DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Thomas: 100-yard runners don't win games

One of the great mysteries of the Cleveland Browns season is that they are 4-5 and feeling good despite having a near non-existent running game.

The team’s leading rusher has 262 carries and averages 2.6 yards per carry -- so what the heck?

Joe Thomas shrugs. The perennial Pro Bowler says it’s not a mystery.

“I’m looking at today’s NFL,” Thomas said in a recent conversation. “And I’m just not sure there’s a place for a running back anymore.”

Say what? Not a place?

“Fifty throws is the average,” Thomas said. “You get a guy who gains 100 yards, whoop dee do. It doesn’t win you games anymore.”

This from a guy who played in college at Wisconsin, the ultimate run team?

“If you’re a defensive coordinator and you give up a 100-yard rusher, you don’t really care,” he said. “It really doesn’t translate into winning many games.”

To repeat: A 100-yard back “doesn’t translate into winning many games.”

But, Thomas was told, since 1960, teams that have a back that carries 20 or more times in a game win 72 percent of the time.

“That’s simple,” he said with a smile. “They’re ahead so they run. I think it’s simple.”

Thomas asked his own question: When’s the last first-round running back other than Adrian Peterson to turn out?

Here are the first-round running backs since Thomas joined the league in 2007:

--2013: None

--2012: Trent Richardson, Doug Martin, David Wilson

--2011: Mark Ingram

--2010: C.J. Spiller, Ryan Mathews, Jahvid Best

--2009: Knowshon Moreno, Donald Brown, Chris Wells

--2008: Darren McFadden, Jonathan Stewart, Felix Jones, Rashard Mendenhall, Chris Johnson

--2007: Adrian Peterson, Marshawn Lynch

The best and most consistent and most dependable have been Peterson and Lynch -- but Lynch is successful with his second team, having been traded.

“You have to have soembody who’s a once-in-a-generation talent like Adrian Peterson to really be a difference maker in the game,” Thomas said. “But you get one Josh Gordon, you throw him a jump ball in triple coverage and he goes up and catches a touchdown, you win the game. That’s one guy, one play. He can do that three times in a game. Calvin Johnson. You can go down the list of guys like that who are game-changers. A.J. Green.

“You have to change the entire defense to try to take somebody like that out of the game. And the running game is so hard. Because first of all you have to have six, sometimes seven guys blocking perfectly up front. One mistake and it’s a tackle for a loss. So you have to have seven victories. And then you have to have a RB beat a safety. Today’s safeties are pretty good.”

Thomas also pointed out that offenses are getting more sophisticated at giving the quarterback the extra second he needs to make the throw. Colin Kaepernick’s fakes, he said, freeze a defense for a second.

It would also explain why the Browns have won games when they got good quarterback play and lost when they didn’t.

“That’s why you see quarterbacks, you see the value on those guys going through the roof,” he said. “Mid-level quarterbacks get $20 million a year year because they’re that important. And those receivers are going to start going that way, too.

“And the running backs, unfortunately for them they just don’t have a place in this game anymore like they used to.”

To the point that Thomas said he wouldn’t draft a running back in the first round.

The starting point for this conversation? Why did Thomas think Richardson did not work out in Cleveland?

“I’m not gonna throw stones at a guy that’s not on the team anymore,” Thomas said. “But it’s hard to say it didn’t work out because we got a first-round pick for him. So obviously someone thinks he’s pretty good. I think it comes down to production wasn’t great here, so they felt a first-round pick would be a good trade.

“And, I’m sure in today’s day and age, the value on running backs is down.”

http://espn.go.com/blog/cleveland-browns/post/_/id/1646/thomas-100-yard-runners-dont-win-games

Barry Sanders agrees with this article.

I agree ... but .........

Man, you sure want to be able to run the ball and kill the clock at the end of a close game ...... and that seems to be when many RBs on good teams wind up getting their 100 yards. Further, no one wants to pass block on every down. A guy who is a risk to take it all the way on any carry is also a major concern for the defense.

All of that said, I do mostly agree with what Joe had to say. The RB position, and running game in general, are greatly devalued on a lot of teams in today's NFL. Not so on the undefeated Chiefs, on the Seakawks, or on the Niners. Good teams can still be solid plus running teams if they don't have that elite QB and passing game. Both approaches can win. If I had to win a game late though, I would rather have the elite level QB and passing game. If I have a 1 point lead with 2 minutes left on my own 20, I think I want a run game that can generate some 1st downs to kill the clock. Both aspects are important, though the pass game is more important in today's NFL overall.

I think a good running game helps the passing game. It's what makes play-action work. Coupled with a good passing game, having both makes defenses respect each. They can't play to stop the run, making the QB beat them, nor can they ignore the run and double down on passing D. And, like Joe said, and you followed up on, team with a lead and good running games run the ball which eats up clock.

You don't need Jim Brown or AP these days but I think you still have to have at least a decent running game. I think some of Joe's comments were meant to NOT say anything bad about our running game as much as making the point he made. To have said teams need good running games to win a lot of games it would have been akin to pointing a finger at our lack of one.

I think he played it well. Even his comments on TRich.

There's also the factor of burning up some clock During the game so your hyper-aggressive defense can get a breather.

A good run game slows down the pass rush.

Hard for a running team to keep pace with a passing team, but against a Peyton Manning or such, the best thing you can do is keep it out of his hands as long as possible.

I think you need to be able to do both.

j/c

This may just be my opinion, but I wouldn't doubt it if we saw a shift back to a power/slower game at some point in the future. Some team with lesser skill players will try to win in their own way ... and others will follow suit.

