Read the arguments from Bleacher Fan and Babe Ruthless about whether or not a two back system in the right approach for a successful NFL offense.
It is often said that to win consistently in the National Football League a team must be able to run the football effectively. The Indianapolis Colts may not agree with that assessment – this year, at least – but generally that is the case. There is a reason the run and shoot offense and the Texas Tech/Hawaii type offenses are not run in the NFL.
There are currently two different “systems” that NFL teams are using. The Sports Debates will focus today on these systems.
On one end, there is the offense that features one running back. This is what the Atlanta Falcons do with Michael Turner… when he is healthy. The same approach is used by the San Francisco 49ers with Frank Gore. The philosophy is simple – one running back gets the bulk of the carriers and it does not matter if the ball is on the 50-yard line or on the goal line.
The other end of the spectrum is home to the two-back system, a maddening system for all of you fantasy football players who have a running back on your team that is within a two-back system. This is the approach taken by Arizona with Tim Hightower and Chris “Beanie” Wells. It is also used by the New York Giants with Brandon Jacobs and Ahmad Bradshaw. Both running backs get, in theory, an equal amount of carries.
Obviously, there are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches to the running game in the NFL, and I am relying on my colleagues Babe Ruthless and Bleacher Fan to argue this question and help the sports world determine which method is best.
Babe Ruthless will argue that the two-back system approach is the right approach to winning while Bleacher Fan will argue that the one-back system is the right way. Remember, the debate is focused on what is the best way to win the game. It does not matter which method produces the most fantasy points, for example. At the end of the day, winning is all that matters!
Read the debate intro and the argument from Bleacher Fan about whether or not a two back system in the right approach for a successful NFL offense.
Looking around the NFL nowadays it becomes increasingly clear that the every-down type running back is nearing extinction. Teams are getting a plethora of players involved in the rushing attack. From short yardage specialist to third down pace-changers, more and more running backs are getting touches. But one approach to the rushing game is starting to garner support and has certainly piqued my interest – the two-back system.
Why not double your pleasure and double your fun with two full-time starting running backs? Now before your start to confuse my proposal with the enigma that is the running back by committee approach, let me clarify what I mean by the two-back system. The two-back system employs two primary running backs interchangeably. Coaches switch between the two backs in order to keep them fresh or alternate them on different drives. Running back by committee systems typically involve complex role assignments (e.g. the starter, the goal line back, the third down pace-changer, the fourth quarter clock grinder, etc.) that are meticulously assigned considering everything from defensive matchups to playing surface to statistical history. This is all too complex. The two-back system reduces this excessive entanglement with arbitrary stats and employs more of an old fashion gut feeling approach to calling the running game.
In 2008 the Carolina Panthers were a perfect example of a successful two-back system. Two running backs, DeAngello Williams and Jonathan Stewart, attempted 457 rushes for 2,351 yards and 28 touchdowns. While the dynamic duo did not split the load evenly (Williams had 273 attempts, 1,515 yards and 18 rushing scores while Stewart had 184 attempts, 836 yards and 10 rushing scores), they certainly were successful as a powerful tandem of starter quality running backs. The Panthers ended the season third in the NFL in rushing yards and first in rushing touchdowns, besting the next closest team by six scores. Even with the Panthers’ poor record in 2009 (5-7), the Panthers’ “double trouble” are primed to finish near the top of both categories again. It is clear that the two-back system is working in Carolina.
The New York Giants also experienced huge success last season leaning on the two-back system. The Giants led the NFL in rushing yards with 2,518. Brandon Jacobs and Derrick Ward accounted for the vast majority of this yardage while splitting the total number of carries somewhat evenly across the season. Brandon Jacobs had 1,089 yards on 219 attempts and 15 rushing touchdowns and Derrick Ward was not far behind with 1,025 yards on 182 carries and two rushing touchdowns. While Ward’s touchdowns are not comparable with Jacobs, the two backs were easily the envy of the league with dueling 1,000 yard seasons. This season the Giants rushing attack has taken a step back. Currently, the G Men are ranked tenth in rushing yardage entering week 14. This can be explained, in part, by the pounding Jacobs took last season. But I cannot help but wonder if the departure of Jacobs’ rushing brother-from-another-mother, Derrick Ward, is to blame. Ahmad Bradshaw (122 attempts for 596 yards and four rushing touchdowns) has not proven himself as an equivalent, starting caliber back that Derrick Ward was last season. In my opinion the Giants stuck with the two-back system, but the problem is the not the system but this season’s choice of backs.
