| We all know that trends drive NFL strategy. We
also know that this is a league of copycat coaches and front-office people, which is not a
bad thing. If some new strategy is a proven winner, why not try it out on another team?
The Ravens are a perfect example. They won the Super Bowl last year with defense in large
part because they had two massive defensive tackles in Tony Siragusa and Sam Adams to
protect MLB Ray Lewis and stop the run.
So, this offseason other teams are trying to drop an anchor or two on defense with
their own 300-plus-pound tackles to see if that helps them. There’s nothing wrong
with that. However, there is one trend that seems to be pushing its way to the forefront
and shouldn’t be — the running back-by-committee.
The Raiders, using a committee in the running game, were the top-ranked rushing offense
last year. RBs Tyrone Wheatley, Napoleon Kaufman (since retired), Randy Jordan and Zack
Crockett were the major players of a running attack that totaled 2,470 yards and 23
touchdowns on the year. Rich Gannon accounted for 21.4 percent (529 yards) of the yardage.
Pretty successful, I’d agree. But no reason to start a trend, I’d argue.
Another team that employed a RB-by-committee philosophy in 2000 was Buffalo, mostly out
of necessity. The Bills were forced into a committee because of injuries and poor play.
None of the Bills’ four running backs in 2000 (Antowain Smith, Jonathan Linton, Shawn
Bryson and Sammy Morris) was dominant enough to stake claim to being the featured back.
Morris showed flashes of scoring ability during his chance to start, but then injured his
ankle. Under this system, the Bills ranked 13th in the league in rushing, and
of the 1,922 yards the Bills racked up, QBs Rob Johnson and Doug Flutie had 468. That was
24.3 percent of the Bills’ total.
Also, keep in mind that Buffalo did not make the playoffs with this running game in
place, and Oakland did not make the Super Bowl. Now, you say, winning the Super Bowl
should not be the lone criterion for starting a trend, and I agree. But long-term success
should be a major factor in other teams’ decision on whether to follow the trend.
Just because the Raiders led the league in rushing one year with a running
back-by-committee does not mean they’ll do it again. If the Raiders can repeat this
feat with Charlie Garner in the fold, then teams can look at the committee approach. But
they must give the strategy time to prove itself worthy of being a trend.
Personally, I don’t like the RB-by-committee approach. I never did, and it’s
not because I play fantasy football. Players want to be out on the field, and that’s
what they’re paid millions to do, regardless of whether they’re winning or
losing. If you asked any backup on the Ravens whether they’d rather be sitting on the
bench and getting a ring or on the field contributing with no ring, I’d bet
they’d rather be on the field.
The same goes for the running back-by-committee. What does it say to a player who is
taken out because he’s not the goal-line specialist, despite the fact that he just
ripped off a 50-yard run to get his team down to the goal line? Even worse, what happens
when the so-called specialist doesn’t score or fumbles?
Running backs need to get into a rhythm during a game. Watch Titans RB Eddie George or
Jets RB Curtis Martin for an entire game one time if you never have. The reason these guys
carry nearly 30 times per game is because they need to do it to find their rhythm. George
and Martin typically don’t bust out of the gate and rip off a 60-yard run in the
first quarter because they aren’t that sort of back. But in the fourth quarter,
it’s not shocking to see either of them bust through for a big gain once the defense
is tired. Can you imagine how limited George and Martin would be if they were in a
committee? We probably wouldn’t be talking about them as Pro Bowl players nowadays.
My point is that the Bills and Raiders seem content with keeping a committee mentality,
and the Chiefs, Patriots, Browns, Bears, Packers and Giants could easily move in that
direction with the personnel they have in the backfield. It’s a direction that
dead-ends, and teams need to dig deeper and see that featuring one running back is the way
to go. Just as Gary Crowton's fad offense for the Bears died last year once teams saw it
in action a few times, the running back-by-committee must die.
Featuring one running back keeps players knowledgeable of their roles, avoids
unnecessary conflicts and keeps the offense in sync and in rhythm during each game. |
