Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: The death of the workhorse running back « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4 ... 11

Detrimental

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 6001
Offline
#15 : April 09, 2012, 11:10:27 PM

A few things :

The rule changes that was implemented after our SB. Which favors the passing game tremendously. Therefore, running the ball since the rule change hasn't been as effective as it were in previous years. The rule chang affected the "workhorse back" more than anything. "Illegal Contact"

They ignored Pittsburgh SB wins in 2005 and 2008, when Big Ben was a joke of a passing QB then. Those Pitt teams relied heavily on a rushing attack and suffered from mediocre QB play. A great defense and a strong running attack with solid QB play is enough to win SB these days. Its not like the 49ers or Ravens weren't a game away from playing in the big dance. And its not like 2008 is light years away from the current 2012.




Good points,  but you could still have RB by commitee, instead of investing a top 5 pick in a RB. That is assuming you have a great O-line.
I agree. But, I'd only use a top 5 pick on a RB or hell any position if and only if, I'm getting a skill position player that is a good bet to be top 3 at his position when on the field. Other then that, if I wouldn't take a WR or RB that high if I knew he could realistically be at the top of totem of his position. Where as for tackles, QB's, and DE/DT's taken in the top 5 they don't have to be a top 3 because those premium positions are very hard to play in this league.

The Anti-Java

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 23103
Offline
#16 : April 09, 2012, 11:18:48 PM

A few things :

The rule changes that was implemented after our SB. Which favors the passing game tremendously. Therefore, running the ball since the rule change hasn't been as effective as it were in previous years. The rule chang affected the "workhorse back" more than anything. "Illegal Contact"

They ignored Pittsburgh SB wins in 2005 and 2008, when Big Ben was a joke of a passing QB then. Those Pitt teams relied heavily on a rushing attack and suffered from mediocre QB play. A great defense and a strong running attack with solid QB play is enough to win SB these days. Its not like the 49ers or Ravens weren't a game away from playing in the big dance. And its not like 2008 is light years away from the current 2012.





Good points,  but you could still have RB by commitee, instead of investing a top 5 pick in a RB. That is assuming you have a great O-line.



I agree. But, I'd only use a top 5 pick on a RB or hell any position if and only if, I'm getting a skill position player that is a good bet to be top 3 at his position when on the field. Other then that, if I wouldn't take a WR or RB that high if I knew he could realistically be at the top of totem of his position. Where as for tackles, QB's, and DE/DT's taken in the top 5 they don't have to be a top 3 because those premium positions are very hard to play in this league.






Can't argue any of that, I guess the big question is.......Is TR that guy?
: April 09, 2012, 11:21:19 PM The-anti-java


sig pic by chace1986

PewterReportMC....
\\\\\\\"Java, do you understand this a perfect example of why people beg me to suspend or ban you on a daily basis? Are you actually trying to make a point? Seriously what is the reason for even commenting. In fact why do you even bother coming to the boards? What happened to the intelligent poster from years ago?  A real shame. Like the Bucs yesterday, a wasted effort.\\\\\\\"

Detrimental

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 6001
Offline
#17 : April 09, 2012, 11:21:51 PM

Well, I think so. I called him the best RB prospect since AP way before Mayock and other analysts started spewing recently and people on this board thought I was crazy. I think he has the ability to be a top 3 player in his position and if he sustains consistency for a long period of time, your looking at a damn near HOF player.

Others have mixed opinions though but I'll side with the draft experts with this one and ignore the the people that watch 1-2 games a year....

beardmcdoug

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1310
Offline
#18 : April 09, 2012, 11:37:20 PM

That analogy to start the piece was horrible.

Discredits the entire piece.

I can't read stupid.

oh ffs - quit being a d*ck


White Tiger

*
Starter
****
Posts : 454
Offline
#19 : April 10, 2012, 12:05:45 AM

Theyre just setting fans up for the inevitable...most colleges today rin some type of spread-option or zone read attack...so running backs are coming out of college completely unprepared to read more than one line of attack and one block...because in the spread they're just looking to spring a one-cut slasher/cut-back runner...the defenses in college aren't sophisticated and the pressure to balance the passing attack with a decent running back is too great...no new running backs with any talent want to block, read defenses, or contribute to blitz package because it cuts down on production and also increases the odds of getting hurt before their big NFL contract.

