PDA

View Full Version : Dual Runningbacks? the way to go?


jkpigskin
01-17-2007, 12:30 PM
interesting thing i noticed that all 4 teams left run with 2 runningbacks that both play a good amount of time

addai/rhodes
dillen/maroney
jones/benson
mcalister/bush


i saw it work to perfection against the ravens..... addai started the game and played the 1st 3 quarters..... then when they needed to kill time, they brought in the veteran rhodes who was fresh and he got some key first downs......

is this a start of a trend maybe? because surley it has worked

anyway i wanted to post this but never did, but then i found an article that talks about this

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=Am_WWeNKWepy.pZTtbaDQ2tDubYF?slug=jc-backs011707&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

devinhester=R.O.Y 2006
01-17-2007, 12:42 PM
I have really started to favor the 2 back system. I love what New England, Chicago, Indy, and New Orleans have done with the two backs. It seems as if the backs are fresher and less beat up on as the season goes on as their carries are lessened with the two back system. I think the key to the two back system is the fact that all four of the teams that are left have a vertern running back, and a rookie back with the exception of Benson in Chicago.

New England - Dillion (12 years)/ Maroney (Rookie)
Indianapolis - Rhodes (6 years)/ Addai (Rookie)
New Orleans - McAllister (6 years)/ Bush (Rookie)
Chicago - Jones (7 years)/ Benson (2 years)

I am definetly in favor of the two back system.

jkpigskin
01-17-2007, 12:44 PM
almost forgot that last year, the steelers had a semi combo running tandem of the bus and parker..... and they won the superbowl........

but like you implied... it works better if you have a veteran who can hold onto the ball and a talented young back

255979119
01-17-2007, 12:44 PM
New England uses a 3 back system :)

thule
01-17-2007, 12:49 PM
Well look at the NFL rushing stats

At the top of the NFL we have
Atlanta
San Diego
Jacksonville
Washington
Tennessee


At the bottom of the nfl we have
Detroit
Cleveland
Arizona
Oakland
Tampa Bay

I would say the 2 back system is good. However if you have a chance to get an elite back like LT or LJ then you have to take him and don't worry about it.

TheChampIsHere
01-17-2007, 03:54 PM
Well you dont necessarily have to use a 2 back system where you have 2 backs of equal ability that get equal PT, but its very important to have a good backup at HB. Even if you have a pro-bowler at HB, its still important. Look at how effective Turner was behind LT this year.

Eaglez.Fan
01-17-2007, 04:10 PM
I'd take guys like LT, LJ, Tiki, Westbrook or any star RB anyday over a 2 back system

rainbeaukid2
01-17-2007, 04:17 PM
I'd take guys like LT, LJ, Tiki, Westbrook or any star RB anyday over a 2 back system

i wouldnt, i would take maroney and dillon over those guys, maybe with the exception of LT

ElectricEye
01-17-2007, 04:19 PM
Well, its the trend right now. But it has yet to prove if it has staying power or not. I have yet to see the two back system effect the wins and losses of a team.
I suppose it depends on your personel. If you have an LT, LJ, or a guy of that stature, then I don't want to see them split carries. That would be stupid. If you have a few good guys and want to get the most from both, then the two back system would probably be the way to go.

MaxV
01-17-2007, 04:19 PM
The 2-back thing has been ok for Indy, but I believe the Colts' O is at its best when they have 1 feature RB.

That makes that play-action a more dangerous weapon.

Marion Barber III 24
01-17-2007, 04:24 PM
No love for MBIII and JJ :(

Splat
01-17-2007, 04:28 PM
When the Chiefs had both LJ and Priest it was not even fair for the other team.

