You now take up 3 roster spots for something 1 guy could do if he was good enough.

Replacing a solid RB is hard unless you are Denver. Sure you can plug a guy in and get 700 yards a year from him but you better have weapons around him.

Having "A" running back and "a good RB" are horses of a different color. I would think that damn near every position on a football field is easier to replace outside of QB and CB.

A 2 Back System has become far more creditable as of late. New England, Indianapolis, Chicago, and New Orleans used 2-Back system this year and those were your conference championship game representatives.

Also what are you referring to with 3 roster spots that 1 guy could do? Most teams keep 3 backs on their roster regardless if they rely on one guy or two. The Chargers have Tomlinson, Turner, and Sproles. The Chiefs have Johnson, Bennett, and Dee Brown. Both those teams rely heavily on just one guy.


As did Cleveland, the Giants, Jets, Steelers, Raiders,Texans,etc......but let's only mention the conference winners.

First off using a 3rd down back is not what Chicago did. They had 2 guys running the ball at different times. I am talking about how Faulk is the 3rd down back for NE and Jacobs was the goalline man for the NYG.


Noone is saying we should not have 3 RB's on the roster. Comparing Morency, Herron and Beach to Tomlinson, Turner and Sproles is night and day. The Chargers have TOMLINSON that is there feature back just like Johnson is in KC. I just want a feature back which Green was. Your only hope is either getting one via trade or drafting one because there is not much left in FA.

I misunderstood what you were talking about then.

I'm not comparing the Packers current trio to anyones.

I'm not even talking about 3rd down backs.

I'm talking about 2 back systems. Rhodes and Addai. Maroney and Dillon. Benson and Jones. Bush and McAlister. 3 of the teams used a rookies. The Jaguars are another example with Jones-Drew and Taylor. I think the Packers should’ve taken that approach. I would draft a RB with either the 1st or 2nd round pick and I would’ve signed someone like Rhodes or even if Deshaun Foster comes available like an article stated. 2 Back Systems are starting to become a trend in today’s NFL and they work as well. Just look at the last two Super Bowl winners as well.

Edit: Personally I don't think the Packers have a back on their current roster that can even excel in a 2 Back System. Not yet at least.
 

pack_in_black

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 16, 2006
Messages
1,876
Reaction score
0
Location
Colorado Springs
I think that the point is that 2-back sets are what are more effective. Look at this Conference Championships. Feature backs are outdated and no longer necessary for a championship team.
 

Greg C.

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 1, 2005
Messages
2,856
Reaction score
0
Location
Marquette, Michigan
One of the nice things about a two-back system is that if a running back gets banged up, which is bound to happen at some point in the season, you've already got a guy who has been getting plenty of carries in different situations who can step in. It's not as disruptive as having a guy who's been sitting the bench suddenly becoming the starter. The running game is all about continuity. We see that in the backs as well as the offensive line.

It's great to have a really first-rate running back on your team, but what we've seen a lot of in this off-season is players who are a notch or two below that level getting huge contracts or being acquired for large amounts of compensation, although you have to give credit to the Jets for getting Thomas Jones just by swapping picks in the second round.

As for the Pack, I think Morency can be part of a two-back system, but I don't feel great about Herron or Beach. Actually, Beach may have more potential than Herron. Clearly there needs to be another guy added to the mix, preferably on the first day of the draft. This is what many people have been predicting all along anyway, so I'm less worried about running back than I am about a couple other positions, namely safety and tight end. A second-tier free agent could still provide the boost that is needed by the receiving corps.
 

pyledriver80

Cheesehead
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,391
Reaction score
0
pack_in_black said:
I think that the point is that 2-back sets are what are more effective. Look at this Conference Championships. Feature backs are outdated and no longer necessary for a championship team.


I disagree with the fact that they are more effective. Plenty of teams over the last decade had 2-Back systems and failed miserably. I think you have a 20 carry a gam back and a guy who can carry it 7-8 times. Splitting it down themiddle never gets one guy going in my opinion.
 

Greg C.

