- 01/18/2012, 10:11AM ET
HighwayCrossingFrog said 01/18, 10:11 AM
I have flirted with this idea before.. But have never BOLDLY said it in a TD, like this manner..
Big RBS are better than little RBs..
What I'm talking about is;
who would you rather give the ball to on 3rd and 1..
Rice, 5'8 OR Brandon Jacobs 6'4 264lbs?
The Big RBs are consitently fantastic at gaining the one yard..
Where as we saw Rice, last week-end get stopped, not only at 3rd and one, but also, 4th and inches, because Rice is not a battering ram and is not good at short yardage..
Way to go Rice! Your little puny butt, just cost your ravens 7 freakin points!
MorningWoodley said 01/18, 10:37 AM
Your going to try to argue that little running backs aren't good when the top 2 rushers this year are some of the smallest running backs in the league?
Maurice Jones Drew, I 5'7 running back led the league this year with 1606 yards. Thats 250 more yards than the 2nd most rushing yards, who just so happens to be 5'8 Ray Rice. He had 1364 rushing yards this year.
Now lets compare these two guys to your favorite "big" running back, Brandon Jacobs. Brandon Jacobs is not going to have the same amount of yards because he isn't a starting running back but lets look at his yards per carry.
Maurice Jones Drew Average Yards per Carry: 4.7
Ray Rice Average Yards per Carry: 4.7
Brandon Jacobs Average Yards per Carry: 3.8
So at this point its not looking too good for your buddy Brandon, but just for fun lets look at another large running back, Legarrette Blount (starting RB for Tampa Bay).
Blount's Average Yards per Carry: 4.2
Blount's total yards: 781
Clearly smaller running backs are the elite of the league and are much better than larger running backs such as Brandon Jacobs.
HighwayCrossingFrog said 01/18, 10:47 AM
Jacobs is an extreme example..
I used him, because he was the biggest RB I could think of..
The 3 ultra big guys that are in the top 10 are;
Turner 5'10 247lbs
Foster 6'1 229lbs
jackson 6'2 240lbs
Technically my favorite RB is Lynch, at 5'11 215lbs, technically he would be classified as a MEDIUM RB.. But for some reason, he looks bigger and more powerful on TV..
What do I look for in a RB?
Someone that is excellent at 3rd and 1 situations..
Ideally I would want to base my offense around the pass..
And use the running game for short yardage, and to keep the defense honest..
Ironically the 2 best RBs play for teams that dont have much in the QB position..
Which is the main reason why they racked up soooo many yards..
Lies, lies and statistics!
Did you watch the ravens vs texans game last weekend?
Did you see Rice get humiliated at 3rd and 1, on the goal line?
I guarantee you, Jacobs would have made that play and scored that TD..
Jacobs is significantly stronger than Rice, and hence harder to bring down..
The defensive linemen are huge guys, who have no problem tackling someone 5'8..
But someone 6'4? Yes that is hard to tackle.. They cant fall on top of 6'4
MorningWoodley said 01/18, 11:43 AM
Your telling me that the Ravens don't have a good quarterback? As much as I hate the Ravens, Joe Flacco is not a bad quarterback. He's taken his team to the playoffs every year he's been in the league. Thats not a bad quarterback.
If you don't wanna look at yards, lets look at touchdowns. Lesean McCoy, a smaller running back out of Pitt, led the league in touchdowns this year. LED THE LEAGUE!!! The guy is barely over 200 pounds and is 5'10.
Next, you talk about how Jacobs is harder to bring down than Rice because he is bigger. That's not true. Check the stats. Jacobs gets tackled one yard shorter than Rice on every run (as I explained in my last argument).
Jacobs is slower and easier to catch while rice has speed and agility. Who cares how easily he can be tackled if no one can get a hand on him like on this play. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8ob9aATCFU
Finally, Jacobs fumbled one more time than Rice did this season even though he had significantly less carries. Even though Jacobs is much bigger he has problems holding onto the ball, probably because he gets hit so much since hes not as fast!
HighwayCrossingFrog said 01/18, 04:13 PM
The Big running backs specialize in 3rd and one downs.. You can not debate this..
The Big running backs specialize in beating up the defense.. You can not debate this..
Big running backs are stronger too, again you can not debate this..
Yeah, Jacobs is slower.. But that is something I am willing to live with..
Running backs you want strength..
Wide recievers you want speed..
Of all the great teams, hardly any had a great running back, like Rice, who had mega tons of yards during the regular season..
Im sure Ray Lewis and Urlacher lick their chops when they see MJD.. When they see Jacobs, they are thinking ah man, this isnt going to be easy to tackle this beast..
Joey Flaccid is not an elite QB, he ranked 19th in passing yards, so technically he is below average, yes..
MorningWoodley said 01/18, 05:18 PM
Thats great. They do specialize in 3rd and short and beating up the defense and some are stronger but the prompt is that they are better and the fact is, Big running backs ARE NOT!!!! better than small running backs. Stats prove this.
"Of all the great teams, hardly any had a great running back, like Rice, who had mega tons of yards during the regular season.."
3 out of the 4 teams left in the playoffs depend on their running game!
Here's my final point just to prove to you that big running backs aren't better. Why is Bradshaw the Giants starter over Jacobs? Because Bradshaw is faster, more agile, and better, because he is smaller than Jacobs!
Stats prove that smaller running backs are better, logic proves that they are better, and watching football proves that they are better. Clearly, smaller running backs are better!
- Awful Announcing
- Free Darko
- Pro Football Talk
- The Big Lead
- Joe Posnanski
- The Sporting Blog
- Big League Stew
- Bugs and Cranks
- Every day Should Be Saturday
- Mr. Irrelevant
- With Leather
- The Sports Hernia