The system is proving itself a winner. Teams like the Panthers, the Giants, and even this year’s Arizona Cardinals team, are really onto something. It is simple and effective and is quickly becoming a must for success in the NFL.
It is a sad weekend to some extent, as the end of the regular season in college football is upon us. However, we still have five more weeks in the regular season for the NFL, and then of course there is the long college football bowl season approaching. This week I am once again focusing on the NFL. The game I have my eye on is Tennessee traveling to Indianapolis to take on the undefeated Colts.
Now I know what you are saying, “What in the name of Bud Adams’ middle finger are you thinking, Loyal Homer? This is a total mismatch! The Colts haven’t lost and the Titans have a losing record!” The Colts are also around a seven point favorite. But, let’s take a closer look at the game.
The Colts are obviously established as the team to beat in the AFC. I can nitpick all I want, but 11-0 is 11-0. Being the guy I am, however, I want to play devil’s advocate not because I have anything against the Colts. I don’t. Peyton Manning is one of the more likable guys in all of sports today. But the Colts have really been skating by the past few weeks with five-consecutive fourth quarter comebacks. Are the comebacks a sign of a resilient team or a team that is not as dominant as its record indicates?
Perhaps this is the week the Colts go down. I keep thinking to myself that the lack of a running game is going to catch up to the Colts. That lack of a running game is why Manning has had to shoulder much of the load with in an inexperienced group of receivers who have really stepped up. The missing running game is one of the reasons Manning is one of the favorites to win a fourth MVP award in 2009, along with two other quarterbacks who are having outstanding seasons – Drew Brees and that Favre fella!
But, here come the Titans, winners of five in a row. I threw the whole team under the bus back in October. But as Bleacher Fan pointed out in Monday’s debate, the Titans are right in the thick of the AFC wild card hunt, as they currently sit just one game back. Vince Young is managing the game effectively, which is something Kerry Collins was not doing the first six games of the season. The real stud on this team, however, is running back Chris Johnson, who has quickly become one of “my boys” with his ability to carry my fantasy team. He is on pace to have one of the greatest seasons ever.
These two teams played back in October in Nashville, with the Colts winning easily 31-9. I remember watching the game and thinking, “What has happened to Tennessee?” Well, the December Titans are a different Titans team fully capable of knocking off the Colts from the ranks of the unbeaten. Laugh now, but be prepared to hear from me if it happens!!
Obviously – and unfortunately – concussions are part of the game of football. It is nothing new. If you are a San Francisco 49ers fan you know all about concussions since Steve Young’s last play as a professional football player was taking a sack that caused a concussion. Troy Aikman suffered many concussions as a player, too. This senior quarterback fella for the Florida Gators named Tim Tebow suffered a concussion earlier this year. And more recently, Ben Roethlisberger and Kurt Warner suffered concussions, not to mention Brian Westbrook, DeSean Jackson, and Clinton Portis. The list goes on and on. Wow, now that we mention it, concussions really have been abundant this year. This really is not a debate on how serious concussions can be if not treated properly. Let’s be honest, that really is not a debate. Treating a concussion properly includes sitting out the game after the injury takes place.
Concussions are so serious that even Congress is getting involved in the matter. The Sports Debates even touched on Congressional involvement about this issue in a debate in October. While I do not believe that Congress needs to interfere, I do believe that the NFL needs to treat concussions seriously.
Let’s look at Kurt Warner, shall we?
Warner admitted that he gave serious consideration to hiding the fact that he was still experiencing post-concussion symptoms so he could be able to play last weekend against the Titans. He certainly would not be the only one to hide that fact. In fact, 30 of the 160 players surveyed by the Associated Press last month said they have hidden or played down the effects of a concussion. Let’s say Warner decided to play with those post-concussion symptoms that he experienced due to the concussion he received in the game the week before. Maybe he plays the game and nothing happens to him. But maybe he takes a big hit from Keith Bullock or another Titans player and goes down with a major head injury, something that effects not only his season but the rest of his career and his life. The possibilities are endless as to what could have happened. Is it really worth that risk? Obviously, there is risk every time a player lines up between the hashes. But, to further that risk by playing just a week after suffering a concussion is irresponsible on the part of both the league and the player. Chances are the competitive nature of the player is going to make the player want to play. It is up to the NFL to set a policy to not allow players to play the week after being diagnosed with a concussion.
