Re: How replaceable are elite RBs, really?
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2020 7:58 am
Years ago, we were told on this board that Jerome Bettis was going to be the last big running back in the literal sense to play in the league and it was a key reason why he should become a Hall of Famer. Then Derrick Henry came along.
As long as the NFL stays with the 11-on-11 format, running backs will still be important. If the league switches to a 7-on-7 format, then maybe offensive attacks will change. For now, there will still usually be a player in the backfield with the quarterback. Due to more 3+ receiver sets than ever, defenses are more often in nickel and dime packages than ever before. This enables some teams with running quarterbacks and/or a stable of running backs to be very effective on the ground. We have seen this in recent years with San Francisco and Baltimore.
For the most part running backs are fungible. I think that has always been the case. There does not seem to be any noticeable difference between Myles Gaskin and Salvon Ahmed in Miami. That team did cut plow horse Jordan Howard. Stylistically he was different and not good enough in his role to remain employed. However, Alexander Mattison is a good backup for Minnesota but when he was asked to start this season, he did not do much. He ran for 26 yards. Mattison has had four games with more yardage as a backup this season. Did the Vikings alter their plan with Dalvin Cook out or did they run the exact same plays and pretend Cook was in the game since running backs are fungible?
See, I think there is a difference between the high end running backs and the league average guys. I don't think you can put in any old guy at running back and be fine.
As long as the NFL stays with the 11-on-11 format, running backs will still be important. If the league switches to a 7-on-7 format, then maybe offensive attacks will change. For now, there will still usually be a player in the backfield with the quarterback. Due to more 3+ receiver sets than ever, defenses are more often in nickel and dime packages than ever before. This enables some teams with running quarterbacks and/or a stable of running backs to be very effective on the ground. We have seen this in recent years with San Francisco and Baltimore.
For the most part running backs are fungible. I think that has always been the case. There does not seem to be any noticeable difference between Myles Gaskin and Salvon Ahmed in Miami. That team did cut plow horse Jordan Howard. Stylistically he was different and not good enough in his role to remain employed. However, Alexander Mattison is a good backup for Minnesota but when he was asked to start this season, he did not do much. He ran for 26 yards. Mattison has had four games with more yardage as a backup this season. Did the Vikings alter their plan with Dalvin Cook out or did they run the exact same plays and pretend Cook was in the game since running backs are fungible?
See, I think there is a difference between the high end running backs and the league average guys. I don't think you can put in any old guy at running back and be fine.