Page 2 of 2

Re: How replaceable are elite RBs, really?

Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2020 7:58 am
by JWL
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.

Re: How replaceable are elite RBs, really?

Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:00 am
by JWL
Reaser wrote:What you left out about Davis looking similarly as productive as McCaffrey, is Curtis Samuel (with respect to the smaller sample size) has looked even better between the tackles, they even used him inside the 5 to 'pound' it in -- and is obviously the better receiver.
Samuel is in danger of joining the Jarvis Landry Club yet he is averaging more than 10 yards per rush and his rushing total is not that small of a sample size considering his listed position is wide receiver.

Re: How replaceable are elite RBs, really?

Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2020 10:05 am
by Lee Elder
A truly elite back is hard to replace. But an elite offensive line makes it easier.

Re: How replaceable are elite RBs, really?

Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:20 pm
by sluggermatt15
I think the days of smashmouth football are almost gone. Now the game has turned from power running to speed and passing. Teams are passing now more than ever, even the most traditional run-first franchises like the Steelers. There are more guys who are quick and pass catchers at the back position. Who besides Derrick Henry is a big, power back, in an offense (Tennessee) who likes to line up and run the football right at the defense?

It's not that running backs are undervalued, it's their roles are changing. They are having to do more for the offense, as it has been pointed out.

With the way the game is now, I think backs are more indispensible. Because backs get pounded and hit more, the defenders hit harder and are faster, their durability is going down. If a star RB is only going to give me 4-7 solid seasons, why should teams pay him top dollar, when they can find another guy in 2-3 years to replace him? Does not make sense from a business standpoint to sign elite RBs to big contracts because they are likely going to get hurt.

Re: How replaceable are elite RBs, really?

Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2020 11:33 am
by Lee Elder
Interesting to note that in 1966 Tom Moore caught 60 passes for the Rams, which I think was a single-season record for running backs at the time. Moore didn't get many carries, Dick Bass was the leading rusher for that team. Moore was near the end of his career at that time. He had spent much of his pro career with Lombardi's Packers and the most passes he caught in any other season was 23. But a back like Moore might have been a more valuable asset in today's game.

Re: How replaceable are elite RBs, really?

Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2021 2:45 am
by Brian wolf
I do believe Henry if not Kamara could get elected but it all depends on his health and hunger after signing his big contract. With a 2000 yard season on his resume, sky is the limit but we will see. Elliot for Dallas may already be done but hopefully, he can become great again but his line has to stay healthy like he, as well.