I am all for toughness in the NFL. It is what separates professional football from other sports. It is one thing to play a game the week after a spraining an ankle or hurting a shoulder. It is quite another to play the week after suffering a concussion. Concussions have lingering effects that quite possibly impact the rest of a person’s life. There is just absolutely no sense in risking it just for one week when there is possibly so much more at risk.
Read the arguments by Loyal Homer and Bleacher Fan about which owner they believe is the worst in the NFL.
Jerry Jones is the controversial owner of the Dallas Cowboys. His high profile public persona and endorsements have earned him a reputation as a shameless self promoter. His win-at-all-cost mentality and micromanaging leadership style have caused many to view Jones as a tyrannical boss. His over the top spending, on a $1.15 billion dollar stadium and countless acquisitions of superstar coaches and players, has vilified him to many fans of small market teams throughout America. In many respects Jones’ Cowboys are similar to George Steinbrenner’s New York Yankees, and it is for these reasons I respect Jerry Jones… BUT, despite all these similarities – which I consider admirable qualities – there is one glaring weakness which causes me to nominate Jerry Jones as the worst owner in the NFL – success.
One of the simplest and most meaningful truisms in of sports is the phrase “winners win.” Jerry Jones’ Cowboys have not won a postseason game in more than a decade. According to the transitive property (if A=B and B=C then A=C) Jerry Jones is not a winner. Failure was not always the path for Jerry Jones. He experienced success shortly after purchasing the Cowboys in 1989. The Cowboys won their first Jones era Super Bowl in 1993 and then went on to win two more in 1994 and 1996, tying a then NFL record for most Super Bowl wins with five. Unfortunately for Mr. Jones, those days seem long gone as the Cowboys have lost momentum and begun to resemble a shell of their former selves having failed to win a playoff game since December 28, 1996. The NFL is definitely a “what have you done for me lately,” business and the Cowboys have not done anything worth mentioning lately (insert Jessica Simpson joke of choice here, Hiyooo!).
The problem in Big D in recent years has been that Jones brings the wrong guys in and lets the right guys leave. The blame for personnel blunders rests solely on the shoulders of Jerry Jones, since he assumed the general manager duties in addition to his responsibilities as owner in 1994. No one can doubt the fact that Jerry Jones wants to win or that he tries to equip his team with the necessary personnel, but it stands to reason that such an underwhelming playoff record proves that he is not fit to wear the manager hat as well. In the early days of the Jones Era, the Cowboys could boast elite caliber players such as Hall of Famers Troy Aikmen and Michael Irvin as well as future Hall of Famer Emmitt Smith. But those days have gone. Other recent roster moves such as the addition of Adam “Pacman” Jones or the subtraction of Terrell Owens only strengthen the argument that Jones is no longer fit to manage the Cowboys. Entire websites are devoted to removing Jerry Jones from his role as general manager. Jerry needs to drink one of those Diet Pepsi Max’s he has been plugging, and realize a change needs to be made.
Jerry Jones is far and away the worst owner in the NFL, not because he does not care or try but because he squanders and mismanages the vast resources of the Cowboy empire. Having the resources to win and allowing mismanagement to hinder success is far worse than refusing to risk the necessary resources or not having them in the first place. Jerry Jones is Jerry Jones’ biggest problem! Until Jerry Jones (the owner) fires Jerry Jones (the general manager) the Cowboys will remain a team of wasted talent.
Read the arguments by Babe Ruthless and Bleacher Fan about which owner they believe is the worst in the NFL.
