Is the Running back position over rated in the NFL?

[jbergey22]

You have your Chris Johnson, Adrian Peterson, Stephen Jackson, Maurice Jones Drew, and Frank Gore that seem better than the rest.

However I ask this because it doesnt seem to matter who the Saints put out there (Mike Bell, Pierre Thomas, Reggie Bush) as they all do fine.

-Knowshon Moreno(1st rounder pick) cant seem to pull away from Correll Buchhalter(journeyman)

-Ryan Moats comes in for Steve Slaton and has 2 solid games.

-Cedric Benson was horrible with the Bears and now he is on a new team and having a great season while any back the Bears seem to put out there seems similiar to how Benson played with them.

I have many more examples I could go through but it almost seems that a team with a great line can have anyone run well behind them while a average to poor line is going to struggle to create running room for the anyone.

There doesnt seem to be too many teams that have a backup RB that doesnt do almost as well(or better) than the starter.

Larry Johnson went from one of the best running backs in the NFL(with the best line) to one of the worst RBs in the NFL(with one of the worst lines). Could he have really fallen off the cliff that fast?

[Jughead Spock]

Probably a good way to put it, overrated. Dallas in the 90s and then Denver have shown pretty clearly that the system is more important than the back. Most teams now have focused on having two backs in rotation.

That being said, part of that is because it's rare to find a truly exceptional back.

[cougarfreak]

It's all about the line, and what teams you play against.

[Karlifornia]

Football is a team game. If one guy isn't doing his job, it makes everybody else worse in one way or another.

[SportsDino]

Unless the running back is Barry Sanders, I'd say the position is overrated.

[MalcPow]

Yeah, it's tough to really isolate a running back's "talent" in their production sometimes. I think you see obvious differences between a guy like Chris Johnson or Adrian Peterson in their ability to break long runs when they get to the second level of the defense, but for guys whose runs are essentially all within the -3 to 12 yard range, the dependence on the offensive line, passing game talent (which will determine defensive schemes), and other factors can weigh pretty heavily on outcomes. I think it's difficult for us as the average fan, and probably even for more sophisticated football men, to really evaluate the difference between a guy who gets an extra yard in most of those situations and the guy who doesn't. Yards per carry numbers are always going to be impacted greatly by a handful of long runs. Do those big plays do more for a team's chances of winning than a consistent three to four yards and a cloud of dust? I really don't have an intelligent answer to that one. Probably tough to know if a position is overrated or not when we can't even seem to be sure we're measuring what they do in an effective way.

[bulletsponge]

No QB is.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by bulletsponge

No QB is.

Drew Brees(12-0), Peyton Manning(12-0), Brett Favre (10-2)

then if we look at the other side of things

Jamarcus Russell(benched 2-7), Jason Campbell(3-9), Brady Quinn(1 win), Matt Stafford(2 wins)

Not sure if I can agree on this.

Disclaimer:I think Stafford will be a fine QB. Im using him in this debate because he is a rookie on a team with a poor record.

[Autumn]

I think the numbers by the Football Outsiders have supported your statement. For example, I think they've said that there is little impact on the team when a starting running back gets injured.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Jughead Spock

Probably a good way to put it, overrated. Dallas in the 90s and then Denver have shown pretty clearly that the system is more important than the back. Most teams now have focused on having two backs in rotation.

That being said, part of that is because it's rare to find a truly exceptional back.

Emmitt Smith was a system back?

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by bulletsponge

No QB is.

You've been drinking.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Emmitt Smith was a system back?

He wasn't, but that OL was considered one of, if not the best in the league every year he was there. The passing game was more than "ok" as well.

[rowech]

As others have said...all about the system. Some guys work well in some instances and not in others.

[DeToxRox]

I'd say it is. Look at the last few SB's:

2008 - Steelers: Willie Parker
2007 - Giants: Brandon Jacobs
2006 - Colts: Joseph Addai
2005 - Steelers: Willie Parker
2004 - Patriots: Corey Dillon
2003 - Patriots: Antowain Smith

Not one HOF in that group by any means, yet all of them won SB's.

