Committee or Solo?

[Hunter2_1]

 

If you were assembling an offense, would you prefer to go for the traditional clear number one running back or the contemporary option of a number of backs who can bring specialised attributes to different scenarios? 

Let's say the number one would be a standard every down running back, and was a clear number one option (LT, Larry Johnson, Jamal Lewis kind of player)

and just to jog your memory, committee examples could include Dunn/Duckett, Blount/Lewis/James, Thomas/Sproles/Ingram, Bradshaw/Jacobs etc.

[Hunter2_1]

My answer is the running backs by committee. I think you could tap into scenarios better. You could have a running back that is great at pass blocking (so you put him in on obvious passing downs), you could have a good receiving back (same deal, maybe both on same down), you could also have a truck of a running back on your books (a la Jacobs or Alstott) that you could put in on 3rd and inches, for example. 

Together, they are greater than the some of their parts, but individually, they wouldn't be winning any fantasy contests over your Bells and Elliots. 

[tom cody]

I went with Option 1 for me. Good for injuries as well. You have 1 guy go down to injury and then you have another guy of equal skill step in to replace him and the team not miss a beat.

[ET80]

I actually choose the every down guy. The RBBC is lighter on the salary cap and does protect against injury - but a true three down threat in the vein of LT, Marshall Faulk, AP, etc - when they take over a game, they take OVER. There's just no stopping them at all.

[JAF-N72EX]

It may be a passing league, but an every down back instantly become a focal point on offense that defenses have to not only prepare and game plan for but also account for all game and not just situational. This, in turn, opens up the playbook more on offense and gives them alot more of options and variety in terms of play-calling (i.e. Play-action, shotgun, etc).

It's no secret that most offenses use an 11 personnel package the majority of the time and having an every down back instantly gives them an advantage in terms of success rate. 

Ofcourse, this is also dependent on the offensive play-caller utilizing this aspect and said back's skill-set properly and to not think he is smarter than the game itself. Haley and Arians are good examples of this.

[Hunter2_1]

2 hours ago, EliteTexan80 said:

I actually choose the every down guy. The RBBC is lighter on the salary cap and does protect against injury - but a true three down threat in the vein of LT, Marshall Faulk, AP, etc - when they take over a game, they take OVER. There's just no stopping them at all.

Yeah, that's the trade off. The every down guy will most probably be a top 10 RB in the league and can win you games, but if he goes down, it's back to the drawing board. RBBC is more versatile and injury proof, but individual quality not as high.

[mse326]

I'll take the every down guy and and have some role players behind. The problem with a true RBBC where each brings something different is that you tip your hand on offense depending on which is in the game.

[Aout]

Committee all day.

 

- Allows your guys to rest (I will never ever understand teams that force the run and want their RB to run every 2 plays against stacked boxes). Also makes your RBs last a LOT longer. Look at the RBs the Saints have been using over the last 7 years or so, they've all enjoyed a long career, from Sproles to Ivory.

- If your RB gets injured, you're not screwed.

- You get more specialized players : Sproles and Thomas for the screens, Ivory for the power runs etc and... you can trick the opponent easily by mixing things up and letting Sproles carrying the ball or having Ivory in the flat

- Allows you to groom some guys, or rediscover some talents by giving them gradually more and more playing time (think about Hightower last year or guys like Khiry Robinson - one of the best power back the Saints had over the last 5 years.)

[Kiwibrown]

Assuming I don't have a great QB no 1 RB, for an offence to have a chance you need a focal point, Id rather have a QB.

If I have a top 5 QB, then RB by committee as it is cheaper and not forced into the RB being the focus of the offence, I think a good QB makes the RB by committee work. See Tom Brady and Drew Brees. 
the Browns had a decent committee of running backs last year, and in 2015 and 2014 and it didn't help much. 

[Hunter2_1]

1 hour ago, Kiwibrown said:

Assuming I don't have a great QB no 1 RB, for an offence to have a chance you need a focal point, Id rather have a QB.

If I have a top 5 QB, then RB by committee as it is cheaper and not forced into the RB being the focus of the offence, I think a good QB makes the RB by committee work. See Tom Brady and Drew Brees. 
the Browns had a decent committee of running backs last year, and in 2015 and 2014 and it didn't help much. 

Good observation, that.

[Iamcanadian]

Obviously, teams that depend on RB by committee simply lack a great RB and are therefore forced to rely on a group. If you are using the group concept, there is the problem that the defense has a much stronger knowledge of what play is coming depending on the substitutions. That's the basic flaw in RB by committee. I'll take Dallas's situation any day of the week. The other problem with RB by committee is, that the OL may not feel comfortable in its blocking with all the substitutions.

 

This doesn't mean you don't need a 2nd RB who can give the starter a blow every so often, but that is different than putting in a runner vs putting in a receiver or pass blocker depending on the play. The defense loves playing against teams like that since they don't have to give a lot of thought on what the next play will be.

 

Now, if you have a QB like Brady and a coach like BB, it really doesn't matter as BB really doesn't telegraph the next play.