Some NFL owners are recognizable for various reasons. Put up a picture of many pro football team owners and most football fans recognize them. Some that come to mind obviously include Jerry Jones, Daniel Snyder, Al Davis, Robert Kraft, Arthur Blank, etc. Other owners are not as recognizable, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. Today, however, TSD is debating the worst owner in the NFL. We had a great time discussing this one behind the scenes, believe me! Both Babe Ruthless and Bleacher Fan have great choices, but I believe that Bill Bidwell, current owner for the Arizona Cardinals, is without a doubt the worst owner in pro football.
Granted, the Cardinals are on a little bit of an upswing right now with last season’s near Super Bowl win and this season’s team off to a 7-3 start. The Cardinals have an NFL superstar in Larry Fitzgerald and a possible future Hall of Fame quarterback in Kurt Warner. But the past two years are two of the best in franchise history. And, quite frankly, that is unacceptable.
Bidwell became part owner of the Cardinals in 1962 and assumed full control in 1972. In his 47 years as at least a part owner the Cardinals (whether in St. Louis or Arizona) have only made the postseason FIVE times!!! Yes, that’s right – FIVE times!
For years the Arizona Cardinals were one of the laughing stocks of the league. Bidwell has been laughed at by opponents and cursed by fans. Draft picks went unsigned. The organization rarely fielded a competitive team, and for 18 years Bidwell allowed fans to bake in the hot desert heat at fan-unfriendly Sun Devil Stadium… a stadium the team sold out just 12 times! Since he took over the reins in 1972, the team’s record under his watch is a ridiculously bad 237-344-4. That record includes 17 losing seasons in its current home, Arizona. It also includes four postseason wins with three of those wins coming in last season’s magical run.
Many say Bidwell gets too much criticism. They say he stays out of the limelight because he does not like the attention. Perhaps that is a good thing because Bidwell does not get a lot of attention, positive attention at least, since the Cardinals have been unsuccessful for much of their existence. The bottom line, however, is winning. Winning is something the Cardinals have not done consistently. Heck, it really isn’t something the organization has done sporadically. Five postseason appearances under Bidwell’s watch is totally ridiculous. That is one of the many reasons I have declared Bill Bidwell the worst owner in pro football, despite the run the Cardinals current success.
Read the debate intro, Sports Geek’s argument that the 49ers should cut ties with Michael Crabtree and Bleacher Fan’s argument that the 49ers should sign Crabtree .
I get the feeling that the majority of people think Michael Crabtree has lost his mind.
Sports Geek thinks that it’s time for the San Francisco 49ers to cut ties with Crabtree. Despite his accomplishments at Texas Tech, Sports Geek argued that adding him to the team at this point would do more harm than good. Sports Geek points out that head coach Mike Singletary is working with a team that has been through rookie camp, OTAs, training camp, preseason, and the first part of this season. Adding Crabtree at this point would be disruptive because Crabtree, being a rookie, has too much to learn. Sports Geek also touches on the fact that 2010 will likely be an uncapped year in the NFL, thus freeing up more funds for the 49ers.
Bleacher Fan argues that the San Francisco 49ers should still make every effort to sign Crabtree, pointing out the struggles of the offense and the lack of depth at some offensive positions. Bleacher Fan also correctly points out that some of the more talented players in the NFL today didn’t start or play much at all in the NFL during their rookie campaign. How’d that turn out for Tom Brady so far? Three Super Bowl championships later, I’d say it’s turned out fairly well. Bleacher Fan uses those examples to highlight the fact that, if signed, the rest of this year can be used for the development of Crabtree’s skills.
After reviewing the case and taking a closer look at the points both parties made in their arguments, I am awarding the verdict to Sports Geek!
This was a closer case than I originally thought it may be. Bleacher Fan makes a good case in pointing out the current players who were non-factors their first year, but this Crabtree situation is a different cookie. The players Bleacher Fan mentioned didn’t hold out their rookie season because they disagreed with the contract their team was offering. They didn’t miss all of training camp and preseason and all of the regular season (to this point). I’m convinced by Sports Geek that adding Crabtree onto a 53-man roster at this point would be detrimental to the 49ers organization. It’s difficult enough to make it in the league and fit into a locker room as a rookie. Add to that the circumstances regarding Crabtree’s absence and it equals a recipe for bitterness, jealousy, and controversy.
Agree or disagree? Post your comments below. We’d love to hear from you. Check back later today for more debates!
Posted by Loyal Homer 
