Why so little love for the smaller RBs?

[Chuck 54]

Why does everyone look at the RBs coming out of college who carried the load for their college teams and think most of them are too small or too slow to carry the load for the Cowboys? Demarco Murray was 6' and 213. Walter Perton was not a huge back; Jamal Charles is not a huge back.

Emmitt Smith -- 5'9" -- 210 lbs -- 4.7 forty (combine results)

You don't need a 220 lb, 6 foot tall back. I prefer the guys built more like Emmitt and Dorsett (5'11"--192).

Abdullah and Duke Johnson are both big enough, and they are natural runners with great jump cuts who can make defenders miss in the hole and in the secondary. We have the line; I don't care if our back has the power to turn 1 yard into 2. I want the back that's hard to find behind the huge boys up front, the back who slithers through and makes guys miss, seldom taking a direct hit, a back who gets more out of the well blocked runs than is there.

How big does a full time RB who carries the load have to be? It doesn't really matter if you look at the greatest Dallas backs of all time and one of today's best, Jamal Charles...if he's the hands down best back on the team, he Will get most of the touches, and these are the backs who seem to know how to avoid injuries.

 

[Ashwynn]

You ever look at the D linemen and LBers of today. Small things gets squished when they run into a huge mountain of a man. that could be one reason. just saying.

 

[DogFace]

You ever look at the D linemen and LBers of today. Small things gets squished when they run into a huge mountain of a man. that could be one reason. just saying.

Right. Like Sproles.

 

[PJTHEDOORS]

Sure 'Boys want someone who can block and you do need some strength for that, height maybe not, but some weight. Murray had that. Who knows, if our FB is good enough (the newly signed one), maybe it changes their perception.

 

[WV Cowboy]

Who is overlooking the so-called smaller RB's? The Cowboys organization or the fans?

I think we all would prefer Emmitt and Dorsett, .. but guys like that don't come along very often.

Landry protected Dorsett by not running him very much because he was so smallish. I was thinking he was more around 185, but they may have been when he entered the NFL.

In today's NFL, if you want to run between the tackles, your RB needs to have some bulk to him, IMO.

 

[blumayne38]

I ag7ree but i dont think we are o ly looking at bigger backs i dont think gordon or Abdullah are that big of backs are they?....i agree though most people think the "bigger" backs are the ones that can carry the load but thats not always the case smaller backs that are elusive and have good vision dont take big hits they stay low and move the ball..imo

 

[Ashwynn]

Right. Like Sproles.

Not saying every small back is a statue, some have elusiveness, thats key if your a small back. But generally big beats small is all I'm saying. . If you can get a 6'0 back with speed and some heft thats always better then a small back, no matter what hes got.

 

[Doomsday101]

Why does everyone look at the RBs coming out of college who carried the load for their college teams and think most of them are too small or too slow to carry the load for the Cowboys? Demarco Murray was 6' and 213. Walter Perton was not a huge back; Jamal Charles is not a huge back.

Emmitt Smith -- 5'9" -- 210 lbs -- 4.7 forty (combine results)

You don't need a 220 lb, 6 foot tall back. I prefer the guys built more like Emmitt and Dorsett (5'11"--192).

Abdullah and Duke Johnson are both big enough, and they are natural runners with great jump cuts who can make defenders miss in the hole and in the secondary. We have the line; I don't care if our back has the power to turn 1 yard into 2. I want the back that's hard to find behind the huge boys up front, the back who slithers through and makes guys miss, seldom taking a direct hit, a back who gets more out of the well blocked runs than is there.

How big does a full time RB who carries the load have to be? It doesn't really matter if you look at the greatest Dallas backs of all time and one of today's best, Jamal Charles...if he's the hands down best back on the team, he Will get most of the touches, and these are the backs who seem to know how to avoid injuries.

I have no problem with smaller backs but I still expect a RB to have power those runs turning a 1 yard gain into a 2 yard gain is big down by the goal line or when trying to pick up the long one or 2 yards. I will take a tough back over a speed back who can't break tackles or pick up the tough yards any day of the week.

 

[Doomsday101]

Not saying every small back is a statue, some have elusiveness, thats key if your a small back. But generally big beats small is all I'm saying. . If you can get a 6'0 back with speed and some heft thats always better then a small back, no matter what hes got.

