FanNation - The Republic of Sport

Big Ben68 said 06/12, 06:18 PM
AirForce I don't think running backs are easy to replace. When you look at teams that have their offenses based about the running game the back up that comes in for the injured or removed starter usually do well (i.e. Redskins, Steelers, Broncos). All three of my named teams run the ball more than they pass or have their offense based on the running game. These teams can usually plug in any guy with a small amount of talent and he'll go for 1,000 yards, but as soon as you put somebody with tremendous ability he???ll go for 1,500 yards easily. But look at these teams, they have had QB troubles over the recent years until the Steelers picked up Roethlisberger, the Redskins got their situation fixed up, and the Broncos have had Plummer (who is now disposed of and replaced with Cutler, who shows incredible promise). But the position that is easiest to replace on offense is the wide receiver in run first offenses. They are really only there to catch about five to seven balls a game and just move the chains when the defense starts keying in on the running game. They can be replaced with relative ease and only need to have good hands and decent speed. I???ll finish in my next argument

Big Ben68 said 06/12, 06:38 PM
Dwayne Jarrett, Keyshawn Johnson, Marques Colston, and other big receivers are the prototypes for this type of receiver in this offense. Okay, I would rather have two decent wide receivers and a running back that can do anything (i.e. LT). If my running back can catch better than my WR and I still have a pretty good tight end I'm pretty damn happy. I don't need game breaking wide receivers when I have a running back that can do that all by himself. Those two WR just need to be enough of threat that they???ll take enough pressure off of my HB that he can run wild. Wide receivers hands downs are easier to replace unless your offense is based upon that passing game much like the Colts. Look at the Chiefs and Chargers. Neither team has any decent wide receivers to speak of yet they are still potent offenses because they have that game changing running back and a pretty good tight end (in this case very good tight end). The need of good receivers becomes drastically less when you have that HB to do your work and the tight end to be your receiver.

Big Ben68 said 06/12, 07:03 PM
No, I don't think so. The only reason those guys moved is because of trades (Droughns, McGahee, Bell) and free agency (Henry, Lewis, and Rhodes). None of the teams wanted to resign those guys and since the Ravens got McGahee in a trade, Jamal Lewis was expendable so that really doesn't mean anything (seeing as both were first round picks). Rhodes has never been all that good and so has gone to the Raiders, so his career is pretty much over. Henry left his team because they didn't want to resign him and look at the turmoil the Titans are in at running back with Lendale White who has no work ethic and is overweight yet again. The Titans seem to be having a problem replacing their 1,200 yard rusher from last season. A running back can do much worse than just miss a block. He can miss a whole that would have taken him for that extra three or four yards for a first down. He can try to bull through someone when he should have just juked around them. The running back needs to have vision and not just any guy can be brought in at running back for any team and hope to do well. A receiver can still mess up on a route or miss a ball and come back the next play and turn it into a TD.