I love how people always brings up the exception and not the majority, until Leon can learn how to block and run up the middle, which he was bad in last year he shouldn't by any means be the starting RB, right now he fits perfectly as a 3rd down scat back, Houston is not going to get the job done either, he is glass to be blunt, and with his opportunities he was mediocre. We need a RB plain and simple.
Fact of the matter is, the actual RB is very much overrated when it comes to the running game. The O-line is what really matters. Take a look at the top RB's and you'll almost always see great OL's. There are some very rare exceptions (think Barry Sanders or Walter Payton), but for the most part, it's the OL's that make for good running games. For further evidence, take a look at the teams that have OL injuries vs. those that have RB injuries. The OL injuries almost always have a bigger impact in terms of yards and yards per carry than the RB injuries. I actually think Houston and Washington are good enough. Unless we're getting hall-of-fame talent, we're not going to upgrade much by getting a new RB. A guard who can pull, a tackle who can mash and the further development of Brick and Mangold will improve our running game much more than an upgrade at RB IMO.
Did you factor in the style of runner the RB is? For the most part when the RB goes down in injury the team's running attack goes with it, if an olineman gets injured it depends on which side and who is it, because teams can always focus on running on one side of the ball. I remember people said the same thing in last years draft, and we didn't have a running attack last year. You bring up that the oline is key and the RB is overrated, if that is the case than the QB is the most overrated thing in football. The RB gives the QB options, he is a key in blocking, can be the most dominating person on the field, and as well give help to our WRs by forcing 8 in the box.
i guess he can be like a brian westbrook for us there exactly the same as far as height and weight and shifty ness
Did I factor in the style of the runner? Yes. Both RB and OL injuries cause yards and yards per carry to go down, but OL injuries much more than RB injuries. Why do you think so many teams use two different backs and have success with BOTH? Is it that the two talents on the team are so great and even? No, it's because teams have realized that if the OL can push the DL down the field 3 yards every down, the RB, even if it's a poor one (no matter the style), will get around 5 per carry. Even a High School running back can run through wide-open holes. That's why I don't believe in this Michael Turner hype. San Diego has a fantastic OL. Put Leon Washington behind that line and I would bet he would have done just as well or even better. We're not going to upgrade too much, and though it gives us a different style of back, it's not worth a 2nd rounder and $5~$6 million per year on our cap for the next 5 years. Better to use that 2nd rounder on a mashing/pulling guard or tackle and the money on a good OL coach that can get more out of Brick and Mangold.
Now you are just looking at teams with RBBC well of course if you look at teams if they lose one they will have another and it may be ok for a short period of time, but the majority of the teams still have the workhorse in the backfield and if they lose that player it will cripple their entire offense, and if you are looking for 2 yards per carry than continue your thought that the RB doesn't matter, the RB still has to see the holes and run into them with power, a crappy RB can't do that, and the real idea is to make it to the SB right? with a below average RB you aren't going anywhere with your run game no matter how good our oline is, because elite defenses can stonewall the best of the olines, and remember we have to go through New England, with our RBs as is, it is not going to cut it, while it is true that the oline is important, don't play stupid and tell me that with the crap we have we can have an elite run game.
Isn't this true of any elite RB nowadays? Do you buy the Tomlinson hype then? The LJ hype? For that matter...how about QBs? They depend on the line. Do you buy the Manning hype? Marino? Bradshaw? And no one said anything nice about the Chargers O-line until this year with McNeill. Turner is a 3 year pro who has been impressing anytime he touched the ball for a while now. All this really says is: Build the O-Line and your running game improves. After that it's really who you like at RB. My personal pick is Turner obviously.