The last great RB to win a SB was Jamaal Lewis who was as important to that Ravens team as any offensive player ever to any team.

[Sun Tzu]

Nothing against Emmitt Smith, but Fritz could have run for 1,000 yards behind that line.

[DrAFTjunkie]

Yes, RB is overrated. I blame fantasy football.

[Julio Riddols]

The only clear line that seems to be able to be drawn between different backs when comparing is what else they bring to the table besides running the ball, or if they produce much less than another RB in the same offense. (Julius Jones versus Marion Barber for instance) - Barber was clearly a better back IMO in that combo. Otherwise, its the guys who have game breaking speed, blocking ability, and hands like a WR who really prove their value over the traditional RBs, which are seemingly a dime a dozen. There are still those guys like Jones and Kevan Barlow who are just not good RB's, IMO.

[bulletsponge]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Drew Brees(12-0), Peyton Manning(12-0), Brett Favre (10-2)

then if we look at the other side of things

Jamarcus Russell(benched 2-7), Jason Campbell(3-9), Brady Quinn(1 win), Matt Stafford(2 wins)

Not sure if I can agree on this.

Disclaimer:I think Stafford will be a fine QB. Im using him in this debate because he is a rookie on a team with a poor record.

actually your kinda proved my point. QB's are attributed with the teams success, no other players are given that, yet qb's are the most dependant on thier O-line and skill players. and lets not forget that 2nd group of qb's you mentioned were all "Franchise saviors" at one point. if the teams around them were any good, those QB's would have been given the credit for turning the franchise around. i blame it on ESPN and hack sportswriters, they always have to make a hero and the QB is the easy mark for that.
im not saying QB's arnt the most important player on the team, just that they are the MOST overrated.

[jbergey22]

The QB has a ton of responsibilities in todays game.

1. Get the plays from the coach
2. Figure out the defense and make adjustments to the blocking scheme
3. Call an audible if necessary
4. Make the proper read on a passing attempt around 60 percent of the time
5. Deliver the ball with accuracy and Do NOT turn the ball over
6. Make sre you are getting the ball to your playmakers in situations to be successful
7. Dodge 300 pound defensive lineman trained to smash you into the ground
8. Keep the media from tearing your head off before and after the game

I cant think off too many positions in sports that have this much responsibility and are more important to a teams success.

A pitcher in baseball and perhaps a goalie in hockey are perhaps two. Being the star player on a NBA team also carries a lot of responsibility however that can come from 1 of 5 positions so I didnt include that.

If you think ESPN gives QBs too much credit that is your opinion(hard to judge if that is true) but it does seem the truely great QBs make a huge difference in final results.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

The QB has a ton of responsibilities in todays game.

1. Get the plays from the coach
2. Figure out the defense and make adjustments to the blocking scheme
3. Call an audible if necessary
4. Make the proper read on a passing attempt around 60 percent of the time
5. Deliver the ball with accuracy and Do NOT turn the ball over
6. Make sre you are getting the ball to your playmakers in situations to be successful
7. Dodge 300 pound defensive lineman trained to smash you into the ground
8. Keep the media from tearing your head off before and after the game

I cant think off too many positions in sports that have this much responsibility and are more important to a teams success.

A pitcher in baseball and perhaps a goalie in hockey are perhaps two.

If you think ESPN gives QBs too much credit that is your opinion(hard to judge if that is true) but it does seem the truely great QBs make a huge difference in final results.

This is the reason why Jamarcus Russell is a 6'5 piece of shit on the field, he has the smarts of a dry lemon.

[Jughead Spock]

Yeah, pretty sure a lot of them stop at 1.

[miami_fan]

I am beginning to wonder if the running game in general is overrated. Should teams just go away from the running game altogether?

[Senator]

Parcells was defending himself here in Dallas because he passed on Stephen Jackson. He said at the time, he thought RB's were the most overrated players on the field.

