Running back by committee, good or bad?

[dkmightyhammer]

This seems to be the trend in the NFL nowadays. Get a bunch of RB's and platoon them so nobody gets too beat up or tired. Not that long ago RB's were given 25 to 30 carries a game if they were a stud and they'd carry a huge workload.

So what is better? I personally like to see a RB get more carries and eventually get into a rhythm. I don't think backs are as effective when they only get 6 or 7 carries and barely even work up a sweat. Plus, certain RB's are used for specific situations which seems to tip off the defense on what you are planning to run.

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

ideally, i think the workhorse back is the best way to go

realistically, we live in a pussified NFL (and world), and there are very very very few that would hold up for 16 games with a full workload

 

[fordman84]

committee gives you insurance, but single back gets him into a rythym. I don't believe you can just put a RB in and he's ready to go full speed. He needs to get a feel for the game.

 

[CowboyB]

This seems to be the trend in the NFL nowadays. Get a bunch of RB's and platoon them so nobody gets too beat up or tired. Not that long ago RB's were given 25 to 30 carries a game if they were a stud and they'd carry a huge workload.

So what is better? I personally like to see a RB get more carries and eventually get into a rhythm. I don't think backs are as effective when they only get 6 or 7 carries and barely even work up a sweat. Plus, certain RB's are used for specific situations which seems to tip off the defense on what you are planning to run.

That's like asking what is better - chicken wings or bacon.

If there is a difference it's minute and they both serve their wonderful purpose.

 

[Balljim55]

I think the ideal situation is to have two primary back that have different styles. It's nice to have your primary bruiser type runner fresh enough in the fourth quarter to run the 4 minute offense. It's also nice to force the defense to have to make adjustments for a change of pace back..

 

[jarntt]

Depends on the players. If you have a guy like Bell you are losing a lot by rotating other guys in. If you have an "average" back then rotating in fresh guys with different skill sets is likely going to be better.

 

[Rock Strongo]

This seems to be the trend in the NFL nowadays. Get a bunch of RB's and platoon them so nobody gets too beat up or tired. Not that long ago RB's were given 25 to 30 carries a game if they were a stud and they'd carry a huge workload.

So what is better? I personally like to see a RB get more carries and eventually get into a rhythm. I don't think backs are as effective when they only get 6 or 7 carries and barely even work up a sweat. Plus, certain RB's are used for specific situations which seems to tip off the defense on what you are planning to run.

diversity

change of pace

they all mean something

 

[dkmightyhammer]

committee gives you insurance, but single back gets him into a rythym. I don't believe you can just put a RB in and he's ready to go full speed. He needs to get a feel for the game.

I agree. I think some backs don't even get really rolling until they've carried the ball 12 to 15 times. Guys like Lynch or Peterson in his prime could wear down a defense but if they only got 6 or 7 carries I don't think their impact would be anywhere close to what it was.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

Better risk management to do it by committee

 

[dkmightyhammer]

That's like asking what is better - chicken wings or bacon.

If there is a difference it's minute and they both serve their wonderful purpose.

When it comes to bacon or wings I'm with you. I still think a feature back, if he's a good one, will do more damage than 3 different backs who only play situational football and don't ever get a chance to really heat up.

 

[dkmightyhammer]

Better risk management to do it by committee

That is probably the biggest benefit I can see to using more than one guy. But what if teams went back to using a fullback more often so their RB takes less punishment? That seemed to work pretty well once upon a time.

 

[Ickey Shuffle]

If it comes at the expense of someone who you KNOW without doubt is the superior talent, like for instance Joe Mixon, then it's bad.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

That is probably the biggest benefit I can see to using more than one guy. But what if teams went back to using a fullback more often so their RB takes less punishment? That seemed to work pretty well once upon a time.

I like fullbacks, so I approve.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

If it comes at the expense of someone who you KNOW is the superior talent, like for instance Joe Mixon, then it's bad.

In theory if you think Mixon is roughly equivalent to prime Bell, Charles, and AP, sure. How often does that realistically happen RB's 5-60

 

[Ickey Shuffle]

In theory if you think Mixon is roughly equivalent to prime Bell, Charles, and AP, sure. How often does that realistically happen RB's 5-60

Rarely. It's just we have the most throwback stubborn coach in history. Mixon has to "earn it". Marvin does that to every rookie anyway ( besides Dalton and Green ) so it shouldn't come as a surprise, but still it's really annoying.

Mixon's skillset definitely mirrors Bell with his vision.

 

[CowboyB]

When it comes to bacon or wings I'm with you. I still think a feature back, if he's a good one, will do more damage than 3 different backs who only play situational football and don't ever get a chance to really heat up.

If there were enough feature backs who are good enough to go around the league for each team I think the question would be more valid. But there isn't and teams have to do as they can.

The Patriots, Giants, Broncos have all won without a featured back. The last team to win with a featured back would be the Seahawks (from memory) and it was the defense that made the difference, not the back.

 

[broncosmitty]

Depends.


If you have a back capable of being a workhorse. Make him the workhorse. Those are less common than NFL GMs, HCs and OCs think.

 

[broncosmitty]

No team should ever go by committee if they aren't required to based off talent.


It makes no sense. Unjustifiable.

 

[dkmightyhammer]

If there were enough feature backs who are good enough to go around the league for each team I think the question would be more valid. But there isn't and teams have to do as they can.

The Patriots, Giants, Broncos have all won without a featured back. The last team to win with a featured back would be the Seahawks (from memory) and it was the defense that made the difference, not the back.

Those are valid points.

Althoug, a good fullback could go a long way to helping a mediocre RB become a great RB in my opinion. Plus, there is almost no priority put on churning out quality O-lineman in the college system and I think that could also be hurting run games in some way. Without good blockers it probably doesn't matter if you have a platoon of guys or a featured back, you aren't going to be very effective.

 

[CowboyB]

Those are valid points.

Althoug, a good fullback could go a long way to helping a mediocre RB become a great RB in my opinion. Plus, there is almost no priority put on churning out quality O-lineman in the college system and I think that could also be hurting run games in some way. Without good blockers it probably doesn't matter if you have a platoon of guys or a featured back, you aren't going to be very effective.

I don't know much about college football so I can't really argue with that although I am inclined to say that may not be true in the SEC where they are running pro-style systems.

But when it comes to the fullback I just can't get on board as they limit so much what else can be done. Their lack of speed makes them more of a liability than an asset with the way defenses just keep getting bigger and faster. The proof in the pudding is the fact you don't see many FBs on rosters and I don't think you see any listed as starters.