Have we seen the last of the hall of fame running back era?

[Eleazar]

Have we seen the last of the hall of fame running back era?
By Cameron Wolfe
The Denver Post
POSTED: 11/18/2015 10:56:56 AM MST


Up until this decade, the running back was a valued position. I mean a truly valued position.

Every kid wanted to run the ball and every team wanted a superstar running back. Then, the 2010s came and the back became the most disposable position in the NFL.

From 1986-90, there were at least five running backs taken in the first round in each year. In 2013 and 2014 zero first-round backs were selected.

The new-age NFL is a passing league built for elite quarterbacks to shine. Even for teams that rely on their run game, it's usually a platoon role or running back by committee.

I talked to Broncos' running back Ronnie Hillman about it last week. He said nobody gets 35 carries any more, the era of the back is over.

That brought to mind an interesting question: have we seen the last of the Hall of Fame running back era?

There's one active sure bet: Adrian Peterson. An old-school bell cow playing in the wrong decade.

After that, does anybody else get in for the foreseeable future?

There's a few contenders we'll take a look at including the one with the best chance:

Frank Gore, Colts — The NFL's all-time active leading rusher with 11,672 yards. He's No. 16 on the all-time list with a decent chance to move up to No. 9 if he could amass 642 yards in his final seven games. He's given little inclination retirement is on the brink.

But Gore could run into the same problem that Edgerrin James (No. 11), Corey Dillon (No. 19) and Warrick Dunn (No. 22) faced: they were never the best back in the league. They got their total by being consistent, not elite.

The Others

Marshawn Lynch and Chris Johnson are the next two backs to come to mind. Both are on the verge of 10,000 career yards. They both possess something an argument for something that Gore can't — being the best back in the NFL at some point.

Yet, both appear at the end of their career. Johnson needed a revival in 2015 with Arizona to even play this season. Lynch has hinted at retirement at the end of the season. They might run out of time.

The next crop includes Matt Forte, Jamaal Charles and LeSean McCoy. All dominant, quick, new-age backs, who excel just as much catching passes as they do touting the rock. How much will the voters account for their dual-threat ability? It may also not matter as each has entered the injury-laden portion of their career.

Whether we realize it or not, the days of the elite hall of fame back are over.

Maybe Todd Gurley can save it, but that's a while away.

http://www.denverpost.com/knowthis/c...nning-back-era

[jonzie04]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Belichick does not believe in building a team around a RB. His offense will get by with a solid back who will take what is there and will NOT fumble.

We won two SBs ('01 and '03) with Antwain (three yards and a cloud of dust) Smith. Another with Corey Dillon ('04), who was the only truly awesome RB of the last 15 years with the Patriots.

'07 SB run with an undefeated team was Lawrence Maroney. Please...

Kevin Faulk was the exceptional 3rd down back for all of these teams.

'11 SB run was Law Firm, BenJarvus Green Ellis. Please...

Last year was Shane Vereen as 3rd down back and Blount as primary back.


Patriots will abandon the run and go pure pass faster than any team in NFL history. Some games they simply do NOT run from the get go. Brady has thrown 50+ passes in a game more often than any QB in NFL history.



http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/p...ver_gunslinger

Belichick can do whatever the hell he wants because of Tom Brady... The Shane Vereen and Legarrette Blounts of the world aren't going to cut it when the HOF'er is gone. Quite amazing how much Brady can do with so little.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by jonzie04

Belichick can do whatever the hell he wants because of Tom Brady... The Shane Vereen and Legarrette Blounts of the world aren't going to cut it when the HOF'er is gone. Quite amazing how much Brady can do with so little.

Yes. No argument.

It's not clear how he would build a team without a very good QB. He has specifically built this offense WITH AND FOR Brady. A guy like Edelman is made exponentially better by Brady's absurd short/intermediate accuracy.

But unlike Polian with Manning, Belichick has rarely spent much in assets on RBs. A 1st on Maroney, a 2nd on Vereen, a 3rd on Ridley, and that is IT for draft picks used on the RB position in the first FOUR rounds of drafts for all drafts from 2001 through 2015.

Edgerring James and Addai were both first round picks. I dunno what other picks they may have used high on RBs.

[O.city]

Gurley is built for it, but the problem is the beating you take carrying it that many times. Guys on defense are just unbelievable athletes. I mean, imagine getting hit that many times per game by guys like Houston, Kuechly, Ngata etc.

Used to defenses had 1 or 2 freaks. Now the entire defense is athletic. Just not physically possible.

[Bob Dole]

Originally Posted by Saccopoo

Ezekiel Elliot
Leonard Fournette

Both have the potential to be insanely good running backs in the NFL.

You skipped LSU/Alabama?

[jonzie04]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Yes. No argument.

It's not clear how he would build a team without a very good QB. He has specifically built this offense WITH AND FOR Brady. A guy like Edelman is made exponentially better by Brady's absurd short/intermediate accuracy.

