re: Why the change in RB philosophy?

The same year we got PT was the same year we drafted Pittman in the 4th (iirc he was rated higher but slipped slightlt due to some character issues). We just simply kept the best back.

The year before that we drafted Bush 2nd overall.

In 2011 we traded up to draft Ingram in the first.

And I don't give a frick what some people may think of them, but KRob and Cadet were not good backs.

KRob had one really good run, and could get a few tough yards here and there, but he wasn't a good pass catcher or blocker.

Cadet couldn't run for shite and was a very mediocre receiver because he had basically no yac yards. 5 yards and down about everytime.

So the only two truly good backs we hit on as UDFAs were Thomas and Ivory, and Ivory was always getting banged up and it took him years (sometime after being with us) to develop into a decent blocker.

We've had more success in the draft than with UDFAs (3-2 for actually good talent). We've used both over the years, but we have not had any kind of shift in philosophy.

Edit:
As for the vets for depth, we've been bringing them in BECAUSE we haven't hit on any UDFA HBs. We've brought in at least one every year and haven't found any worth a shite since KRob, nor any actual good ones since Ivory. That's not for lack of trying though.

Plus as mentioned above we've had our fair share of veteran depth throughout the years also, plus one really good vet in Sproles.