FanNation - The Republic of Sport

Cowboys-Celtics-Chisox said 04/07, 09:09 PM
Sorry, I accepted this then forgot all about it.

Running back by committee is a polite way of saying you don't have a stud in the backfield who can handle the load.

Would you want Walter Payton in a committee approach? Emmitt Smith? How about Ladanian Tomlinson?

If you have a great workhorse back, you'd never want him to split carries with a lesser RB. It's when you don't have that kind of elite player that makes the committee approach make sense. But given the choice, I'll take LT out there on every down over some two back system. Defenses have a much harder time defending against a guy like Tomlinson who can do so many different things than they do shutting down a committee back who generally has one or two strengths but also weaknesses you don't have to worry about.

The Jags and Vikings success had more to do with their respective offensive lines than the committee approach itself. The NFL is a copy cat league and many teams have taken on this approach, but that doesn't change the fact that if you have a stud RB you want him on the field as much as humanly possible and, in that case, a committee approach would be detrimental, not beneficial.

Cowboys-Celtics-Chisox said 04/07, 10:09 PM
"Out of these 8 teams, 5 missed the playoffs."

Which supports MY position. Only 3 of those teams MADE the playoffs. And the Cowboys didn't make it by running the ball, quite the contrary their starting RB had a horrible year. The Cowboys made it with the best airial attack in team history.

That leaves the Giants who won with defense and the Jags who do, in fact, have two starting quality RB's.

If Adrian Peterson stays healthy next year, how much of a committee approach do you expect Minny is going to use? You want the ball in his hands at least 20 times/game. That doesn't happen if he's on the bench.

Then we have the issue of what defines "running back by committee"? Some teams alternate their RB's based on down and distance, others do it based on alternating series simply to keep both backs fresh. The Cowboys, for example, used Julius Jones for two series, the Marion Barber for two alternating in that order until later in the games. It's not about going with the hot hand so much as keeping both backs active and rested at the same time.

This also doesn't address switching backs out for pass protection or short yardage situations. RB by "committee" isn't really how it sounds

Cowboys-Celtics-Chisox said 04/08, 10:10 PM
OK, so the Giants won the Super Bowl. Was that because of a "running back by committee"? Of course not.

One of the best committees you've ever seen? Impossible. Because it wasn't a committee to begin with.

Brandon Jacobs was their feature back whenever he was healthy. Calling Bradshaw part of a committee is laughable. He only once carried the ball more than 4 times in a game during the regular season, and only rushed 23 times all year. Total. In the 10 games in which Jacobs was healthy, he carried the ball 194 times. 19.4 per game, and more than 20 times in 7 of the 10. That's NOT a committee. By way of comparison LDT averaged 19.6 carries per game last year. That's feature back territory

Marion Barber III averaged 12.75 carries per game with Julius Jones averaging 10.25. THAT is a committee. But, again, the Cowboys didn't win because of the running game. How much better would their running game have been with MBIII as the feature back? Most likely substantially better

Many running backs have to play most downs to get into the rhythm of the game. How many times have you heard an announcer say "This guy just gets stronger as the game goes on"? Shuffling in and out negates that