[Galaxy]

Look at Denver and the RB's they put out in the 90's and early 2000's.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I am beginning to wonder if the running game in general is overrated. Should teams just go away from the running game altogether?

The run and shoot offense never really took off in the NFL. Houston never broke through even when they ran it about as well as you could imagine. The Rams had a high powered offense, but they still had Faulk. Elway won after Terrell Davis was there. Passing in the red zone becomes too difficult if you are only passing, and a running game is the safest bet for running down the clock when you have a lead.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by bulletsponge

i blame it on ESPN and hack sportswriters, they always have to make a hero and the QB is the easy mark for that.

Probably ought to put that blame where it belongs: on the fans. They'd do it whether the media helped 'em or not, they're just dishing out what the fans want.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Matthean

The run and shoot offense never really took off in the NFL. Houston never broke through even when they ran it about as well as you could imagine. The Rams had a high powered offense, but they still had Faulk. Elway won after Terrell Davis was there. Passing in the red zone becomes too difficult if you are only passing, and a running game is the safest bet for running down the clock when you have a lead.

The Vermeil Rams and the Martz Rams are probably the best examples of what I meant. When they won the Super Bowl under Vermeil, the running game was a valued part of the offensive package. Under Martz, it seemed like an inconvenience. That is the impression I get from most teams (and fans) today. Run the ball as a last resort and even then it is 50/50.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Probably ought to put that blame where it belongs: on the fans. They'd do it whether the media helped 'em or not, they're just dishing out what the fans want.

I see this all the time but I just don't know where it comes from. You have access to this sort of information, so please tell me: who are these people? You're right in that it almost only makes sense if viewers demand more and more Favre coverage, but seriously, where does it come from? I don't know anyone who sweats these guys, everyone seems to be like me and gets tired of being bombarded with the coverage and turns it off. Isn't there a chance that there's just a group of people who will leave ESPN on all day no matter what? Maybe the type who think that it's still the only outlet for sports news?

I just can't imagine how anyone could ever be sitting there thinking "I'm dying to know what Favre will decide, I better keep tuned in to SportsCenter so I can find out." That show hasn't meant anything to me since I was about 12. Much easier to just go online and find highlights of whatever game I want to see if that's my intention.

edit: I know we're not talking about Favre in this particular instance but the overall theme still seems to be the same. You can correct me if you wish.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Logan

Isn't there a chance that there's just a group of people who will leave ESPN on all day no matter what? Maybe the type who think that it's still the only outlet for sports news?

I just can't imagine how anyone could ever be sitting there thinking "I'm dying to know what Favre will decide, I better keep tuned in to SportsCenter so I can find out." That show hasn't meant anything to me since I was about 12. Much easier to just go online and find highlights of whatever game I want to see if that's my intention.

Tangent: I was very happy when I heard there was going to be an NFL Network. I was not nearly as happy when I realized it was going to be mostly made up of studio shows (which keep regurgitating the same information), and very little about old NFL Films productions or classic games (I have a hard time thinking of oh, a SB - or any other games - from any time this decade ago as "classic").

I'll sometimes revert to ESPN when I don't feel like paying much attention to the tv and don't feel like having to skip commercials of something on the DVR, but want the tv on in the background. At least with ESPN they sprinkle in some other news now and then.

[Subby]

My 11 year-old watches SportsCenter every morning before school. I would much rather he consume his sports information that way than go anywhere near a computer.

[JeeberDMack]

Originally Posted by Matthean

He wasn't, but that OL was considered one of, if not the best in the league every year he was there. The passing game was more than "ok" as well.

Yeah, 'cause Derrick Lassic, Lincoln Coleman, and Sherman Williams all looked like Pro Bowlers when they got playing time...

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by JeeberDMack

Yeah, 'cause Derrick Lassic, Lincoln Coleman, and Sherman Williams all looked like Pro Bowlers when they got playing time...

Note I said he wasn't a system back. Smith would have succeeded on some level were ever he played, but put up the historical numbers he did in large part because he had an OL that could consistently open up Mac truck sized holes, see Barry vs. Emmitt debates.