I agree with you ... somewhat.
Originally Posted by ctchiefsfan
I guess it just depends on one, who your best running back is and two, how much your offense runs the ball. If you have an Adrian Peterson, a Walter Payton or an Emmit Smith, you can give them 30-40 carries a game. But most teams don't have that luxury. You look at RBs like Shaun Alexander and Larry Johnson (sorry!) and they were outstanding for a few years, but quickly got "used up."
Also, if you are a team who relies on a "balanced" offense--in other words, you run the ball more than everybody else does, lol--then it really helps out a team to have a 2nd RB who can produce.
I think it is very rare that you have a 50/50 split, or with 3 RBs a 40/30/30 split, but Denver has done well in the past with multiple running backs. It only makes sense that you will give the bulk of the carries to you best RB, since your run offense is going to be more productive when he is carrying the ball.
You hear phrases like "thunder and lightening" a lot lately, and I think that works well if you have one RB who is an open field slasher/speedster and another who is a big bruising guy that can get you 3 or 4 yds in 3rd down and goal line situations.
It seems counter-intuitive that, in a game that relies more and more on the pass, we need more running backs, but that seems to be where we're headed. Defenders are much bigger, faster and stronger than they were 20 or 30 yrs ago, and RBs wear down more quickly. There is only so much "tread on the tires."
It's like you need to add just enough soy to extend the beef, but not so much that it no longer tastes good. If you can have a 2nd back that comes in every 3rd or 4th offensive series, that makes a big difference. 2 years ago we had Charles rushing for 1467 yds and Jones adding another 896 and we led the NFL in rushing. That was a pretty effective "committee!"
***Official Chiefs Crowd Game Thread Starter***
MatthewsChiefs is an okay guy ... I guess.