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

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

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.

Good point. I probably reached too far on that one.

Still, it's really tough to trust 1st round RBs with their high bust rates. It almost seems to be the case that unless they're demonstrable talents like Charles or AP, a RB is only as good as the offensive scheme and team surrounding him.

[The Franchise]

Originally Posted by RealSNR

Good point. I probably reached too far on that one.

Still, it's really tough to trust 1st round RBs with their high bust rates. It almost seems to be the case that unless they're demonstrable talents like Charles or AP, a RB is only as good as the offensive scheme and team surrounding him.

Since 2000? Probably Peterson, Chris Johnson, Tomlinson and Jamal Lewis.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Halfcan

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.

The 2007 SB loss was caused by two things, primarily: (1) the Giants DLine's domination of the Patriots OLine, and (2) Asante Samuel's drop of a game-winning interception at the end. Plus of course the ridiculous Tyree catch,

The 2011 SB loss was primarily caused by the fact that Gronk was not healthy and nothing more than a decoy, which crippled the Patriots offense, and Welker's and Brady's failure to connect on a game-winning pass play at the end.

Neither of those games were caused by an inability to run, IMHO. What you fail to really appreciate (probably because you dont' watch them all the time like I do), is that the Patriots run an inordinate number of high percentage, low-risk, short pass plays which are basically run plays. The difference between the old Green Bay sweep and a bubble screen to Edelman isn't all that significant in many ways (risk/reward, etc.).

[Halfcan]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

The 2007 SB loss was caused by two things, primarily: (1) the Giants DLine's domination of the Patriots OLine, and (2) Asante Samuel's drop of a game-winning interception at the end. Plus of course the ridiculous Tyree catch,

The 2011 SB loss was primarily caused by the fact that Gronk was not healthy and nothing more than a decoy, which crippled the Patriots offense, and Welker's and Brady's failure to connect on a game-winning pass play at the end.

Neither of those games were caused by an inability to run, IMHO. What you fail to really appreciate (probably because you dont' watch them all the time like I do), is that the Patriots run an inordinate number of high percentage, low-risk, short pass plays which are basically run plays. The difference between the old Green Bay sweep and a bubble screen to Edelman isn't all that significant in many ways (risk/reward, etc.).

Yes you can boil those two losses down to a couple of plays- most games are like that. But is fact those games would have been much different if NE had any kind of running game. The Giants keyed on Brady from the first play knowing they did not have to worry about a RB gashing them for first downs. 2011- would have also been different with more balance. But NE has won without it so I guess they are good with the losses as well.

A screen is still a Pass no matter how you slice it. Far different from having a bruising back smashing up the middle of defenses, wearing them down, powering for first down, breaking off demoralizing big runs and then pushing the pile into the end zone.

[Toby Waller]

as far as this season is concerned,it could be the beginning of a new running back era.
everyone is starting back up caliber QBs and they have to run more.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by Halfcan

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.

Both of those SB's were even up games that were won by a few plays on defense and a few great plays on offense.

The best HB the Pats ever had during their SB runs they had when they lost one.

Originally Posted by Halfcan

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..

They keep losing in the playoffs because their defense is $3it.

Absolute, complete, $3it...

[Eleazar]

It's a combination of things.

-rule changes designed to increase scoring / emphasize the passing game
-history building of teams succeeding with RBBC / fielding different types of backs as the situation dictates
-athleticism of defenses increasing at a faster rate than that of running backs
-distance between ability of late round picks and early round picks decreasing
-offenses evolving to favor one cut runners
-pass-centric league now favors smaller backs who catch the ball in space but aren't as durable
-RB is the most injury-prone position

Etc etc

[milkman]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

The 2007 SB loss was caused by two things, primarily: (1) the Giants DLine's domination of the Patriots OLine, and (2) Asante Samuel's drop of a game-winning interception at the end. Plus of course the ridiculous Tyree catch,

The 2011 SB loss was primarily caused by the fact that Gronk was not healthy and nothing more than a decoy, which crippled the Patriots offense, and Welker's and Brady's failure to connect on a game-winning pass play at the end.

Neither of those games were caused by an inability to run, IMHO. What you fail to really appreciate (probably because you dont' watch them all the time like I do), is that the Patriots run an inordinate number of high percentage, low-risk, short pass plays which are basically run plays. The difference between the old Green Bay sweep and a bubble screen to Edelman isn't all that significant in many ways (risk/reward, etc.).

Both losses to the Giants in SBs were due in some part to the fact that the Giants pressured Brady all game.

If they had a ground game that the Giants had to respect, then that could have alleviated some of that pressure.

I don't agree with Halfwit very often, but he's right here.

A solid ground game is part of the equation to winning SBs.