The NFL has been starved for workhorse backs...and because the rookie contract is all the time most teams get with a decent running back, there just isn't the amount of developmental time these backs need to become complete...so NFL coordinators have adapted their offenses accordingly.

...but when they get a chance to get an elite runner...all that "the era of the workhorse running back is over..." crap goes right out the window.

Because as Northern Rep illustrates in his post above - teams with special backs, have done special things.
: April 10, 2012, 12:10:15 AM White Tiger


Beatles123

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 9111
Offline
#20 : April 10, 2012, 12:15:58 AM

I will be laughing my ass off at all of you if TR is in red & Pewter by the night's end...remember that.

This space for rent....*sigh* I trusted you coach.

The Anti-Java

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 23103
Offline
#21 : April 10, 2012, 12:33:21 AM

I will be laughing my ass off at all of you if TR is in red & Pewter by the night's end...remember that.




I would still root for the guy if he ends up being a Buc.  He just wouldn't be my first choice at #5.


sig pic by chace1986

PewterReportMC....
\\\\\\\"Java, do you understand this a perfect example of why people beg me to suspend or ban you on a daily basis? Are you actually trying to make a point? Seriously what is the reason for even commenting. In fact why do you even bother coming to the boards? What happened to the intelligent poster from years ago?  A real shame. Like the Bucs yesterday, a wasted effort.\\\\\\\"

Northern Rep

**
Rookie

Posts : 58
Offline
#22 : April 10, 2012, 01:38:05 AM

While committees may be more common, and passing games more potent I don't think that the workhorse back is dead quite yet, with about half the league using one
peterson
forte
mccoy
turner
jackson
gore
lynch
benson
mendenhall
rice
johnson
drew
foster
greene



How many carries are they getting though, I know Marshawn for one, had less then 300.
O I'm sure most of them are under 300 carries, and I'm not disagreeing with the article, but these guys still take the vast majority of carries and are workhorses imo

JDouble

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 29156
Offline
#23 : April 10, 2012, 07:25:57 AM

Someone should go back over the past 10 years and compare total rushing yards from teams that use a workhorse RB and the total rushing yards of teams that draft RBs from middle rounds and use a committee approach. I mean, it's great when a single guy gets 2000k yards in a season like Chris Johnson did in 2009, but the team as a whole still only had 2500 rushing yards on the season which is good, but isn't anything out of the ordinary. In fact, the Jets had more rushing yards that year as a team with a committee of Thomas Jones, Shonne Green, and Leon Washington.

It just seems obvious to me that while having a stud RB that gets 2000 yards a season is more exciting, having three RBs that average 2500 yards a season together is much easier to do, cheaper, and it just makes more sense. We have Blount for the excitement factor. We have a very good O-line now. All we need is two solid RBs to pair with Blount and we are good to go. Drafting Richardson at #5 would be a monumental waste.


1sparkybuc

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7267
Offline
#24 : April 10, 2012, 08:11:59 AM

Someone should go back over the past 10 years and compare total rushing yards from teams that use a workhorse RB and the total rushing yards of teams that draft RBs from middle rounds and use a committee approach. I mean, it's great when a single guy gets 2000k yards in a season like Chris Johnson did in 2009, but the team as a whole still only had 2500 rushing yards on the season which is good, but isn't anything out of the ordinary. In fact, the Jets had more rushing yards that year as a team with a committee of Thomas Jones, Shonne Green, and Leon Washington.

It just seems obvious to me that while having a stud RB that gets 2000 yards a season is more exciting, having three RBs that average 2500 yards a season together is much easier to do, cheaper, and it just makes more sense. We have Blount for the excitement factor. We have a very good O-line now. All we need is two solid RBs to pair with Blount and we are good to go. Drafting Richardson at #5 would be a monumental waste.