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 1, 2005
Messages
2,856
Reaction score
0
Location
Marquette, Michigan
pack_in_black said:
I think that the point is that 2-back sets are what are more effective. Look at this Conference Championships. Feature backs are outdated and no longer necessary for a championship team.


I disagree with the fact that they are more effective. Plenty of teams over the last decade had 2-Back systems and failed miserably. I think you have a 20 carry a gam back and a guy who can carry it 7-8 times. Splitting it down themiddle never gets one guy going in my opinion.

Never? Tell that to the Colts, Patriots, Bears, and Saints. Even the Packers had one game last season where two guys rushed for over 100 yards.
 

TOPHAT

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
947
Reaction score
0
AMUSING VIEW OF RB VM: MAYBE

packers.aolsportsblog.com/

Packers May Solve Running Back Conundrum From Within by DB

Most Packers fans have been anxiously awaiting the day when a starting running back has been signed or traded for to replace the departed Ahman Green. I would advise those fans to stop holding their breath because that day may never come. There is a very good chance that the Packers will solve their running back woes from within. What many people forget is that Green Bay has Vernand Morency; a player quite capable of carrying the load. He's seen limited time in his first two NFL seasons but has managed to gain 618 rushing yards while averaging 4.4 yards per carry.

Not bad for a very raw talent who has already been bounced around between Houston and Green Bay. Packers Coach Mike McCarthy agrees: "I think Morency had an excellent season for not being here for any of the camps and so forth. I thought he did really a good job learning our scheme, and was productive when he was given an opportunity," said McCarthy. A less likely possibility would be Noah Herron, who has also impressed a bit in limited duty. Either way, the Packers do not need to go crazy trying to find an Ahman Green replacement. The cheapest and possibly most effective solutions are within their very own organization.
 

pyledriver80

Cheesehead
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,391
Reaction score
0
Greg C. said:
pack_in_black said:
I think that the point is that 2-back sets are what are more effective. Look at this Conference Championships. Feature backs are outdated and no longer necessary for a championship team.


I disagree with the fact that they are more effective. Plenty of teams over the last decade had 2-Back systems and failed miserably. I think you have a 20 carry a gam back and a guy who can carry it 7-8 times. Splitting it down themiddle never gets one guy going in my opinion.

Never? Tell that to the Colts, Patriots, Bears, and Saints. Even the Packers had one game last season where two guys rushed for over 100 yards.


Let's leave out the other 10-15 teams that tried it and failed.......zzzzzzzzzz
 

porky88

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
3,991
Reaction score
0
Location
Title Town
Greg C. said:
pyledriver80 said:
pack_in_black said:
I think that the point is that 2-back sets are what are more effective. Look at this Conference Championships. Feature backs are outdated and no longer necessary for a championship team.


I disagree with the fact that they are more effective. Plenty of teams over the last decade had 2-Back systems and failed miserably. I think you have a 20 carry a gam back and a guy who can carry it 7-8 times. Splitting it down themiddle never gets one guy going in my opinion.

Never? Tell that to the Colts, Patriots, Bears, and Saints. Even the Packers had one game last season where two guys rushed for over 100 yards.


Let's leave out the other 10-15 teams that tried it and failed.......zzzzzzzzzz

Who are these teams? The Browns and Raiders are two teams you named above. Both teams suffered through injuries to their top backs. Do you really factor in that and include teams using multiple running backs due to injuries? If so it seems very flawed.

As of last season Denver, Indianapolis, New Orleans, Jacksonville, New England, Carolina, Dallas, NYJ, Chicago, and you can argue Atlanta with Vick and Dunn all used two back systems. Out of those teams only the Falcons finished with a losing record. I hardly call that a coincidence in my opinion.

Are you telling me that out of the remaining 20 teams half of them use 2 back systems?

Kansas City, San Francisco, Cincinnati, Green Bay, Tennessee, Arizona, Tampa Bay, Miami, San Diego, St. Louis, NYG, Pittsburgh, Minnesota, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Buffalo all used primary one running back.

You can argue the Giants used two but I think we agree that most of Jacobs carries came inside the 10.