PalmerToCJ
01-17-2007, 04:47 PM
Rudi Johnson/Chris Perry is a sweet combo... Too bad Perry is never healthy.

jkpigskin
01-17-2007, 05:00 PM
No love for MBIII and JJ :(

i was just mentioning teams that were in the championship round...... barber and jones make a great duo as well as jones-drew and taylor

Shiver
01-17-2007, 05:22 PM
It is the 'ideal' situation. If you can, you do a rotation.

keylime_5
01-17-2007, 05:22 PM
It's not like San Diego and Kansas City don't have great backup RBs. Michael Turner is a future pro bowler and Michael Bennett is a starter quality RB (injuries denied that though).

LT/Turner and LJ/Bennett are both way better than Dillon/Maroney or McAllister/Bush. It's not like LJ and LT are the only backs on their teams, they share some carries (albeit not as much as in NE or NO)

Eaglez.Fan
01-17-2007, 05:29 PM
Bennett did nothing when given a shot at starting in Minny. The only tihng he has proven is track speed. He hasn't proven anything in the run game.

JT Jag
01-17-2007, 05:31 PM
The Jaguars had a great two-back set this year.

Fred Taylor was the undisputed starter, but he was spelled by Drew, a guy who could be a undisputed starter in the right offense (The West Coast Offense to be precise--- one that gives him enough touches, but doesn't overuse him in the running game while honing on his receiving talent) in his own right.

Young Nasty Man
01-17-2007, 05:36 PM
Better for the Team. Keeps guys healthier. Fresh Legs more often....

I think im going with the two back tandem. But if I got LT he'll touch the ball 25 times a game atleast....

AZ9er
01-17-2007, 05:57 PM
I like marion barber III and JJ

Caddy
01-17-2007, 06:00 PM
I like Caddy and Michael Pittman :wink:

ks_perfection
01-17-2007, 06:04 PM
addai/rhodes
dillen/maroney
jones/benson
mcalister/bush


With the top 3 rhodes, maroney and benson weren't drafted to do a rotation but soon be the sole starter. In a couple of years all of those will be the starter and I doubt we'll see a balanced rotation, excluding Bush.

I think its important to have some kind of rotation, even if its very uneven like 3-1 or 4-1 so you don't end up with LJ running to death.

Gribble
01-17-2007, 06:11 PM
addai/rhodes
dillen/maroney
jones/benson
mcalister/bush


With the top 3 rhodes, maroney and benson weren't drafted to do a rotation but soon be the sole starter. In a couple of years all of those will be the starter and I doubt we'll see a balanced rotation, excluding Bush.

I think its important to have some kind of rotation, even if its very uneven like 3-1 or 4-1 so you don't end up with LJ running to death.

Like that would happen...

Wait...

WildDude
01-17-2007, 06:47 PM
Rudi Johnson/Chris Perry is a sweet combo... Too bad Perry is never healthy.

i thought he just didnt play

jkpigskin
01-17-2007, 06:50 PM
Rudi Johnson/Chris Perry is a sweet combo... Too bad Perry is never healthy.

i thought he just didnt play

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

dcarey20
01-17-2007, 06:53 PM
yes i like the 2 back system alot

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

jkpigskin
01-17-2007, 06:55 PM
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
01-17-2007, 07:23 PM
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
01-17-2007, 07:46 PM
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
01-17-2007, 07:47 PM
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
01-17-2007, 10:17 PM
Rudi Johnson/Chris Perry is a sweet combo... Too bad Perry is never healthy.

i thought he just didnt play

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
01-17-2007, 10:40 PM
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.

Ron Mexico
01-18-2007, 07:54 AM
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
01-18-2007, 09:06 AM
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
01-18-2007, 09:15 AM
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
01-18-2007, 09:47 AM
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
01-18-2007, 09:58 AM
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
01-18-2007, 10:00 AM
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
01-18-2007, 10:04 AM
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.

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
01-18-2007, 10:14 AM
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
01-18-2007, 10:27 AM
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.

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
01-18-2007, 11:29 AM
Unless you have a top three caliber back 2 backs is the way to go.

The Legend
01-18-2007, 02:56 PM
ok how about this

L.T. or Bush & McAlister

draftguru151
01-18-2007, 03:17 PM
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
01-18-2007, 03:34 PM
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.