Running Back: Is One True Backup Enough?

[TwistedL0g1k]

For the sake of this discussion, "Backup" running back means a player that can step in and replace Pollard. A player that can play all 3 downs, and handle all aspects of the RB position. Neither Deuce nor Luepke can fulfill this role.

If the team wanted to keep both Deuce and Luepke, that would leave only one roster spot for a true backup- assuming the team keeps no more than 4 RB's, which I think is a safe assumption.

Under this scenario, the RB position would look like this:

1) Pollard
2) Jones or Davis or Dowdle
3) Deuce
4) Luepke

(the alternative is Luepke on the PS, and retain 2 of Jones/Davis/Dowdle)

Is having only 1 true backup capable of carrying a full load enough? If Pollard misses time, is it OK to have only 1 RB capable of being a 3-down back for an entire game?

Thoughts?

 

[blueblood70]

For the sake of this discussion, "Backup" running back means a player that can step in and replace Pollard. A player that can play all 3 downs, and handle all aspects of the RB position. Neither Deuce nor Luepke can fulfill this role.

If the team wanted to keep both Deuce and Luepke, that would leave only one roster spot for a true backup- assuming the team keeps no more than 4 RB's, which I think is a safe assumption.

Under this scenario, the RB position would look like this:

1) Pollard
2) Jones or Davis or Dowdle
3) Deuce
4) Luepke

(the alternative is Luepke on the PS, and retain 2 of Jones/Davis/Dowdle)

Is having only 1 true backup capable of carrying a full load enough? If Pollard misses time, is it OK to have only 1 RB capable of being a 3-down back for an entire game?

Thoughts?

That's completely false maybe you're misunderstanding because most teams have two backs that are very different they're change of pace backs the backup is typically very different than the starter and Tony Pollard was not a three down back he was not a back that can block and yet everybody said not only was he the number two back but they were trying to claim that he should have been the number one back all year he is not a three down back he cannot block he cannot handle the whole entire load.

So your premise is false we should keep three or four running backs in the rotation different games you're gonna find a guy that's gonna be the number 2 or #3 to step up that game you know go with the hot hand every defense you play there might be a running back on that list that can do better in that situation so you use a true running back by committee Tony Pollard gets the bulk of the snaps and then you find out from the other backs who's gonna be hot that day who's gonna be better for that game plan
seriously??

seriously tell me all those teams that played in the Super bowl the last two Super Bowls that had Philadelphia had Sanders and I don't even know who else was his backup Kansas City had a whole bunch of names I truly didn't know much about that's a true running back committee then you had the Rams with acres and who else? And then you had the Bengals with a pretty decent running back but after him who was the backups on all these teams who truly could mimic the starter and by the way I don't think any of those four teams from the last two Super Bowls had a better running back room than us we're at least on par Tony Pollard is every bit as good as any of those starters from those four teams and our backups could easily do what their backups did

why all of a sudden is that a big thing here when we watch teams like say the 49ers the last four years they were using running back by committee they weren't using any true starter really and yes they traded for McCaffrey but they're not gonna put the big load on him and also McCaffrey very similar not the same but similar to Tony Pollard but are you telling me that their top two running backs are exactly the same? I say no your premise is way off next year when we have to get rid of Tony Pollard we need to find a starting running back yes but we're gonna worry about 2024 when 2024 comes and I'm not that worried about trying to find a running back.

 

[TwistedL0g1k]

A "committee" of versatile running backs is quite different than a committee of specialized backs.

 

[CowboyRoy]

For the sake of this discussion, "Backup" running back means a player that can step in and replace Pollard. A player that can play all 3 downs, and handle all aspects of the RB position. Neither Deuce nor Luepke can fulfill this role.

If the team wanted to keep both Deuce and Luepke, that would leave only one roster spot for a true backup- assuming the team keeps no more than 4 RB's, which I think is a safe assumption.

Under this scenario, the RB position would look like this:

1) Pollard
2) Jones or Davis or Dowdle
3) Deuce
4) Luepke

(the alternative is Luepke on the PS, and retain 2 of Jones/Davis/Dowdle)

Is having only 1 true backup capable of carrying a full load enough? If Pollard misses time, is it OK to have only 1 RB capable of being a 3-down back for an entire game?

Thoughts?

Why does the 2nd guy have to do everything? Deuce and leupke can do it all between them.

