Yeah, they take him out sometimes. But they don't take him out because he's incapable of doing whatever needs to be done. They take him out because they have another back who's really, really good - specifically, a running back that was 3rd in the league last year in yardage. It allows them to get the maximum value out of their two backs. If you have Adrian Peterson and Chris Johnson on the same team and they each get 20 carries a game, are they then situational backs in your mind? Because each will be taken out and used in the situations where they excel most despite the fact that they could be used more if you really wanted to.
When you have less than half of your team's rushing attempts and you haven't been injured half the year you are.
So next week, when Charles passes Jones in carries for the season, he's no longer a situational back? If it's 150 carries to 151, he's situational, but if it's 151 to 150, he's not?
If the team puts in AP in specific situations and CJ in specific other yardage situations, and they basically split the yards, then unless Miram Webster has altered the dictionary when I wasn't looking the definition of the word "situational" necessitates that they are.
I don't know how much of the nfl you actually watch but teams run two backs all the time. arian foster is becoming a lot less of the norm, its not situational, its not running your star back in the ground after 5 years.
He's still only getting the ball in about half of the situations where they decide to run the ball. And they specifically aren't choosing the situations which are short yardage situations. He is still situational - he only gets the ball in a specific, fractional set of circumstances.
If they run one guy 3 rushes, and another two rushes without regard to the situation, then that is regular substitution. If they look at down and distance, and choose one running back in about half the situations, and another in about the other half, that is what is known as situational substitution which makes the back chosen a situational back. Same thing with DE's who lead the league in sacks, but don't play on first down, or second and short. Those are situational linemen. I'm not making the word up. It is pretty clearly defined.
Fair enough. Then Arian Foster is a situational back too. Because he will be taken out in specific situations of the game as well. Fewer of them, certainly, but nevertheless, he's taken out during certain situations, so he must be a situational back. As is every single other running back in the league, apparently. That said, your definition of situational makes the whole topic sort of irrelevant anyway. The way you define it, being situational is not a negative. If AP and CJ are the on the same team, and each gets 2000 yards because the teams runs every play so they get the same carries as a normal "feature" back, you define them as situational. But it wouldn't make them lesser backs than they would be as feature backs, and it would still leave them as the two best backs in football in that scenario.
do you actually watch KC enough to make this assumption because the games I've watched them play, they play jones a series or charles a series.
Which ones? Because according to Gary Kubiak, they run on a rotation, regardless of down and distance. Also, Arian can be pulled if he appears winded. Those aren't situational substitutions. If you are talking about when he gets pulled for the "drop a knee" formation or the punting team, and you want to be pedantic, then fine. Again, I'm not the one making up the terms. Reggie Bush, despite rushing for 1700+ yards at USC was described by scouts as a situational college back.
From what I saw, Charles doesn't rush in the red zone. TJ doesn't get in on third and 20. I haven't watched every game that KC played. But what I did watch, that is what I saw. Edit: I looked up the situational attempts at fanhouse.com, and my impression seems to be born out. TJ rushes a bunch more on first down and shorter yardage, Charles has almost all the third down carries, and most of the longer yardage attempts.
okay whatever, I'm not arguing charles is more valuable than foster, I'd rather have the bigger traditional back. I fear for charles's health, but he is only a slightly less version of chris johnson, another small speedy every down back. and I believe in due time, just like the titans jettisoned white, charles will be getting the ball on goal line situations too
Except that they really don't substitute that way. Most of their substitution is to just give them each different series. Today, Charles had more carries in 2nd and 3rd & short situations than Jones. They certainly favor Jones in the short-yardage situations, but they both get those carries and they mostly just switch RBs based on getting each one rest. The idea that they do what you suggest comes from the 3 TDs that Charles has - but the reality is that Thomas Jones only has 5 himself. And of those, Charles has two goal line TDs while Jones has 4. That's not exactly a huge difference. They both are played in those situations.
Look up the situational stats for each. There is a significant split. It isn't an absolute split, so if it pleases you I'll say he tends towards being a situational back.
Really? 2nd and 3 or less: Charles: 10 carries Jones: 13 carries 3rd and 3 or less: Charles: 5 carries Jones: 7 carries 4th and 3 or less: Charles: 1 carry Jones: 2 carries That's not a significant difference in short yardage situations. That's a pretty healthy splitting of carries with a slight favoring of Jones.
Not sure how some of you are not understanding the term "situational" back. Charles is one of the best running backs in the league, but he is certainly a situational back, there is clear evidence supporting that throughout the thread. Arian Foster is an every down back. he is in for short yardage, long yardage, goalline, designed pass plays, etc.
First down attempts 90 to 75 favoring Jones. Third down attempts 22 to 12 favoring Charles. Second and 6+ 40 to 30 for Charles. Second and 3-7 35 to 28 for Jones. Third and 6+ 9 to 1 for Charles.