To an extent but some smaller backs have legs like tree trunks and can push the pile. Emmitt was not overly big but was tough and strong

 

[Ashwynn]

To an extent but some smaller backs have legs like tree trunks and can push the pile. Emmitt was not overly big but was tough and strong

I'm not against the small backs personally. I agree. Some small backs are better than some larger backs. And vice versa, all depends on who were talking about and how much heart that player has. Theres no one quality that makes one back better than another back, and a small back can overcome his liabilities with a larger dose of another quality. I would love to have a larger bruising back spell a small quick elusive back in my ideal backfield.Hope I did not sound like I was saying small backs cant play, if you've made it to the NFL, your a tough hombre, no matter your stature. I aint taking anything away from anyone in the NFL, these are all men in my book.

 

[DFWJC]

Weight does not necessarily tell all about size. Shorter RBs with powerful bodies (like MJD or Ray Rice...and also Emmitt and Barry Sanders) are sturdier than their weight indicates. Big legs.

For the most part, backs built like Charles or Chris Johnson better be very fast and/or shifty. Dorsett could fly too.

A poor combo would be to be built like Charles but have 4.6 speed.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Who is overlooking the so-called smaller RB's? The Cowboys organization or the fans?

I think we all would prefer Emmitt and Dorsett, .. but guys like that don't come along very often.

Landry protected Dorsett by not running him very much because he was so smallish. I was thinking he was more around 185, but they may have been when he entered the NFL.

In today's NFL, if you want to run between the tackles, your RB needs to have some bulk to him, IMO.

Exactly. There is no TD and there is no Emmitt in this draft IMO.

 

[Bullflop]

Basically, I think Dallas is looking for a back who is able to provide the same attributes that Murray gave them. It's pretty unusual to find a smaller back that's able to block and pick up the extra yards with power that a much bigger back would give them. Needless to say, there are always exceptions but the desire to find a back of considerable size that's able to do it all is usually preferable to one that isn't likely to provide it. Emmitt Smith was an extremely rare exception to the norm. Finding another small back with his attributes is about as rare as hen's teeth.

 

[blumayne38]

Who is overlooking the so-called smaller RB's? The Cowboys organization or the fans?

I think we all would prefer Emmitt and Dorsett, .. but guys like that don't come along very often.

Landry protected Dorsett by not running him very much because he was so smallish. I was thinking he was more around 185, but they may have been when he entered the NFL.

In today's NFL, if you want to run between the tackles, your RB needs to have some bulk to him, IMO.

I think there could be a smaller back that could wiggle and maneuver his way down between tackles he dosent "have to have" "bulk"...its not thw braun its the brain

 

[Rogerthat12]

I think it depends on the system you run in the today's NFL and the particular back you are considering.

Like the other poster states correctly, today's game features massive linemen with elite size and speed.

If you are a ball control team and prefer to run inside often, then you probably prefer a back with size and power who can carry the load and take the beating with less probability of injury.

If you are a team that runs by committee then backs like Duke Johnson and others are a perfect fit.

There are certainly exceptions to this rule, guys that are smaller in stature but who were hall of fame legends or rare athletes who lacked size but had the rare ability to still run inside with power regardless.

That is to say even though they lack ideal size, they had rare lower body power and the physical tools to succeed running inside regardless.

The Cowboys apparently prefer a ball control style now, with the powerful inside runner that can run downhill.

Jerry and company have recently stated they would like a feature back that can carry the load, not a third down or scat back.

So I think where the confusion lies, is in the value a particular RB has to a given team as opposed to simply the size of the RB.

I think backs of all sizes have value, it just depends on the particular back because not all small backs are created equal ( some are elite, have power) and many do not fit the ball control system.

Team fit and individual ability is what really matters but power running teams typically will look for size and power in today's NFL.

 

[blumayne38]

I have no problem with smaller backs but I still expect a RB to have power those runs turning a 1 yard gain into a 2 yard gain is big down by the goal line or when trying to pick up the long one or 2 yards. I will take a tough back over a speed back who can't break tackles or pick up the tough yards any day of the week.

Why do they have to be "big" to do that generally if u stay low and keep moving your feet thats all you need to turn a 1 yard loss into a 2 yard gain

 

[WV Cowboy]

I think there could be a smaller back that could wiggle and maneuver his way down between tackles he dosent "have to have" "bulk"...its not thw braun its the brain

Until he gets hit.

 

[Bullflop]

Why do they have to be "big" to do that generally if u stay low and keep moving your feet thats all you need to turn a 1 yard loss into a 2 yard gain

For every small back that can stay low, keep moving his feet and move the pile, there are five that can't.

 

[Rogerthat12]

Right. Like Sproles.

Sproles is not a feature back.

 

[blumayne38]

Until he gets hit.

If you have payed football your entire life and make it to the nfl and get drafted on draft day the chances are he has been "hit" b4 now if u get steam rolled thats your fault like i said its hard for bigger guys to get lower then a smaller guy generally they hust fall ontop of them