After we had fun with the QBs, I thought it would be fun to continue onto "Building the Perfect RB". I made the series and put it on a blog so there could be cool pictures and ****... so please refer here to help give me glorious recognition... http://www.gusgasm.com/2011/10/part-2-build-perfect-running-back.html Rules: Select 2 out of 8 attributes to build the perfect RB.
I'd like to see Marcus Allen (and his modern day equivalent, Arian Foster) get a mention for his blocking, pass catching, and vision (ability to find holes and accelerate through them at the right time, etc). I'd call it, jack of all trades. Marshall Faulk was a receiving weapon for the ages, but he wasn't the I-formation terror, nor pass blocker that Allen was. So I think it deserves its own category. Agree?
Tomlinson was a better version of Allen, and Faulk led the league in YPC during the Rams heyday (99-01)
I think Allen was a little more smooth between the tackles than LT, and I'm not taking anything away from Faulk (not sure what your point is, I know he was the best receiving RB of all time). Based on the characteristics you've mentioned, it seems like another category that might fit or deserves a mention.
I meant yards per carry. Marcus never did like the fact that for a couple years he wasn't even the best RB on his own team.
Yes, but didn't he do the majority of his killing off-tackle? And even then, it reminds me of a guy like UH's Chuck Weatherspoon... he led the nation in YPC, because the offense was so deadly through the air that when he touched the ball on the ground (which was around 15 times per game, like Faulk), he gashed people... but it didn't mean he was a terror between the tackles necessarily. I don't think Bo Jackson being a BAMF takes anything away from Marcus.
I guess it depends who's asking. As a football fan, I want my team's RB to be #4 and #7. As an armchair GM, I want my team's RB to be #4 and #8. The longevity aspect is hard to overlook. So many flavor-of-the-week RB's bust out for a season or two then are never heard from again. It really makes you appreciate a true franchise RB that can put it together for a full career.
You're one argumentative **** Longevity is a good attribute but I wonder if it even means anything anymore. Guys like Emmitt were more like exceptions to the rule. Curtis Martin is another guy who had a long career. Many RBs were great for short periods of time and then fizzled out. Shaun Alexander, Ricky, Ahman Green, etc.
#7 & 8. It's a nearly impossible combination to have, but I've always thought Earl was the best running back at his peak, it's just that his peak was so short. Give me the guy that you can count on for 4 yards, and that it always takes multiple tacklers to bring down, over the guy that you hope might break one every day.
I love the idea of a RB with no longevity issues. I mean, generally speaking we all know the blueprint to winning a SB: great QB play and a good defense. Plus, a RB is only as good as his offensive line. Give me the RB that's good at a lot of things (but great at nothing) that's tough enough to play for a long time. If you get lucky and land a guy that can play for a while, you can prioritize your needs elsewhere instead of having to worry about one of your top skill positions every couple years.
Most fun-to-watch running back ever. But your "perfect RB" shouldn't have the NFL record for negative yards and negative carries (only partially his fault, granted), right?
