Only based on play ... who is the better running back?
If you were starting a new team and had to chose one without knowing any history other than on field play who would you choose?

I'm having a very hard time not taking into account the off the field issues. It's very close, but Hunt gets the nod as he has proven himself an elite, durable RB over 28 games.

In Hunt's two years compared to Chubb's one, I think Hunt is clearly the better player so far. But that can certainly change.

Setting the issues aside I still like Chubb. My hope is we run the crap out of both! Hopefully Hunt picks up where he left off. He's a trade commodity if he excels and we need to make a move of some sort.

I can't separate the off field from the On field.

I want a RB that is the whole package and that will be here when we need him. It's just my opinion, but I think Hunt cost the Chiefs a shot this past season.

I'll gladly take Hunt as long as there is a Chubb there as well.

I'd take Chubb by a narrow margin even before taking into account Hunt's off-field issues.

Chubb is a rare case of fans underrating one of their own players. He's really good.

Hunt.

So far.

I think Hunt is the better Rb, but I voted for Chubb out of sympathy, thinking he'd surely be down 20%-80%,

instead he's in the lead 21-17, shows how little I know.

Chubb or Hunt.......OR BOTH!!!

If my thinking is right in that we're going to revisit the Mack-n-Byner years I don't care. If we can replicate that era then Webster and Reggie and........ooops, I mean Odell, Jarvis, etc, etc............

History has told us if you wanna win in our division ya gotta run the ball. Ya just gotta.

Oh man oh man oh man.........

Not a fair comparasion. Chubb was sidline basically for half a season his first year not getting as many practice reps etc, Hunt got to play on a well oiled offensive machine.

If you look at last years numbers, they were very similar. But Chubb bettered him.

Chubb - 192 Att 996 yds 5.2 ave 8 td

Hunt - 181 att 824 yds 4.55 ave 7 td

And lets not forget that hunt was on the best offense in football.

I would rather Chubb. I think he has just as high a ceiling, if not higher.

Seriously? It's Hunt all the way, if based only on play. Don't believe me, call around to other teams for trade offers.
At the very least, Hunt is a proven player, Chubb is still in the show me stage.

I have to agree with this. We have both of them. We need to celebrate!

In a mythical 2019 contest between Chubb and Hunt, I will simply refer back to the well known axiom that states that availability trumps ability.

Besides that, if you look at the careers of both Chubb and Hunt, they are somewhat similar.

Chubb has been, thus far, slightly more explosive as a runner, and Hunt has been a far more explosive receiver. (though Chubb really hasn't fully developed as a receiver yet)

Just the fact that we have a thread like this vs. "Which of the babybacks is better" makes me very happy.

I have no interest in trading Chubb, but we'd be able to get a first round pick for him, easily.

Not sure many teams would be interested in Hunt, for any picks. We were able to sign him so cheap for a reason... though that reason is obviously the off-field stuff which makes trade value not such a good benchmark for this.

There is one huge difference between their two careers.

One was on a one of the top NFL teams in the league and was considered the best RB their roster had.

The other was on one of the worst NFL rosters and couldn't break into the starting role at RB.

If people can't see the stark contrast there I can't help them.

Of course then there's stats.

Well, in fairness, Chubb didn't see the field until a certain coach was gone.

Being on one of the top NFL teams in the league-- with stellar, MVP play from Mahomes, elite receiving threats in Hill and Kelce, along with an offensive guru like Reid makes it easier for a running back to thrive, not harder.

You make it sounds like playing for Clueless Hue was Chubb's fault. Or maybe it was Haley being overly stubborn and Hue couldn't override him. Whatever the case, I'm glad that mess is behind us. Chubb had 3 carries for 105 yards in one game, what more do you want him to do? That game went deep into overtime as well.

I'm not even making the case primarily from stats. Here's what I wrote in the NFL top 100 thread:

Yeah, weeks 6, 7 and 8 didn't happen. Get outta here with your weak BS.

He may end up being a great RB. I sure hope so.

But projections do not change the reality of the present.

What's the reality of the present? What I saw last year was an all-around outstanding back. As I said, the only knock on him might be that he might have to prove it over a longer period of time. Reports are that he showed up to OTAs bigger and more explosive than last year..

PFF graded Nick Chubb as the highest-rated back in the NFL last year. This is not based on stats, but grading each player on every play. https://www.profootballfocus.com/nfl/players/nick-chubb/45783

What?

Pit must mean weeks 7 and 8 (18 carries apiece) because he only had 3 carries in week 6. https://www.espn.com/nfl/player/gamelog/_/id/3128720/nick-chubb

By my count, that's 52 carries in 8 games under Hue and Haley, 140 carries in 8 games under Williams and Kitchens. Nearly all his targets in the passing game were in the back half of the season as well.

It's funny how people quickly forget the knock many had on this board regarding Chubb's blocking ability in his limited playing time early. It was stated by many that his blocking really hurt the team.

now sudedenly since it suits an agenda people wish to dismiss it as the reason he wasn't getting carries earlier. I'm not surprised. Carry on.....

Yes, let's forget how he rushed 36 times in two games once his blocking improved and try to blame that on someone else.

Yes, I remember reading how it was Chubb's blocking ability that limited his playing time early. It's hard to know how much truth there is to that and how much of it was just looking for an explanation as to why he wasn't getting playing time. Pass blocking is something a lot of young running backs struggle with, though I don't remember seeing much evidence either way about Chubb.

In any case, John Dorsey saw to it to trade Carlos Hyde to force Haley/Hue to use Chubb more often (maybe the guy with the John Dorsey quote in his signature will give this some credence), and then fired the two once it became obvious how many things they mismanaged.

There was a thread on the board at the time and some were even pointing out specific plays.

I think you're making projections yourself here. Did they trade Hyde because Chubb was ready or did they trade Hyde to force Chubb into the line up?

It seems you may be reaching hard yourself to explain why Chubb wasn't getting playing time and that Dorsey was forcing the issue by trading Hyde.

I prefer ...

Chunt

Or

Hubb ....

I think you can say "some" of those words on T.V.

If all goes according to plan, both of them will be available in the second half of the season. On one hand, Chubb will already be a part of the offense, but Hunt should have fresher legs.

How does that all shake out? I'm not quite sure, but we'll see who the coaching staff gives more of the touches to and what each back does with those touches.

We should revisit this thread sometime down the line.

Wow, Mayfield is much better when he plays with a Chubb.

Chubb!

I feel pretty good about what I wrote in this thread.

Cross posted from the Chubb thread in Pure Football:


+1, well said PDX.

He happens to be one of the best backs in football as well.