The NFL has always been a cyclical/copy cat league ... I don't see the spread/uptempo game to be something to last for years and years

I can't recall which game it was, it might have been against Balt.

But I recall at some point we were ahead in the 4th quarter and when we ran the ball we were actually getting like 10 yards a chunk. I was pretty that our running game worked at that point for some mysterious reason.

I think the point is - there is no reason to INVEST in a First round RB especially a top 5 pick. I've said it before especially before the draft of 2012 that the only time really that happens would be in a very weak draft class. I was very surprised we went after Trent in the fashion that we did.

As for Joe T's opinion - you do need a running game to FINISH games.

Lynch did not want to be in Buffalo he made that very clear. He is the RB I thought he would be once he got back to the West Coast.

If you do have a vertical game and teams respect your passing game with a lot of Cover 2. It is good to take advantage and get big chunks. Right now nobody really respects our passing game. But I think it is a scenario that will be coming soon. It would be nice to have a RB who can do some exciting things in Space. But what is evident these days is that every college team - in Div I n II have talented RBs - every year ready to come into the NFL. There is No no need to utilize a first round pick unless the kid has 4.3 speed n great hands to boot!

JMHO

Wow, talk about bucking conventional wisdom.. Leave it to Joe.

I don't know if I totally buy into the RB not being as important as it once was.. Maybe it's because I can't imagine a world without the Jim Browns, Petersons, Sanders etc.

Thomas makes sense but still, it's hard to swallow..

Maybe you don't need a 100 yd RB, but you do need your feature RB to average better than 37.4 ypc (McGahee's avg). You do need your RB's as a unit gaining more than 3.1 ypc. On 3rd and short yards, or 4th and 1, you do need to assert your will over the defense and move them off the ball to extend the drive (and keep the oppo offense off the field). In a way, Joe's remarks remind me of Marty saying "play-calling is over-rated." back when Lindy Infante had departed, and Marty stubbornly refused to hire a new OC. It ended up costing him his job. Joe won't be getting fired, but like Marty, he's whistling past the graveyard if he thinks an effective running game isn't part of the winning equation.

You also need an Offensive line that at least run block it's way out of a paper bag , JOE !

As has been mentioned, you don't need some "premiere" RB. But you do need a run game. Play action is predicated on the running game and so is controlling the clock.

I do agree you don't need and "AP type of investment" to accomplish this, but you do need a RB and run blocking that make you able to run the ball.

A good running game extends drives, controls the clock, scores TDs, beats on defenders, opens up the passing game and keeps teams from being one dimensional, therefore less predictable. The Browns O-line needs to work more on run blocking and less on coming up with bull$#!% excuses not to.

JMHO

First of all, perhaps y'all should think about the context of why Joe was saying all this? Our running game stinks and perhaps Joe was asked if we could make the playoffs w/out a running game? What was he supposed to say?

The running game has been devalued. It kills me to say that because I was a RB in high school and college and I was more important to our success than the QBs. Sadly, the game has changed.

It's the rule changes. Ironically, the NFL is fighting against itself w/the rule changes to promote more scoring, yet implementing rule changes that revolve around safety.

I don't agree w/Joe that the position is no longer important, but I do think that it is going to become more specialized. Blocking backs, running backs, receiving backs, etc. It kinda sucks for us old RBs. One thing about a RB.......well, at least most of us..........you gotta be one tough SOG, and to be devalued is a tough pill to swallow. I feel bad for the current RBs.. There was a time when we were the stars of the offense.

You needs a RB that can pick up blitzes and catch the ball. It's nice if he can score inside the goal line too.

Agreed, Waterdawg! Kinda hard to value something highly if it stinks. Our run game needs to be better. Bring back the sweep and pitch and you run the defense side to side and burn clock, as opposed to how much clock runs off three incompletions. They may not win games by themselves, but they ice them

Joe doesn't mention much about it, but in horrible weather (non-dome) late in the season. . . .I want that back and ability. Not many complaints about bruisers then. This is an interesting article, but it is not an entire story in my opinion. McGahee hasn't produced, and tackles in haven't runblocked efficiently or effectively enough yet. It is OK to improve.

I would add that you need a RB who can run clock at the end of a game. It is possible to win games late without such a player, but it certainly makes it easier to have a RB who can run the final 5 minutes off of a clock when his team has the lead.

A.Bryant looks like he could be a goalline back (big, powerful, and nimble)

I thought it was creative and just... awesome - when they lined Winn up at FB! Would NOT wanna be the person he locks up with! Nope, no sir!

An interesting tidbit I'd like to add to this thread. New England started the TE craze with Hernandez and Gronk. Did anyone else notice what they did when forced a hand without Hernandez?

Shane Vereen

Now granted he got hurt. But if your looking for the next trend it's dual RBs. Not just a 2 back system but RBs who can play different positions.

Vereen is a slot WR/tailback(or a wingback) and Ridley is the bruising FB/HB. Instead of looking for guys that have multiple good traits they look for guys who have two great traits and exploit them.

My point in all this is Dion Lewis/Obi. We we're ahead of the curve before Lewis went down. Granted Obi isn't a bruiser but he can run between the tackles and is as good as it gets receiving and blocking which adds a huge dimension to our O. The D can't commit.

I for one am extremely excited to see where Chud takes the backfield. I think he works in this fashion and I think it's very cutting edge. The key is not only can you expect better production out of it but by having weapons to be accounted for in multiple ways out of the backfield at once it either keeps attention off our deep men or they submit to a short chunk of yardage. I think we have Mike Tolbert2 and Darren Sproles2 in our midst.