ok... lets stop the nonsence here ladies and gents... Leon, no matter how much we'd like to reach for him to be a starter, is not a starting back. Can he be... who knows. Brian Westbrook is just beginning to fit into that mold, Tiki Barber took 3 or 4 years, Warrick Dunn, same thing. Face the facts people. At this juncture of the man's career, he should not be the starter. If you make him the starter, you run the risk of shortening a potentially good career for the kid, byt getting him injured. USE COMMON SENSE... he, at this stage of the game, is not suited to be a starting RB in the NFL. Ellis
Thank you, Jtuds, for pointing out the difference between the incorrect "are" vs. the correct "our" in the thread title. I happen to know that I am one, anal son of a bitch when it comes to posting, but I find it hard to even address a thread unless I know the writer can spell correctly. I know this is wrong and I know this is a fault. And I do know that a poster can have excellent football knowledge and yet not be able to spell worth a damn. But damn it, if you want credibility on a board such as this, why not at least try to make an effort to spell and punctuate correctly? If you want people to take you seriously, then you need to stop making a joke of yourself! I'm not directing this at the original poster... or even anyone here in particular... Hell, I don't even know who the original poster was at this point and I'm too lazy to go back and find out. But Christ Almighty, let's all try to exhibit some semblance of 4th-grade writing skills, shall we? Can we at least proofread titles? Thank you so much for your collective consideration.
Whether it's right or not, spelling "our" as "are" makes the cedibilty of the thread starter's opinion to be seriously in doubt. The connection being, if one is only a notch above literacy, then their opinion is likely also equally flawed. That might not be fair, but it is what it is, in the words of our "at the end of the day" ex-head coach. As many have mentioned, it's not nearly a function of the RB's abilty to run between the tackles as it is the ability for the O line to run block. Turner, Turner, Turner..... yada yada yada. Anyone rememebr Antonio Chatman? His numbers were better than Turners at SD as Tomlinson's backup. Where is he now? Tomlinson is a great RB, but it's that line that gives him the chance at greatness. Barber was too small to be a feature back for years. Dunn was clearly too small. It isn't about height and weight. It's about having an O line that can get an RB to the second level without getting hit once in a while. Look at how S Alexander's numbers fell off without the tandem of Walter Jones and Hutchinson to run behind. Martin had a great career, but most of it was spent running to the outside behind an O line that was good at pulling. Its been a couple of decades since the Jets had a power O line that could open holes up the middle. This O line can't do it either, but we run between the guards more often than all but two other NFL teams. I still think with this O line the Jets should run more sweeps with Washington. Until we get a road grader or two at RG and RT, we still won't be able to open holes for ANY RB to get through the line without getting hit once, or twice. No, Washington will never be Bettis, but that doesn't shut the door on him being a twenty carry guy behind an O line that can power block either.
So you want the ultimate big runningback? I'm not saying that what you said is unreasonable, but one of the reason many big backs struggle finding starting jobs, is that they simply do not block well at all. They have slow feet, which means they don't shift well to the blitzer. One of the biggest knocks on Steven Jackson out of college was his blocking. He was a tremendous athlete, but slipped into the late first round because of it.
I don't mean to be harsh here, because this may have been your opinion all along, however I have brought up many of the same points, yet they seem to get ignored. I hope someone reads this and believes that I'm not the only crazy one.
JV, not crazy, sensible. I've never been on the "Let's get an RB bandwagon" since last year's draft. The LAST piece one should add to a team that is to be a perenial super bowl contender is an RB anyway. In addition, RB's can be found later in the draft. That is a function of good scouting, and finding value in the third round and later. This kid Booker could be one of those. In the draft discussions last year, I had to wade through all of these "we need DeAngelo, we need Maroney, we need etc." posts. Hey, if we were in the top ten this year, I'd buy into drafting Peterson that early, but we aren't. Turner is no shoo-in to be a stud RB. I've read about him doing too much dancing in the backfield this year as well. You want a good running game, get a good run blocking O line. Willie Parker is an average RB, but behind Pittsburgh's O line, he is very productive. Look at Gore.... behind an O line that couldn't block, he was nothing to write home about. SF upgraded the O line, and Gore turns into a beast. I've been with ya all along....
Lets just name all the prospects in the draft that would suit our needs... what type of back to we want how tall how much weight how fast. do we want a back that can do it all??
Those linebackers possess the lateral quickness and pursuit speed they need to make a less physical back much less effective. No, their 40 times aren't spectacular, but in a system that is so interchangable, they don't need a fast 40. Maybe 'fast' was a bad choice of words, but those guys get to the ball faster than many 'fast' linebackers because they are coached well and their instincts make up for it, in addition to lateral quickness and pursuit speed.
