Rank these running backs

[Golden_Rhino]

My memory might be a little hazy, but I'm pretty sure that TD was waaayyy better than the other guys. (Could just be because I'm a Packer's fan and he pwned us in the bowl).

[TheNoodleMan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
your comment about being not being replaceable by a backup applies to everyone on this list.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rhodes / Williams backed up Edge well, and Addai replaced him no problem.



[/ QUOTE ]

Edge put up numbers that that blow every other Indy RB out of the water.

His rookie year he had 2139 yards from scrimmage and 17 TDs.
His 2nd year 2303 yards and 18 TDs.

Rhodes best season was 1328 and 9TDs.

Willaims has under 400 total yards in his career, he isn't relevant at all.

Addai has been putting up solid numbers through his first season and a half, but he isn't anywhere close to what Edge did. His season and a half of work (2387 yds and 17 TDs) are equal to about one season by young Edge.

[Phildo]

[ QUOTE ]
i don't see how edge isn't the consensus here. TD/portis/SA/holmes all were at least somewhat influenced by great offensive lines and offensive schemes.

[/ QUOTE ]
uh, so was edge

[TwoToGo-Grave]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
TD and Priest are both products of a great system,

[/ QUOTE ]
Why do you have SA #1?

[/ QUOTE ]
I see him as a workhorse back who could not be replaced by a backup (with anywhere approaching similar success) and I see him as being simply the best runner of all backs here.
Of course, I MAY be biased as an Alabama fan who loved watching him for four great years in college, but I think that I'm unbiased here.

[/ QUOTE ]

your comment about being not being replaceable by a backup applies to everyone on this list. as far as him being the best runner-- no one runs exceptionally well w/o blocking, but he has looked strikingly average sans hutchinson + strong.

[/ QUOTE ]

That could be a result of his hitting the wall that all running backs hit, or most likely a combination of the two.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, but i'm just trying to say that he's not as unbiased as he thinks. i'm not saying sa wasn't ever good, i'm just saying i'd rather have any of these other rbs (maybe not tiki if we don't know whether he solves his fumbling problems).

[/ QUOTE ]
As I said, I may be biased in favor of Alexander. That's why I wanted to make mention that I might be; so that everyone would know to take my opinion with more of a grain of salt than some others'.
By the way, any back here is great to have, so most of what we're doing is nitpicking about them. You can't really go wrong with any of them.

[TheNoodleMan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i don't see how edge isn't the consensus here. TD/portis/SA/holmes all were at least somewhat influenced by great offensive lines and offensive schemes.

[/ QUOTE ]
uh, so was edge

[/ QUOTE ]
99-00 Edge wasn't playing in the Colts offense of today. Manning was a good young QB, but not yet an all time great.
The WR corps was Harrison and a bunch of scrubs. The #2 was Terrence Wilkens, and the TEs were Dilger and Pollard. It wasn't the embarrassment of riches that it would become with Wayne and Clark.

The Offensive line of the Colts has always been built to pass protect first, run block second.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
TD and Priest are both products of a great system,

[/ QUOTE ]
Why do you have SA #1?

[/ QUOTE ]
I see him as a workhorse back who could not be replaced by a backup (with anywhere approaching similar success) and I see him as being simply the best runner of all backs here.
Of course, I MAY be biased as an Alabama fan who loved watching him for four great years in college, but I think that I'm unbiased here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unbiased? Yeah right. Have you really watched him play during his pro career? Lots of backs would've done just as good, actually better than he did. Just by the fact that they could catch a ball. I'd say blocking too, but that's not stat-reflective.

He blows. Talk about a product of the system. He's kinda exhibit A.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
TD and Priest are both products of a great system,

[/ QUOTE ]
Why do you have SA #1?

[/ QUOTE ]
I see him as a workhorse back who could not be replaced by a backup (with anywhere approaching similar success) and I see him as being simply the best runner of all backs here.
Of course, I MAY be biased as an Alabama fan who loved watching him for four great years in college, but I think that I'm unbiased here.

