Why a big 3 RB?

Omaha_Dolfan

Pro Bowler
Joined
Sep 7, 2003
Messages
999
Reaction score
0
Age
52
Location
Omaha
This was our leading rusher in each of the last two seasons

in 2003
Player No Yds Avg Long TD
Ricky Williams 392 1372 3.5 45 9

in 2004
Player No Yds Avg Long TD
Sammy Morris 132 523 4.0 35 6

Now if you give Sammy the same number of carries he looks something like this.

Player No Yds Avg Long TD
Sammy Morris 396 1569 4.0 35 18

Now dont even think I am saying that Sammy Morris is another Ricky Williams because everyone knows he is not.

The point is after Ricky's great year in 2002 the OLine had some major changes happen to it and it resulted in Ricky running more attempts for less yards than in 2002 (383 attempts, 1853 yards) compared to 2003(396, 1569)

Everyone that watched any game last year pretty much knows that we had very little blocking last year. I think this had more to due with the schemes than the personel personally, and my main argument for that is simply how much better the line looked after Bates became HC and simplified the blocking schemes.

With Houck coming in and having the whole offseason, mini-camps, and pre-season to evaluate and work with the O-Linemen we have, I feel that the OL will be greatly improved next year. In which case a running back by committee will be just as effective as having the one back that does it all.

(If Ricky doesnt come back, and I dont want to get into a Ricky thread here, because if he does come back the rest of this is pointless)

I see Gordon and Morris in a one or two set backfield on first and second down and Minor going back to his third down role which he has always done a pretty good job with. If the OLine is improved as I am thinking it will be, they will be very productive, as will anyone.

I mean if we have learned anything about RB's and OL's this last couple of years we need to look no further than in Denver. They can put anybody back there with any amount of talent and get production.

So what this is all boiling down to is that I dont see a major need for any of the "Big 3" RB's in the draft especially with the debth of the position in this years draft.
 

Shifty187

Seasoned Veteran
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
1,405
Reaction score
0
Age
36
Location
The 305
Now if you give Sammy the same number of carries he looks something like this.
His body wont allow him to to carry the rock that many times!
 

knight6jb

Pro Bowler
Joined
Jul 18, 2004
Messages
1,231
Reaction score
0
Age
35
Location
Orlando, Fl
Because these RB are probably some of the most talented RB's to come out of the draft in a long time, with some exceptions....
 

Omaha_Dolfan

Pro Bowler
Joined
Sep 7, 2003
Messages
999
Reaction score
0
Age
52
Location
Omaha
Shifty187 said:
His body wont allow him to to carry the rock that many times!
I agree completely, but was just showing the averages as comparisons ... with a running back by committee approach he wont have to carry that much.

The basic reason for that comparison was to show that our rushing was about the same in 2002 with Ricky as it was in 2003 without him as far as averages goes. And stressing that the reason we didn't run the ball well was n't because our backs sucked, but that the OLine made them look bad. Hell Sammy's YPC was higher in 2003 than Ricky had in 2002.
 

Omaha_Dolfan

Pro Bowler
Joined
Sep 7, 2003
Messages
999
Reaction score
0
Age
52
Location
Omaha
RFF said:
You lost me at:

#138 Maurice Clarett, RB, Ohio St
So you dont think Clarrett is worth a shot in the late rounds not a problem here... at least if I lost you there, then you understood everything in the post, just got lost in my signature. :D
 

Marino Forever

FinHeaven VIP
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
394
Reaction score
0
Age
45
Location
Spring Creek, Nevada
Omaha_Dolfan said:
I agree completely, but was just showing the averages as comparisons ... with a running back by committee approach he wont have to carry that much.

The basic reason for that comparison was to show that our rushing was about the same in 2002 with Ricky as it was in 2003 without him as far as averages goes. And stressing that the reason we didn't run the ball well was n't because our backs sucked, but that the OLine made them look bad. Hell Sammy's YPC was higher in 2003 than Ricky had in 2002.
I think you are on to something here. It is my opinion that a great oline can make any back look good and only an outstanding back can make up for a below average line. Look at how Denver plugs in back after back to rush for 1000 yards. With Houck we could start to dominate the line of scrimmage and not spend as much on a running back but look to the future of offense with one of the QBs this year or next year.
 

islandah

FinHeaven VIP
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
1,929
Reaction score
27
knight6jb said:
Because these RB are probably some of the most talented RB's to come out of the draft in a long time, with some exceptions....
According to whom? Most people say that there are no legitimate top picks in this draft, just that it's a deep draft especially at rb.
 

Omaha_Dolfan

Pro Bowler
Joined
Sep 7, 2003
Messages
999
Reaction score
0
Age
52
Location
Omaha
knight6jb said:
Because these RB are probably some of the most talented RB's to come out of the draft in a long time, with some exceptions....
I agree that these three are extremely talented, Im not disputing that but I feel that the reason most people are so interested in them is they feel that RB is a HUGE need for us, and I disagree with that, not with the Big 3's potential.
 

phunwin

The name's Bond...James Bond.
Joined
Jan 30, 2004
Messages
8,474
Reaction score
1
Age
42
Location
Rochester, NY
Omaha_Dolfan said:
I agree that these three are extremely talented, Im not disputing that but I feel that the reason most people are so interested in them is they feel that RB is a HUGE need for us, and I disagree with that, not with the Big 3's potential.
Actually, I think it's a combination of the fact that: a. many people feel that an RB will be the best player on the board for us, b. we do have a need at RB (how great a need is up for debate) and c. the best players in the draft are WRs, where we don't have a big need.

In any event, I think it's becoming more and more likely that if we stay at #2, our choice will be Alex Smith, not Ronnie Brown.
 

RFF

Rookie
Joined
Nov 9, 2004
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Age
44
Location
Logan, Oh
Omaha_Dolfan said:
So you dont think Clarrett is worth a shot in the late rounds not a problem here... at least if I lost you there, then you understood everything in the post, just got lost in my signature. :D
:up: Agreed. I do think we need to add a young RB, but it does not have to be with our top pick.
 

NJPHIN34

Seasoned Veteran
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Messages
682
Reaction score
0
Age
35
Location
Manhattan
Have you guys taken a look at KNIGHT6JB's sig with the Cadillac Williams videos? I just looked at them and I am conviced this guy will be the best RB out of this class. He doesn't have all the measurables the other guys has, he just gets it done. Take a look at his running stlye, he is elusive. Hes the guy we need. DRAFT CADILLAC
 

volk

Seasoned Veteran
Joined
Feb 25, 2004
Messages
3,177
Reaction score
1,015
I agree with Omaha completely. It is harder for an excellent RB to succeed behind a poor OL than it is for an average RB to look like a pro-bowler behind a great OL.

The best RB in this year's draft simply is not worth a #2, and likely very few RB's will be taken at that for a very long time.
 

knight6jb

Pro Bowler
Joined
Jul 18, 2004
Messages
1,231
Reaction score
0
Age
35
Location
Orlando, Fl
NJPHIN34 said:
Have you guys taken a look at KNIGHT6JB's sig with the Cadillac Williams videos? I just looked at them and I am conviced this guy will be the best RB out of this class. He doesn't have all the measurables the other guys has, he just gets it done. Take a look at his running stlye, he is elusive. Hes the guy we need. DRAFT CADILLAC
Thats what I am talking about!!! CADDY 05'!!!!
 
Top Bottom