Our Running Backs

[mgteich]

Our running game was top 10-12 last year, OK considering that we have a top 5 passing team. I believe that it can improve in 2010 if the line is healthier, we get some production form the tight ends, and/or we have better play calling.

With regard to age, this group is old but is deep enough to withstand two injuries at a time (and injuries to the OL) and still be a top 10-12 running offense. I suspect that they will better this year if ONLY one running back is injured at a time.

Obviously, next year is the year to bring in young blood and/or veterans at running back. For now, we have a reasonable group for 2010. Personally, I don't think running backs are developed. We need to draft and secure them in free agency when we see the opportunity to upgrade or when there is a severe need as there will be in 2011.
==============================================

From my perspective, we have 2 RB positions and 2 backups. Maroney and Faulk are solid enough to again lead us to a reasonable running game.

PRIMARY BACK / STARTER
MARONEY and Taylor had over 1000 yards and 4.0 yards per carry.

CHANGE OF PACE BACK / BLOCKER
FAULK and Morris had over 650 yards and over 4.8 yards per carry, and were factors both in the passing game and as blockers.

 

[alamo]

All four players you've listed have a very high chance of being gone next year. So I expect younger players and even free agent pickups to be in the mix too with significant touches, if for no other reason than to find out if they are viable options for the future. Going into next year with all top four RBs gone would be scary but could happen.

 

[mgteich]

I agree that we will use youngsters and free agents in camp and the preseason. Our veteran running backs do NOT need more opportunities to be injured. As far as the future, we COULD find a running back worthy of a roster spot with the idea of him getting more playing time in 2011.

All four players you've listed have a very high chance of being gone next year. So I expect younger players and even free agent pickups to be in the mix too with significant touches, if for no other reason than to find out if they are viable options for the future. Going into next year with all top four RBs gone would be scary but could happen.

 

[Gwedd]

I agree that we will use youngsters and free agents in camp and the preseason. Our veteran running backs do NOT need more opportunities to be injured. As far as the future, we COULD find a running back worthy of a roster spot with the idea of him getting more playing time in 2011.

I agree completely with you. No sense risking injuries unless you have to in the pre-season. Use the time to check out potential replacements, backups.

 

[Mike the Brit]

No question, running back is the "it is what it is" position this season (closely followed by tight end).

There are three aging vets, all of whom were good to great in their prime, but about whom there are serious questions, and two younger guys whose limitations are well known. It could go all right -- Fred, Sammy and Kevin could stay healthy and prove that they aren't too far down the downslope, LoMo could make a final improvement (or the OC figure out how to use him better). On the other hand, you wouldn't want to make a big bet on it, would you?

But what's the alternative? A Fred Jackson turning up out of the blue would be nice. Where is NFL Europe when you need it?

 

[BlueThunder]

Hate to look ahead...BUT

Any chance BB goes after Ingram with Oakland's first round pick in April?

Giving balance to the offense could take some pressure off Brady with the blitz pkgs that you know King Rex will be throwing at the Pats.....

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Hate to look ahead...BUT

Any chance BB goes after Ingram with Oakland's first round pick in April?

Giving balance to the offense could take some pressure off Brady with the blitz pkgs that you know King Rex will be throwing at the Pats.....

Highly unlikely.

1. Raiders have improved in the offseason. I expect them to be 8-8 with Jason Campbell, who is miles better than Jabust.

2. BB will trade down as usual.

3. Randy Moss could be replaced after next season. I mean he could stay on the team, but I doubt he'll be the number 1 receiver. Getting a number 1 WR could be a bigger priority with that Raider pick.

 

[RayClay]

Our running game was top 10-12 last year, OK considering that we have a top 5 passing team. I believe that it can improve in 2010 if the line is healthier, we get some production form the tight ends, and/or we have better play calling.

With regard to age, this group is old but is deep enough to withstand two injuries at a time (and injuries to the OL) and still be a top 10-12 running offense. I suspect that they will better this year if ONLY one running back is injured at a time.