[/ QUOTE ]

your comment about being not being replaceable by a backup applies to everyone on this list. as far as him being the best runner-- no one runs exceptionally well w/o blocking, but he has looked strikingly average sans hutchinson + strong.

[/ QUOTE ]

That could be a result of his hitting the wall that all running backs hit, or most likely a combination of the two.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not.

He only ran 'hard' consistently for 1 year. Funny, that was his contract year.

He never could catch or block worth a damn.

b

[PokerFink]

[ QUOTE ]
Barber was less injury prone. Don't think they can be 2a and 2b.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but afaik, Barber isn't as good of a blocker. Westbrook is an excellent blocker. Barber was also a fumbling machine for most of his career, while Westbrook rarely fumbles.

[ QUOTE ]
also where are your NFC rankings - I think you didn't get a chance to do them last week?

[/ QUOTE ]

They're coming.

[jmill2511]

1603 yds, 4.7 ypc 14 TDs

Only played 4 seasons before blowing out his knee, but I'm having trouble finding anyone else who was that productive running the ball.

Oh, and [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] his playoff stats

1997 jax W,42-17 | 31, 184, 2
1997 kan W,14-10 | 25, 101, 2
1997 pit W,24-21 | 26, 139, 1
*1997 gnb W,31-24 | 30, 157, 3
1998 mia W,38-3 | 21, 199, 2
1998 nyj W,23-10 | 32, 167, 1
*1998 atl W,34-19 | 25, 102, 0

[CieloAzor]

In random order...

Terrell Davis had some amazing years, but I guess I always gave most of the credit to the Denver O-line. It also didn't help that his peak was so short and he was replaced by a string of 1000-yard rushers that came from nowhere.

I guess it's weird then that I give Priest a bit more credit, considering he was also working behind a great line and has been followed admirably by Larry Johnson, especially since I thought Priest was average at best with Baltimore. But yeah, I give Priest a lot of credit for his success, and he still looked surprisingly good last Sunday.

Edge was my pick for worst. I realize he was great for 2 years, and with the scenario OP laid out, I probably should've shown some leniency, but everything post-injury has been very 'meh' for me, and the media still mentioning him as an elite RB through most of those years has been grating.

Brian Westbrook is basically my hero so I admit that I made a homer pick taking him at the top. I was kind of between him and Holmes and maybe leaning Holmes, but I just couldn't help but boost B-West and it's felt like he's been underrated for so long (until this year). I've gotten to watch a lot of him, and it seems like every time he touches the ball, it's a success. He doesn't exactly run defenders over, but he is good at slipping/breaking tackles, and he always manages to get his head down and fall forward. He's electric through the air or on the ground, blocks very well, fumbles never, and if you believe a player can be clutch, this is the clutchest RB in the league.

Tiki Barber is similar to Westbrook, and he's got an edge in durability. The fumble problem cleared up nicely, and in the end, Tiki put together some splendid years and a more than respectable career. But while he may have the advantage over Westbrook in powering through defenders, I don't think he had the same degree of elusiveness.

Clinton Portis is a guy I got a lot of faith in early on, and for some reason, I still feel he's one of the most talented RBs in the league. I've been surprised things aren't working out better in Washington and he hasn't yet had the kind of breakout season I expected from him. Maybe I expected too much, or maybe he's just been held back by injuries or a situation that isn't as great as it seems. He might just have to settle for being good.

Just last year I think I would've rated Shaun Alexander much higher than I do now. I think I'm probably unfairly drawn to thinking about how dire his situation has become and how poorly he's looked with changes to his O-line/FB. Still, at some point you've got to factor in that he's coming off an injury and he's probably near the end of his career at this point. He was very good for a long time and the featured player in a well-above average Seattle offense. Also, his backups never seemed to match his production, which makes him look even better.

Btw, how badly did Seattle blow it by giving such a huge contract to Alexander right as his productive years ended?