 

[CowboyRoy]

That's completely false maybe you're misunderstanding because most teams have two backs that are very different they're change of pace backs the backup is typically very different than the starter and Tony Pollard was not a three down back he was not a back that can block and yet everybody said not only was he the number two back but they were trying to claim that he should have been the number one back all year he is not a three down back he cannot block he cannot handle the whole entire load.

So your premise is false we should keep three or four running backs in the rotation different games you're gonna find a guy that's gonna be the number 2 or #3 to step up that game you know go with the hot hand every defense you play there might be a running back on that list that can do better in that situation so you use a true running back by committee Tony Pollard gets the bulk of the snaps and then you find out from the other backs who's gonna be hot that day who's gonna be better for that game plan
seriously??

seriously tell me all those teams that played in the Super bowl the last two Super Bowls that had Philadelphia had Sanders and I don't even know who else was his backup Kansas City had a whole bunch of names I truly didn't know much about that's a true running back committee then you had the Rams with acres and who else? And then you had the Bengals with a pretty decent running back but after him who was the backups on all these teams who truly could mimic the starter and by the way I don't think any of those four teams from the last two Super Bowls had a better running back room than us we're at least on par Tony Pollard is every bit as good as any of those starters from those four teams and our backups could easily do what their backups did

why all of a sudden is that a big thing here when we watch teams like say the 49ers the last four years they were using running back by committee they weren't using any true starter really and yes they traded for McCaffrey but they're not gonna put the big load on him and also McCaffrey very similar not the same but similar to Tony Pollard but are you telling me that their top two running backs are exactly the same? I say no your premise is way off next year when we have to get rid of Tony Pollard we need to find a starting running back yes but we're gonna worry about 2024 when 2024 comes and I'm not that worried about trying to find a running back.

Pollard can block well. That was a false narrative pushed by the zeke apologists

 

[big dog cowboy]

For the sake of this discussion, "Backup" running back means a player that can step in and replace Pollard. A player that can play all 3 downs, and handle all aspects of the RB position.

The Cowboys are going RBBC this year. Different roles for different players.

 

[jazzcat22]

Pollard can block well. That was a false narrative pushed by the zeke apologists

There you go, can’t leave running your drivel about Zeke Out of any post. You could have had a decent post until that part.

Pollard lovers say he can block well, but all I seen was Dak getting killed or throwing INTs from his lack of blocking.

 

[gimmesix]

For the sake of this discussion, "Backup" running back means a player that can step in and replace Pollard. A player that can play all 3 downs, and handle all aspects of the RB position. Neither Deuce nor Luepke can fulfill this role.

If the team wanted to keep both Deuce and Luepke, that would leave only one roster spot for a true backup- assuming the team keeps no more than 4 RB's, which I think is a safe assumption.

Under this scenario, the RB position would look like this:

1) Pollard
2) Jones or Davis or Dowdle
3) Deuce
4) Luepke

(the alternative is Luepke on the PS, and retain 2 of Jones/Davis/Dowdle)

Is having only 1 true backup capable of carrying a full load enough? If Pollard misses time, is it OK to have only 1 RB capable of being a 3-down back for an entire game?

Thoughts?

I don't know if we just have one true backup. Vaughn was a three-down back in college, so I'm not sure that we should limit him to a specialty role until he shows that's all he can do. Now, because of his size, there is reason to be concerned that he can be more than that on this level, but there are also concerns about Jones (falling off the map since his breakout year in 2020) and Davis/Dowdle (limited evidence to say either can be a No. 2).

I think the only known specialty back of this group would be Luepke. If he makes the team, it will likely be as a fullback/short-yardage back.

 

[gimmesix]

There you go, can’t leave running your drivel about Zeke Out of any post. You could have had a decent post until that part.

Pollard lovers say he can block well, but all I seen was Dak getting killed or throwing INTs from his lack of blocking.

I thought Pollard's blocking was sufficient last year. It was a concern of mine until then.

 

[jazzcat22]

I thought Pollard's blocking was sufficient last year. It was a concern of mine until then.

He was better than I thought, as he Improved as the season went on.
He just needs the reps. But he was no where close to what is needed. Maybe that improves this season knowing he is the lead RB.

 

[TwistedL0g1k]

Why does the 2nd guy have to do everything? Deuce and leupke can do it all between them.