Obviously, next year is the year to bring in young blood and/or veterans at running back. For now, we have a reasonable group for 2010. Personally, I don't think running backs are developed. We need to draft and secure them in free agency when we see the opportunity to upgrade or when there is a severe need as there will be in 2011.
==============================================

From my perspective, we have 2 RB positions and 2 backups. Maroney and Faulk are solid enough to again lead us to a reasonable running game.

PRIMARY BACK / STARTER
MARONEY and Taylor had over 1000 yards and 4.0 yards per carry.

CHANGE OF PACE BACK / BLOCKER
FAULK and Morris had over 650 yards and over 4.8 yards per carry, and were factors both in the passing game and as blockers.

I don't consider the position "old" as role playing running backs aren't hard to find. Our running game depends on whether Maroney continues to run hard and warrants a new contract (contract year, right?).

If he does, we could switch out Morris or Taylor for affordable vets and/or hope law firm develops into a versatile Patrick Pass type.

If Maroney doesn't warrant a new contract, we might throw a lot of new talent at the spot.

 

[Patsbacker]

Does anyone think we should take a flyer on Brian Westbrook? I know people fear he's damaged goods but he's only 30 and if he could play he could give the offense a scary look.

 

[Deus Irae]

Does anyone think we should take a flyer on Brian Westbrook? I know people fear he's damaged goods but he's only 30 and if he could play he could give the offense a scary look.

At this point, wouldn't you be looking at Westbrook in the Faulk role, making him mostly an insurance policy, and one that has a lot of questions of his own?

Personally, I'm still trying to figure out why neither Denver nor K.C. has signed him. It seems to me that he'd be perfect for one of them.

 

[mgteich]

I don't see how our running back unit is not OLD, especially if we carry only four players. Does any other team have three running backs over 33 years old?

Now, I don't see the age of the backups as an issue. As you say, veteran backups are relatively easy to find. The real issues for 2011 are Maroney and Faulk. And yes, age is an issue for Faulk. And yes, I could see him staying for a couple of years in a reduced role until he retires.

I don't consider the position "old" as role playing running backs aren't hard to find. Our running game depends on whether Maroney continues to run hard and warrants a new contract (contract year, right?).

If he does, we could switch out Morris or Taylor for affordable vets and/or hope law firm develops into a versatile Patrick Pass type.

If Maroney doesn't warrant a new contract, we might throw a lot of new talent at the spot.

 

[RayClay]

I don't see how our running back unit is not OLD, especially if we carry only four players. Does any other team have three running backs over 33 years old?

Now, I don't see the age of the backups as an issue. As you say, veteran backups are relatively easy to find. The real issues for 2011 are Maroney and Faulk. And yes, age is an issue for Faulk. And yes, I could see him staying for a couple of years in a reduced role until he retires.

Wasn't really thinking of Faulk as a running back, they should be looking for some little pass catching scat back now. Again, not necessarily hard to find, but unlikely they'll find one as dependable as Faulk.

As far as running backs, we don't really disagree,I think. From a pure demographics perspective, we're old as the hills. However, if Maroney takes the bull by the horns, we have a very young top RB.

Role players can stay or leave, if Morris and Taylor leave, we're young, all of a sudden. If law firm can be a utility back, we're in good shape, I think he has that attitude.

Bottom line = Maroney either takes charge, or we need to get someone else. Little scat back? I say yes,they're affordable and I don't think Faulk would shy from the competition.

 

[mgteich]

I would only point out that our #2 rusher in 2009 was Faulk.

Wasn't really thinking of Faulk as a running back, they should be looking for some little pass catching scat back now. Again, not necessarily hard to find, but unlikely they'll find one as dependable as Faulk.

As far as running backs, we don't really disagree,I think. From a pure demographics perspective, we're old as the hills. However, if Maroney takes the bull by the horns, we have a very young top RB.

Role players can stay or leave, if Morris and Taylor leave, we're young, all of a sudden. If law firm can be a utility back, we're in good shape, I think he has that attitude.

Bottom line = Maroney either takes charge, or we need to get someone else. Little scat back? I say yes,they're affordable and I don't think Faulk would shy from the competition.