Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

There is always debate about who the best running backs that ever played professional football are, yet the best seem to do everything well, whether running or catching the ball and blocking without it.
Throwing the ball adds another dimension as well and the best mostly play every down, getting rested, replaced or used as a decoy occasionally.

Some great backs however, didnt always play every down on offense, for various reasons or the coach's decision but was it that they couldnt, or simply just utilized, getting more rest and usage for later in a game? Were some great backs just one-dimensional or werent utilized enough by their respective coaching staffs? This isnt critical in any way toward the player but observations of their play or career. One thing is for certain, if a back has one skill, it must be running with the ball or he simply doesnt play enough, or certainly make the HOF/HOVG.

Not every back can be fully dimensional like Walter Payton, Marcus Allen, even Cookie Gilchrist who could kick somewhat and play defense or special teams. I try to restrict the one-dimensional running back to mostly four(three)down offense but others may see them differently.

Who would you choose? Some have accused Barry Sanders of being one-dimensional but I thought he was a good pass catcher early in his career. I think Adrian Peterson might have been the best one-dimensional back simply because he wasnt coached well enough to be a great receiver or blocker. It may be coaching or scouting to blame as much as the player but fans only judge by what they have seen during a game ...

Barry Sanders has to be up there

One of upper-upper echelon runners.

Just okay as a receiver (if that)
no block
no short yardage

He was in perfect system for him.

Maybe he had more skills that were not shown off, but
when you get taken out on goalline and short yardage
in means your style that sometimes loses yards is a problem
and not the sign of a complete back like a Payton, Faulk, LT
or even Emmitt.

Emmitt did lack breakaway speed . . . but top pass blocker
very good receiver, though not a "route runner" like LT
or Faulk...

I am sure there will be others but Sanders - maybe top of the list
among the best-ever-type backs

Thanks, John, though I felt with Barry, who had breathtaking runs, it was more about being replaced at the goalline for rest, though he scored over a hundred TDs ...

Emmitt Smith I felt could have been a better pass receiver but seemed to rest more or just play a safety valve in that role. I thought Jim Brown and Franco Harris were better receivers than they have gotten credit for ...

Earl Campbell was pretty one-dimensional. He was taken out of the game in passing situations.

Jim Brown was known as a fine pass receiver.

SixtiesFan wrote:
Jim Brown was known as a fine pass receiver.

Thinking Brown could do anything he put his mind to on
a sports field

SixtiesFan wrote:Earl Campbell was pretty one-dimensional. He was taken out of the game in passing situations.

Jim Brown was known as a fine pass receiver.

My first thought when seeing the title of this thread was Earl Campbell.

With his size and speed, Eric Dickerson should have been more devastating on the field but needed more rest from high volume of carries like OJ Simpson, though I am not sure what kind of blocker OJ was ... when I was a kid, Simpson was a true household name ...

JohnTurney wrote:

SixtiesFan wrote:
Jim Brown was known as a fine pass receiver.

Thinking Brown could do anything he put his mind to on
a sports field

Too bad he couldn't put his mind to block!

Earl Campbell was a bad receiver, but George Rogers was even less productive. Campbell started as a terrible receiver and got better, Rogers just okay and got worse. Neither ever scored a touchdown receiving.

Then there was Don McCauley, who was two dimensional. Third down receiver (even though the team already threw to Lydell Mitchell a lot) and goal line rushing. I guess he couldn't block either!

Though a smart runner, I was surprised that Shaun Alexander had only a few effective seasons as a receiver. With his high number of TDs, you would think he was more involved in a passing offense like Ricky Watters. Some backs like Timmy Brown, John David Crow, Matt Forte, maybe even Clem Daniels, were better receivers than running with the ball, which may keep them out of HOF discussions ...

Jay Z wrote:Then there was Don McCauley, who was two dimensional. Third down receiver (even though the team already threw to Lydell Mitchell a lot) and goal line rushing. I guess he couldn't block either!

The amazing thing to me about McCauley is that he led the nation in rushing in college. You see film on him in the NFL and it's hard to imagine that. Same thing with Ed Marinaro and Archie Griffin. Marinaro was kind of like McCauley in that he was used more as a receiver, and Griffin was probably more effective catching passes than rushing (although that isn't saying much). I remember Marinaro was asked what was the difference between college and pro football, and Marinaro said something like "in college, they figured it was easier to just hand me the ball."