- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Running Backs: "By Committe", or "Feature Back"?
Posted on 5/13/13 at 10:05 am
Posted on 5/13/13 at 10:05 am
Years ago, the cliche was, "He gets stronger as the game goes on."
Now, I hear, "They've got fresh legs in the game."
Which one would you go with?
Now, I hear, "They've got fresh legs in the game."
Which one would you go with?
This post was edited on 5/13/13 at 10:30 am
12
Posted on 5/13/13 at 10:08 am to Blind Boy Grunt
Obviously depends on who my RB is. If it's Adrian Peterson then I want him getting as many carries as possible. If it's a team like the Saits with a bunch of "guys" then it makes sense to rotate them throughout the game and have roles for each guy.
Posted on 5/13/13 at 10:08 am to Blind Boy Grunt
Option B
Posted on 5/13/13 at 10:08 am to Blind Boy Grunt
Committee
Posted on 5/13/13 at 10:13 am to okietiger
I agree. I was thinking of someone like Hill, at LSU, if available, this year. I would run him until his legs gave out.
Posted on 5/13/13 at 10:17 am to Blind Boy Grunt
depends.. guys like ap and foster get better and better as the game goes on. where other guys do better with leas carries and fresh legs. Totally depends on the players, its a situation by situation play
Posted on 5/13/13 at 10:20 am to Blind Boy Grunt
Unless you have a truly elite RB, committee is better because of injuries. Also you can have rbs that specialize in different things-short yardage, recieving, blocking. Not many can do everything well.
And feature backs cost alot more in the NFL for the same production you can get out of 2-3 late rounders and spread the injury risk.
And feature backs cost alot more in the NFL for the same production you can get out of 2-3 late rounders and spread the injury risk.
Posted on 5/13/13 at 10:21 am to Blind Boy Grunt
I say feature back, assuming he's a stud.
Like when we had Knowshon, I wanted him getting the bulk of the carries. When we had Kregg Lumpkin, Thomas Brown, and Danny Ware, there really wasn't any one of them that stood head and shoulders above the rest so I was fine with platooning them.
Like when we had Knowshon, I wanted him getting the bulk of the carries. When we had Kregg Lumpkin, Thomas Brown, and Danny Ware, there really wasn't any one of them that stood head and shoulders above the rest so I was fine with platooning them.
Posted on 5/13/13 at 10:27 am to Blind Boy Grunt
Depends on the backs. If I have a feature back and someone as good as him, by committee, but if I have a feature back and more that aren't on his level, use the feature back the most and let the others just spell him here and there.
If I have a few solid ones, by committee.
If I have a few solid ones, by committee.
Posted on 5/13/13 at 10:37 am to AllBamaDoesIsWin
Give me the stud feature back.
Posted on 5/13/13 at 10:46 am to Blind Boy Grunt
I'm going with the committee approach, even though this isn't exactly "committee."
I'd have a primary back, meaning the RB with better talent, then a couple role playing guys. The primary would get the majority of carries, as he'd give our team the best chance to win. However, the other back or two would have roles built within the offense to take carries, too. (For example, 20 carries split 12/4/4 or 10/5/5)
I'd still use that primary RB the majority of time, just strategically subbed to keep him fresh.
I'd have a primary back, meaning the RB with better talent, then a couple role playing guys. The primary would get the majority of carries, as he'd give our team the best chance to win. However, the other back or two would have roles built within the offense to take carries, too. (For example, 20 carries split 12/4/4 or 10/5/5)
I'd still use that primary RB the majority of time, just strategically subbed to keep him fresh.
Posted on 5/13/13 at 10:50 am to EvrybodysAllAmerican
quote:
spread the injury risk.
If you are left with a guy that is not an every down back that needs "fresh legs" to be effective, is it really spreading the risk?
I'd take a feature back like AD, Lynch, Foster, or Gore over the committee.
Posted on 5/13/13 at 10:52 am to Blind Boy Grunt
C) A committee of feature backs.
Posted on 5/13/13 at 10:58 am to Archie Bengal Bunker
Its nice to have a feature back but i wouldnt throw a high draft pick on one nor would i give one a big contract
Posted on 5/13/13 at 11:03 am to Blind Boy Grunt
I tend to lean on a feature back unless you can really mix up the playcalling.
Prime example was when the Saints had Thomas, Ingram, Ivory, and Sproles. In 2011 Payton was able to mix and match them almost fluidly. In 2012, you knew exactly what the playcall was going to be based on who was in the game.
I think the best option honestly is to have a system like Carolina does. Have two "feature backs" that way you can still keep each fresh and in case of injury, the other one can carry the load, but then you're also not tipping your hand based on who's in the game
Prime example was when the Saints had Thomas, Ingram, Ivory, and Sproles. In 2011 Payton was able to mix and match them almost fluidly. In 2012, you knew exactly what the playcall was going to be based on who was in the game.
I think the best option honestly is to have a system like Carolina does. Have two "feature backs" that way you can still keep each fresh and in case of injury, the other one can carry the load, but then you're also not tipping your hand based on who's in the game
Posted on 5/13/13 at 11:16 am to Brettesaurus Rex
quote:
like Carolina does. Have two "feature backs" that way you can still keep each fresh and in case of injury, the other one can carry the load, but then you're also not tipping your hand based on who's in the game
You call them feature backs, i call them overpaid and overrated
Posted on 5/13/13 at 11:18 am to Blind Boy Grunt
Like others said, it depends. I liked how Indianapolis did it in 2006 with Rhodes and Addai. 55/45 split with Rhodes starting and Addai getting the most carries. Addai was kinda slow starting so they would sorta work him in until he was rolling then ride him. They complemented each other well.
Posted on 5/13/13 at 11:47 am to Blind Boy Grunt
I think the speed and the advancements in medicine/technology has pretty much ruined most "feature back" teams. Yes, you still have the AP's, or Chris Johnson's of the world, but with the physicality of the game it's more common place to have 2-3 backs on the team that can carry the load evenly. This allows your offense to remain steady, and it saves the backs' careers later on down the line from not taking so many hits over the course of the season.
Posted on 5/13/13 at 12:42 pm to Blind Boy Grunt
I'm a fantasy player, so I vote FEATURE BACK
Posted on 5/13/13 at 12:47 pm to Blind Boy Grunt
Committee....
This post was edited on 5/13/13 at 12:48 pm
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News