I absolutely agree with everything you said with the exception of the last sentence. Blount sucks at pass protection. Richardson excels at it. He's also a good receiver while Blount is not. Blount also has an issue with funbling. Blount is the best RB in ypc in team history, but he might not be here after this year. Take the committee approach for 2012 knowing at least one (Richardson) will be here for three more years. Richardson improves the passing game and Blount shares the load running the ball.The threat to run helps the passing game. The Bucs need Richardson, but I expect the Browns will snatch him up. I believe Claiborne will be the pick and a disappointment as a player.

JDouble

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 29156
Offline
#25 : April 10, 2012, 08:16:22 AM

You don't take a RB at #5 to take the committee approach.


acacius

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4886
Offline
#26 : April 10, 2012, 08:29:46 AM

They ignored Pittsburgh SB wins in 2005 and 2008, when Big Ben was a joke of a passing QB then. Those Pitt teams relied heavily on a rushing attack and suffered from mediocre QB play. A great defense and a strong running attack with solid QB play is enough to win SB these days. Its not like the 49ers or Ravens weren't a game away from playing in the big dance. And its not like 2008 is light years away from the current 2012.
I'll more or less grant you 2005, although Parker still only had 255 carries, meaning it still fit into the overall theme of the article.  Their rushing attack was pretty lousy in 2008 though.  That year was mostly about their defense.

Feel Real Good

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 27410
Online
#27 : April 10, 2012, 08:53:13 AM

A few things :

The rule changes that was implemented after our SB. Which favors the passing game tremendously. Therefore, running the ball since the rule change hasn't been as effective as it were in previous years. The rule chang affected the "workhorse back" more than anything. "Illegal Contact"

They ignored Pittsburgh SB wins in 2005 and 2008, when Big Ben was a joke of a passing QB then. Those Pitt teams relied heavily on a rushing attack and suffered from mediocre QB play. A great defense and a strong running attack with solid QB play is enough to win SB these days. Its not like the 49ers or Ravens weren't a game away from playing in the big dance. And its not like 2008 is light years away from the current 2012.
Those teams relied on defense, not the runing game. In the 2005 Super Bowl, Jerome Bettis had 14 carries for 43 yards. In the 2008 Super Bowl, Willie Parker had 19 carries for 53 yards. As for San Francisco and Baltimore, Frank Gore had 13 carries for 89 yards in the playoff win against New Orleans. They won that game because Alex Smith and Vernon Davis made plays in the passing game and the defense picked off Brees twice. In the Ravens' win over Houston, Ray Rice carried 21 times for 60 yards. They won that game because Flacco threw 2 TD's and the defense picked off Yates three times. RB's only pile up stats against the bad teams during the regular season. The good teams in the playoffs shut down the ground game.

FRG is the most logical poster on this board.  You guys just don\'t like where the logical conclusions take you.

blind melon

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 15390
Offline
#28 : April 10, 2012, 08:54:33 AM

That analogy to start the piece was horrible.

Discredits the entire piece.

I can't read stupid.




You read Java's post don't you?

Nope.  Don't see them.

Who knew how good it would feel as a fan when we now know what it\'s like for our team to have a direction, an attitude, and dare I say an offense?.  

Good time to be a Bucs fan.

The Anti-Java

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 23103
Offline
#29 : April 10, 2012, 10:11:05 AM

You don't take a RB at #5 to take the committee approach.




Agree with this.


sig pic by chace1986

PewterReportMC....
\\\\\\\"Java, do you understand this a perfect example of why people beg me to suspend or ban you on a daily basis? Are you actually trying to make a point? Seriously what is the reason for even commenting. In fact why do you even bother coming to the boards? What happened to the intelligent poster from years ago?  A real shame. Like the Bucs yesterday, a wasted effort.\\\\\\\"
Page: 1 2 3 4 ... 11
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: The death of the workhorse running back « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools