Dual Runningbacks? the way to go?

[dcarey20]

yes i like the 2 back system alot

i wouldn't mind a kenny irons/mike anderson combo next year.

[jkpigskin]

with the #2 pick... the lions should shore up the defense or qb.. but they might be tempted to go with adrian peterson

a peterson/jones combo will be scary........

though its doubtful, millen is unpredictable :D

[Tubby]

It depends who the RB's are. A duo of Jones and Barber will be much better than Cadillac Williams alone, but much worse than LDT alone

[swagger]

I like 2 backs.

And there are many more beyond the 4 teams in the Conference Championships: Dallas (MB3, JJ), Jax (MJD, Fred), Denver (Bell, Bell), San Diego (LT, Turner), NYG (Tiki, Jacobs), Carolina (D'Ang, Foster), to name some.

Being a Viking fan, I have noticed that Brad Childress has a penchant for giving ONLY one running back all the carries in a game. After Chester Taylor's team-leading 304 carries, the next highest on the team was Artose Pinner with 40. And when Chester Taylor missed a game (@ DET), he gave 30 carries to Artose Pinner. I think this is troubling because, imo, 2 different backs can thrive against different teams and get into a rhythm at different times. I have often seen one RB struggle and the backup spells him and thrives. I think it's a huge negative to rely solely on one guy unless he is a superstar. I don't think the Vikes will ever have a truly great run game until Childress divies up the carries.

[jkpigskin]

Originally Posted by swagger

I like 2 backs.

And there are many more beyond the 4 teams in the Conference Championships: Dallas (MB3, JJ), Jax (MJD, Fred), Denver (Bell, Bell), San Diego (LT, Turner), NYG (Tiki, Jacobs), Carolina (D'Ang, Foster), to name some.

Being a Viking fan, I have noticed that Brad Childress has a penchant for giving ONLY one running back all the carries in a game. After Chester Taylor's team-leading 304 carries, the next highest on the team was Artose Pinner with 40. And when Chester Taylor missed a game (@ DET), he gave 30 carries to Artose Pinner. I think this is troubling because, imo, 2 different backs can thrive against different teams and get into a rhythm at different times. I have often seen one RB struggle and the backup spells him and thrives. I think it's a huge negative to rely solely on one guy unless he is a superstar. I don't think the Vikes will ever have a truly great run game until Childress divies up the carries.

especially with chester, who was in his 1st year of a full time starter, and you could tell he was wearing down....

[PalmerToCJ]

Originally Posted by jkpigskin

perry is a real good pass catcher........ he deserves a shot to start somewhere

He would... If he could ever stay healthy.

In 3 years he's played in 22 games... He averages 4.6 YPC for his career and caught 51 passes last year. He's a great reciever coming out of the backfield and he's a nice change of pace from Rudi. He's the big play threat coming out of the backfield that we so desperately need but in 3 years he's only played more than 1/2 a season once...

He had 2 TD's in '05 of 60 yards or more called back via penalties. He's a definete big play threat and he's a big part of our offense when healthy (him and TJ are like the traditional pass catching TE in our offense).

He would've been huge vs. Indy this year, Rudi isn't set up to hit big runs... He just chips away and gets 4 every carry pretty consistently. If Perry is healthy next year that's big for our offense and it's why we struggled some this year, when our Oline was down he would've helped but he was hurt :evil:

[The Unseen]

Depends on who you have. Sounds obvious, but take MJD for instance. He is best when he is a role player like he was besides Fred Taylor's missed time. He is one of those "triple threats", and you can't be atleast the third (KR) as a feature guy. Also, I think alot of carries has effected his play negatively as the games where he has needed to carry the load had gone on.

It also helps to have two RB's willing to put aside their egos for the good of the team. In most cases, there is one RB who is more dominant than the other.

[Splat]

Originally Posted by Ron Mexico

It also helps to have two RB's willing to put aside their egos for the good of the team. In most cases, there is one RB who is more dominant than the other.

Duce and Bush.

[bigbluedefense]

Im a big believer in old school smashmouth offense. I believe in running on 1st, running on 2nd, and running some more on 3rd down. I love the run game, and I feel that the league as a whole is abandoning it too prematurely. For example, 3rd and 3 is a pass play just as much as its a run play nowadays. 3rd and 4 is almost exclusively a pass play. I feel that running the ball in these situations is actually a good thing, and should be used more often like it was back in the day.

I think part of the abandonment is the fact that players bodies break down more readily nowadays. Because of that, teams try to keep their run game fresh enough to make do in the playoffs.

This is why Im a big believer in the 2 back system for today's NFL. Having 2 backs with the same style technique allows you to play the run game you want for 4 quarters, 16 games a season. You keep your RBs in good health coming into the playoffs and you are able to run the ball more during a game because you keep your running attack fresher than the defense and healthier as a whole.

But for a 2 back system to work effectively, I believe that you must have 2 RBs that run a similar style. For example, if you have a power back, the #2 back should also be a power back. If you have a slasher, your #2 should be a slasher as well. I personally like the guys who have both speed and power, like a Laurence Maroney type, or Stephen Jackson, DeShawyn Wynn type. But the key is to have 2 guys who run the same way.

The change of pace idea is not the answer imo. It becomes obvious what type of play is coming on the field when you bring in a change of pace guy. That guy can't do the same things that your #1 Rb could do, so defenses adjust accordingly. Having a 2 that is equivalent to your one allows you to play your game, your style of offense for the entire game. Thats the best setup to me.

[portermvp84]

I'm in favor of the two back system, teams can go far if you have to solid backs and a stredy oline. My favoirte dual right now is Turner and LT. They make a great combo and are exciting to watch.

[bigmac076]

The only reason someone would be opposed to a "two-headed backfield" imo, is if they were more into Fantasy Football, rather than the game itself.

[Splat]

Im a big believer in old school smash mouth offense. I believe in running on 1st, running on 2nd, and running some more on 3rd down. I love the run game, and I feel that the league as a whole is abandoning it too prematurely. For example, 3rd and 3 is a pass play just as much as its a run play nowadays. 3rd and 4 is almost exclusively a pass play. I feel that running the ball in these situations is actually a good thing, and should be used more often like it was back in the day.

You would love Herm Edwards.

[bigbluedefense]

Originally Posted by Splat420

You would love Herm Edwards.

The problem is Herm is doing it with one guy, which could be a big problem. And Herm is too predictable with his formations and playcalling.

I like running the ball alot, always have. But I do have a problem with predictability, and Herm almost never throws on 1st down, and thats where I have a problem with his playcalling. Throw sometimes on 1st, run sometimes on 3rd. Use different formations, use motion, etc. Herm does none of that.

I personally feel that the run game should get a minimum of 35 touches a game. How you split that up and how you execute it varies, but 35 touches minimum from the run per game. 23 touches and 12 touches from the 2 guy is a nice method.

[The Unseen]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

Im a big believer in old school smashmouth offense. I believe in running on 1st, running on 2nd, and running some more on 3rd down. I love the run game, and I feel that the league as a whole is abandoning it too prematurely. For example, 3rd and 3 is a pass play just as much as its a run play nowadays. 3rd and 4 is almost exclusively a pass play. I feel that running the ball in these situations is actually a good thing, and should be used more often like it was back in the day.

I think part of the abandonment is the fact that players bodies break down more readily nowadays. Because of that, teams try to keep their run game fresh enough to make do in the playoffs.

This is why Im a big believer in the 2 back system for today's NFL. Having 2 backs with the same style technique allows you to play the run game you want for 4 quarters, 16 games a season. You keep your RBs in good health coming into the playoffs and you are able to run the ball more during a game because you keep your running attack fresher than the defense and healthier as a whole.

But for a 2 back system to work effectively, I believe that you must have 2 RBs that run a similar style. For example, if you have a power back, the #2 back should also be a power back. If you have a slasher, your #2 should be a slasher as well. I personally like the guys who have both speed and power, like a Laurence Maroney type, or Stephen Jackson, DeShawyn Wynn type. But the key is to have 2 guys who run the same way.
The change of pace idea is not the answer imo. It becomes obvious what type of play is coming on the field when you bring in a change of pace guy. That guy can't do the same things that your #1 Rb could do, so defenses adjust accordingly. Having a 2 that is equivalent to your one allows you to play your game, your style of offense for the entire game. Thats the best setup to me.

I disagree. I find nothing wrong with using a guy in situations that use him properly. If it's 3rd and inches, you put in the power back because he's the best at it. The best thing and offense can do is show the defense what they will likely do and do it anyways and beat them at it. Besides, you can always go play action on those plays.

If you have two similar guys that are both all-purpose, then do it. But that's rare in the NFL. I'll take the Jax duo, for instance. Fred Taylor is meant to be a guy who gets the majority of carries. He still has game-breaking speed and has great vision. However, he's a bad pass-catcher, not the best blocker, and is bad on short yardage. That's where Maurice Drew comes in. He is probably the better blocker, is a great pass catcher, and is good in short yardage because of how he never gives up and fits through the cracks of a defense. But like I said earlier, he can get worn out if he gets too many carries.

If the Jaguars had two Fred Taylors, things might not work out so well. Two Maurice Drews would work, but there aren't two Maurice Drews (but of course ;)). That's just how it is. LT and Michael Turner are the exception, not the rule.

[bigbluedefense]

Originally Posted by The Unseen

I disagree. I find nothing wrong with using a guy in situations that use him properly. If it's 3rd and inches, you put in the power back because he's the best at it. The best thing and offense can do is show the defense what they will likely do and do it anyways and beat them at it. Besides, you can always go play action on those plays.

If you have two similar guys that are both all-purpose, then do it. But that's rare in the NFL. I'll take the Jax duo, for instance. Fred Taylor is meant to be a guy who gets the majority of carries. He still has game-breaking speed and has great vision. However, he's a bad pass-catcher, not the best blocker, and is bad on short yardage. That's where Maurice Drew comes in. He is probably the better blocker, is a great pass catcher, and is good in short yardage because of how he never gives up and fits through the cracks of a defense. But like I said earlier, he can get worn out if he gets too many carries.

If the Jaguars had two Fred Taylors, things might not work out so well. Two Maurice Drews would work, but there aren't two Maurice Drews (but of course ;)). That's just how it is. LT and Michael Turner are the exception, not the rule.

They don't need to be identical clones, just run similarly. Like in Jacksonville, and in Dallas, theyre different yet similar. Both RBs in both systems are supposed to run between the tackles and finish with power. I know Drew can also bounce it outside, but so can Fred. Theyre similar yet different, but the overall character of their run game is the same.

Thats what I like. And you can definately have 2 RBs who are all purpose on the same team. Look at Marion Barber as a later round guy, and theres always all purpose guys in round 1. Rbs are very common, and I think their performance is determined moreso by the line than anything else. So if you build up your line, you can get 2 all purpose backs in mid rounds and use that 2 back system with alot of success.

[DeathbyStat]

Unless you have a top three caliber back 2 backs is the way to go.

[The Legend]

ok how about this

L.T. or Bush & McAlister

[draftguru151]

I just hope Ricky comes back next year as good as he was at the end of last season.

I think even if you have an elite back you need a good #2. LT is the best RB in the league but look at Michael Turner.

The only thing that bugs me is having Bush and Deuce in here, because both are first round, top notch backs. It is a very different situation than the other places.

[ny10804]

It was used to an extent in Green Bay and worked OK. There's little question that Ahman Green is better than Vernand Morency, but Morency had 421 yards and averaged 4.6 yards per carry, compared to Green's 1049 yards and 4.1 yards per carry. Whenever Morency came in, he got the bigger gains, because he was fresh (for every 3 times Ahman rushed the ball, Morency rushed once).

So yeah, I'd prefer a two back system.