The primary, "starting" running back needs to be able to run, block, and receive. All options should be available to the play caller.

Specialty backs shrink the playbook.

 

[glimmerman]

This is why a RB like Elliot was so important. Maybe not worth that much money but the talent was needed. He broke lines down and allowed a talent like Pollard to come out and be very successful. To the point people want him as the starter. Well you’re about to see it. And I am not so sure we are going to like what we see. We have heard the RB coach say that Pollard said he is done after 12 or so carries. Whats gonna happen when he is the starter. He will need to take it between the tackles early and give out punishment. RB by committee works if you have a bruiser. We need to be balanced and have success running the ball early or we will get behind and abandon it. Along with the fact we need a blocker to pick up blitz. Pollard isn’t the best at it. If Elliot could come back cheap I would take him to let him block and take 8-10 snaps early.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

I thought Pollard's blocking was sufficient last year. It was a concern of mine until then.

If we fix the oline and scheme....pollard will be just fine and we wont ruin him like we did zeke.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

This is why a RB like Elliot was so important. Maybe not worth that much money but the talent was needed. He broke lines down and allowed a talent like Pollard to come out and be very successful. To the point people want him as the starter. Well you’re about to see it. And I am not so sure we are going to like what we see. We have heard the RB coach say that Pollard said he is done after 12 or so carries. Whats gonna happen when he is the starter. He will need to take it between the tackles early and give out punishment. RB by committee works if you have a bruiser. We need to be balanced and have success running the ball early or we will get behind and abandon it. Along with the fact we need a blocker to pick up blitz. Pollard isn’t the best at it. If Elliot could come back cheap I would take him to let him block and take 8-10 snaps early.

Well said. Im not saying he cant do whats needed. But those without any concern whatsoever ignore the history of tony....and most seem to be zeke haters.

 

[gimmesix]

If we fix the oline and scheme....pollard will be just fine and we wont ruin him like we did zeke.

Well, an argument could be made that Elliott running style ruined him as much or more than anything else. He had been a punishing-style runner and that wears you down more than the elusive type. The elusive types have to worry more about soft tissue injuries because of the stress and strain they put on their ligaments and tendons. Pollard's broken leg is more in the fluke category. A defender falling on your ankle will do that.

 

[Whirlwin]

Pollard can block well. That was a false narrative pushed by the zeke apologists

He’s nowhere near a good of a pass protector as Elliot was. That doesn’t mean he can’t get there.

 

[glimmerman]

Well said. Im not saying he cant do whats needed. But those without any concern whatsoever ignore the history of tony....and most seem to be zeke haters.

Exactly. Elliot can’t carry the full load anymore but he can slam that line early and break them down. He has been injury for the last few years but went out and played anyways. That’s on the staff for not pulling him. But I think it’s also because they didn’t have another option.

And we don’t even know how Pollard is going to be coming off a bad injury. He is now supposed to come in and start and block and run how many times a game. 15-20.. If it’s not Elliot then bring in another bruiser.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

Well, an argument could be made that Elliott running style ruined him as much or more than anything else. He had been a punishing-style runner and that wears you down more than the elusive type. The elusive types have to worry more about soft tissue injuries because of the stress and strain they put on their ligaments and tendons. Pollard's broken leg is more in the fluke category. A defender falling on your ankle will do that.

Okay.
Id like to get actual numbers on his blocks and compare them to say.....barkley.

 

[glimmerman]

Well, an argument could be made that Elliott running style ruined him as much or more than anything else. He had been a punishing-style runner and that wears you down more than the elusive type. The elusive types have to worry more about soft tissue injuries because of the stress and strain they put on their ligaments and tendons. Pollard's broken leg is more in the fluke category. A defender falling on your ankle will do that.

Yeah it was the same tackle that hurt Dak. And Elliot also the year before. Actually Elliot took that tackle twice in one year. I was shocked it didn’t break his ankle or leg.

 

[plasticman]

The Cowboys need far more than a backup. They need a guy capable of carrying the ball ten times a game. They certainly aren't going to give Pollard the ball 30 times a game for 17 games.

Last season the Cowboys ran the ball 531 times or a little over 31 times a game. McCarthy has indicated he wants to run the ball even more. Who can the Cowboys give the ball to for 10 carries a game and expect a meaningfull contribution?