I don’t know how “pressing” the Running Back need is but gotta keep it flowing. I think Mendenhall is a high quality back and could do well here. I say we pick one up later in the draft. I agree there are pros and cons but what is comes down to is what you want to see. Personally I WANT TD back! too bad it wont happen so for now I will settle for our committee system but we need a star back here soon.

I do believe that if we have an elite back we CAN get away with just one. In the meantime, without having that elite back the committee approach is awesome.

However, keep in mind that even with an elite back, we can punish the heck out of the guy in a no-rotate program and lose years off of a career. How much longer could TD have gone if we could have spelled him more often?

The committee system continues to gain converts too. While Brian Westbrook works out (see Phantom’s comments below) one can also point to the use of two backs in cases like MINN. I think the committee approach has a good chance of being the future of the NFL, mostly because of the career span of RBs. You can double the time a good RB plays for your team if he splits the plays, and in a system like ours (pairing the one cut runner with the zone block) you don’t have a lot of fall off bringing in “just” a #2 guy.

But hey, great minds can disagree on this, and there are good thoughts all around.

Exactly…before we debate the issue, I guess we first have to define exactly what “running back by committee” means. Is it a third down back or speed back that comes in every once in a while to spell the starter (ala DeAngelo Williams in Carolina)?

I think Denver’s been using a “true committee” of runningbacks ever since the Bells (Mike and Tatum). When each guy gets about equal carries and anyone can start on any given day, I feel that’s more of a committee situation. Remember Shannahan’s comments back then? We’ll roll with the hot back. So, in that sense, Minnesota could actually end up gravitating away from their current “committee” state and towards a big time Adrian Peterson show with Taylor as the back-up. Of course, in that kind of a situation (and HT had said it above when discussing the Broncos), if your star gets injured, you’ll have a capable guy ready to shoulder the load. Look at the unfortunate situation for Jerious Norwood in Atlanta. Now he has to contend with Michael Turner as well. But, if Turner or Dunn in the past were ever to get hurt, the back-up would finally get his chance to shine (and could eventually take over the role).

and you are right with me! I do not want an inside/ outside committee. I would be okay with any guy who would come in as an every down back with speed. I don’t see Young or Hall as every down guys, they aren’t big enough. There are some who say that young can be but I think him bulking up would hurt his production. I don’t think it would kill every one, just Young. That however is an opinion and I know a lot of people don’t share it

Nice job clearing things up a little, Matt. There is a definite difference between these scenarios. I don’t like B either. It decreases the amount of guesswork a defense has to do.

Injuries, injuries, injuries… This is my biggest concern with Henry and it’s a HUGE issue. When was the last time he was able to complete a full season? You have to plan on him missing significant time this year. Can Young and Hall then carry the load? I would say RB is a “need” area in the draft and wouldn’t mind at all seeing them use a #1 for it.

I’ve seen Mendenhall play and like him a lot. Haven’t seen Stewart, but have read good things. As for Hart, he’s a hard worker, with talent and a leader. If you can point to one person who turned around Michigan’s disastrous start last season, it’s him. However, I worry about the mileage on him. I think he was a 3 year starter, not sure, and he makes me think of Cedric Benson.

I think of committee as either B or C (as they are different approaches to committee).

“A” is a situation that is not uncommon to most teams we would consider as “no-rotation” or “franchise RB” programs. Many teams can call on a specialist for short downs, goal line, or pass plays.

“B” matches my definition in that you run two backs who compliment each other, and “C” matches as well (but in Denver’s case the multiple backs are NOT every down guys, as Young and Hall demonstrate).

In my own words, a committee is simply the lack of reliance on one RB for the vast majority of “regular” run plays. Thus, whether you switch up two guys who are every down backs, or even switch up your “every down back” with a specialist OFTEN (speedster or bruiser) I would call either case a different approach to committee.

I love Young and Hall for the speed change up they offer our committee, but they can’t touch the ball too many times in a game. Henry is the primary back, but still a part of the committee. I would prefer at least two backs (one speed and one power) that had the endurance for every down. I’d really love a good power/speed combo (like TD) matched with a power guy, but TDs are hard to find (and expensive). Henry’s big disadvantage is that we don’t know how healthy he will be. He may very well be a one RB dominator for us.

Another point for committee (that no one likes to hear) is that money is a big part of the game. We can save money on RBs by getting cheaper guys that may not be “stars” but kick butt in our system. It’s nice for us to build up multiple RBs year after year who break 1000 yds and get traded for other great players (Champ being the most obvious example).

That was supposed to be a reply to you, Jon.