Detroit, Oakland, Seattle, Washington and Cleveland all had injuries to their top back that forced them to use multiple replacements. Houston is really the only bad team that used a two back system last year and you can argue that their primary runner was hurt as well as Dominick Davis was on IR all year. You can say it hasn’t worked in the past and I’m sure it hasn’t. Not everything is 100% guaranteed in professional sports and I’d be a fool to tell you that a two back system equals automatic success but as of late the two back system has helped a lot of teams obtain success and that shouldn’t be ignored in my opinion.
 

bozz_2006

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 25, 2006
Messages
4,576
Reaction score
283
Location
Grand Forks, ND
great post porky. i must be honest, i hadn't given the 2-back system any thought before this thread. but it seems like the evidence is all there, and evidence is hard to argue with.... but not impossible!
 

CalifPacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
757
Reaction score
1
Location
California Gold
pack_in_black said:
I think that the point is that 2-back sets are what are more effective. Look at this Conference Championships. Feature backs are outdated and no longer necessary for a championship team.


I disagree with the fact that they are more effective. Plenty of teams over the last decade had 2-Back systems and failed miserably. I think you have a 20 carry a gam back and a guy who can carry it 7-8 times. Splitting it down themiddle never gets one guy going in my opinion.

I agree on the split you suggested about a 20-8 workload.
 

hoos

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
317
Reaction score
0
The two back system is great . . . if you have two competant backs. Looking at the teams that make it work, they generally have one young up and comer, and one grizzled vet. The problem is that currently we have a bunch of young backs (the jury is still out on all of them) and no grizzled vets. If we can acquire a starting caliber vet with a little tread left on the tires and pair him with a Lynch/Bush type, then I would consider the two-headed monster.
 

flapackfan

Cheesehead
Joined
May 1, 2006
Messages
379
Reaction score
0
Never ever pay a running back huge money unless you have a chance to get a guy like Ladanian Tomlinson. Its just too easy of a position to replace. I mean, at any given time, there are 50 + backs in the league who will perform the same given the opportunity. I mean hell, Green Bay made a name out of Samkon Gado, wtf.

Easier to replace then running back?

Fullback - (not including a few-Neal, Strong)
Guard
Outside linebacker is about even
Punter
 

Schmitty

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 19, 2005
Messages
356
Reaction score
0
Location
Sheboygan, WI
Re: AMUSING VIEW OF RB VM: MAYBE

packers.aolsportsblog.com/

Packers May Solve Running Back Conundrum From Within by DB

Most Packers fans have been anxiously awaiting the day when a starting running back has been signed or traded for to replace the departed Ahman Green. I would advise those fans to stop holding their breath because that day may never come. There is a very good chance that the Packers will solve their running back woes from within. What many people forget is that Green Bay has Vernand Morency; a player quite capable of carrying the load. He's seen limited time in his first two NFL seasons but has managed to gain 618 rushing yards while averaging 4.4 yards per carry.

Not bad for a very raw talent who has already been bounced around between Houston and Green Bay. Packers Coach Mike McCarthy agrees: "I think Morency had an excellent season for not being here for any of the camps and so forth. I thought he did really a good job learning our scheme, and was productive when he was given an opportunity," said McCarthy. A less likely possibility would be Noah Herron, who has also impressed a bit in limited duty. Either way, the Packers do not need to go crazy trying to find an Ahman Green replacement. The cheapest and possibly most effective solutions are within their very own organization.

I like Morency as much as the next Packer fan, but I really disagree that he can carry the load. If we dont pick up a FA tailback then we defenatly need to draft Lynch or even move up to snag Peterson.
 

GakkofNorway

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 31, 2005
Messages
2,249
Reaction score
0
Location
the Northpole
Any argument RB is a hard position to fill is just ridiculous, it has shown itself to be the easiest position to fill because it's the only one where the player does almost the same thing as he has done since he started playing the game.

If it would have been like QB we would have had a whole lot of poor RBs like we have a whole lot of poor QBs, teams doesn't have any problems finding a productive 1000 yard back.
 
Top