But unlike Polian with Manning, Belichick has rarely spent much in assets on RBs. A 1st on Maroney, a 2nd on Vereen, a 3rd on Ridley, and that is IT for draft picks used on the RB position in the first FOUR rounds of drafts for all drafts from 2001 through 2015.

Edgerring James and Addai were both first round picks. I dunno what other picks they may have used high on RBs.

Hoodie is a very smart man, I know he'd place a little greater emphasis on RB's if he didn't have Brady. Hell most good Qbs struggle when they cant get their run game going I think a team like the Falcons, or Steelers (even with Big Ben) would be probably toast if their only good RB was Blount and Lewis went down. It's just when I read your comment I thought that you meant that's all every RB needed to do was basically not get in the way. Pardon me for assuming.

[Rausch]

Charles (if he comes back) should be knocking on the door.

Watching backs like Gurley and Freeman tear it up as rookies leads me to believe that HB is no less important it's just easier to replace than QB or WR.

A good QB can get by with only an average HB - a GREAT HB has to be GREAT every single week to win with an average QB...

[Halfcan]

Originally Posted by milkman

One could make the argument that Seattle did just that with Marshawn Lynch a couple years ago.

QB has always been the single most important positon.

SB teams are built differently from era to era, even from year to year.

QB is the one constant, with only a couple of anomalies.

Yes the Seahawks went to back to back SB's because of a dominate run game and tough defense.

That used to be the recipe for a Championship. I tend to believe the Rams -Greatest show on turf-changed that mindset. Also the Pats barely even had a running game in all of their SB wins-which further devalued running backs.

[ForeverChiefs58]

A players yard per carry should be what puts them in the Hall of Fame. Jamaal is the most elite RB since Jim Brown and should be an easy HOFer

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by Halfcan

Also the Pats barely even had a running game in all of their SB wins-which further devalued running backs.

If you have a HOF QB you don't need a 3-down HB.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by ForeverChiefs58

A players yard per carry should be what puts them in the Hall of Fame. Jamaal is the most elite RB since Jim Brown and should be an easy HOFer

There should be a balance and I believe there is.

YPC/Yards/Years/"Moments."

Statement games do matter. They don't have to be a SB but you need more than one game where you just dominated.

For instance: why isn't Ricky Watters in the HOF?...

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by ForeverChiefs58

A players yard per carry [should be what puts them in the Hall of Fame. Jamaal is the most elite RB since Jim Brown and should be an easy HOFer

Maybe it "should be", but it isn't, and Jamaal needs to get to a good, solid 11,000 or 12,000 yards to have any shot at all, which means several more years of production. Other than Earl Campbell, who is a bit of an outlier, nobody I've ever heard got into the HOF with less than 11,200 yards (OJ simpson). The guys lower than that retired 40+ years ago.

I doubt the rules will all change for Charles, not matter how awesome his YPC is.

[Halfcan]

Originally Posted by Rausch

If you have a HOF QB you don't need a 3-down HB.

That is not always the case. In the Pats playoff losses-a big factor was the lack of a consistent running game. When they lost to the Giants in the SB- NY had a much better running game that helped keep Brady off the field, it also set up their passing game for some big plays.

Green Bay has had an amazing QB for years- but have not capitalized as much as they should because of a very poor running game. Most of their playoff losses-their RB's were a non factor. This years teams have been keying on Rodgers since they don't have to worry about their ground attack. It is killing them.

[ThaVirus]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Maybe it "should be", but it isn't, and Jamaal needs to get to a good, solid 11,000 or 12,000 yards to have any shot at all, which means several more years of production. Other than Earl Campbell, who is a bit of an outlier, nobody I've ever heard got into the HOF with less than 11,200 yards (OJ simpson). The guys lower than that retired 40+ years ago.

I doubt the rules will all change for Charles, not matter how awesome his YPC is.

Gale Sayers.

[RealSNR]

As athletes became more and more elite, the RB position turned out to be one of the easiest positions to find. Why spend a 1st on an elite RB when your 7th rounder has the potential to be almost as good and in some cases better?

Who was the last RB drafted in the first round who didn't suck absolute dick? Adrian Peterson, probably? What about before then? Jamal Lewis?

The rule changes didn't cause RBs to be devalued. The players themselves did by inflating the position.

[ThaVirus]

Originally Posted by RealSNR

As athletes became more and more elite, the RB position turned out to be one of the easiest positions to find. Why spend a 1st on an elite RB when your 7th rounder has the potential to be almost as good and in some cases better?

Who was the last RB drafted in the first round who didn't suck absolute dick? Adrian Peterson, probably? What about before then? Jamal Lewis?

The rule changes didn't cause RBs to be devalued. The players themselves did by inflating the position.

Looks like Chris Johnson in 2008 was the last RB drafted in the 1st round that justified his draft slot, if you don't count Todd Gurley in this draft.