Why so little love for the smaller RBs?

[WV Cowboy]

Guess we will never know ... But i assume to you its a easy question

I don't think I am alone, .. or the only one that thinks that the NFL is waaaay more physical than college football.

 

[xwalker]

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.

Johnson is bigger than some people give him credit for. I heard a guy on the radio compare him to Dunbar which is inaccurate.

Having said that, he does not have the same type of build as Emmitt. I think his size is borderline as a lead back.

 

[Fla Cowpoke]

I think that is pretty evident that the team has physical prototypes at many positions not just RB. Look at WR. If you are not six foot or above, you are outside their threshold.

YEah, they would never have room for guys like Dwayne Harris and Cole Beasley!!!!! Erpppp...what?

 

[Plankton]

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.

Most aren't good enough at pass protection, which is a larger factor in today's NFL. Guys like Emmitt Smith are the exceptions to that rule.

 

[Plankton]

I may be wrong, but I think the question was about the organization.

They have shied away from smaller backs like Duke Ferguson and Ameer Abdullah in favor of bigger backs, so it seems evident they want runners who can take the pounding.

You mean Duke Johnson.

Duke Fergerson was the guy the Cowboys drafted with the pick acquired in the Bob Hayes to San Francisco trade.

 

[xwalker]

Most aren't good enough at pass protection, which is a larger factor in today's NFL. Guys like Emmitt Smith are the exceptions to that rule.

Good point. Pass pro is difficult for the smaller guys.

 

[mattjames2010]

You can't compare RBs to legends. Legends are exceptions to rules, they transcended the lack of size/speed and did things their own way or they came out of college with freakish abilities.

Smith and Sanders were great for reasons very few RBs possess, mainly durability. If you want to compare short RBs, compare them to good/great RBs their size like MJD or Darren Sproles.

 

[mattjames2010]

But at the same time, size/speed doesn't matter to me. Production does, if I watch a players film and they are "undersized" but still tearing up the football field, that's all I care about if I believe it can translate into the pros.

 

[VACowboy]

Emmitt was smaller for what we think of right now. I'll bet that he wasn't significantly smaller then his average contemporary.

Surprisingly enough, the average weight of RB's was three pounds more in 1993 than it was a season ago.

 

[Fla Cowpoke]

First off, Emmitt and Dorsett did not have the same body type other than having one head, two arms and two legs. Emmitt was thick and powerful with just enough speed. Dorsett was very lean and a sprinter with just enough power.

I personally do like the 5-10" 205 lbers. Ray Rice is in that mold but only about 5'8". Of course there were Emmitt and Barry Sanders. Emmitt was about 5'9" but closer to 215, 220. Sanders is 5'8" and low 200's.

Who fits that out of this year's draft? Duke Johnson and Ameer Abdullah. Both in the 4.5 speed range which is faster than Emmitt, about the same as Rice and slower than Sanders. I don't think either guy will be excluded from consideration.

 

[VACowboy]

I think the team is looking for a plugger, dirty yards type

I think lots of bigger, less shifty backs create "dirty yards" because they lack the elusiveness or vision to avoid contact. Murray could truck a guy and push a pile, but he left a ton of yards on the field because he didn't see a running lane or lacked the speed/wiggle to get to it.

Myself, I would like to have a guy or couple of guys who can see those lanes and possess/es the explosiveness to rip off big chunks of yardage or take the ball to the house. I do understand and appreciate the philosophy of sending a bruiser at a defense down after down, though, so that by the fourth quarter the defense is battered and really tired of seeing that guy coming. It's demoralizing. And I have to say, I love the idea of my team being a bully.

(I can't remember who it was that pointed out Peter King's article to me, but that column changed my tune some on this subject.)

 

[Alexander]

YEah, they would never have room for guys like Dwayne Harris and Cole Beasley!!!!! Erpppp...what?

Look how long it took for each to actually break onto the roster? They both did it the hard way.

 

[WV Cowboy]

I'm not real particular about the size, but I'll take an Emmitt Smith type "downhill runner" over an elusive, shifty juker like Barry Sanders every single time.

Trying to "take it to the house" every play is not what being a running back is about, .. and will not win football games.

 

[VACowboy]

Interesting article on RB size. Written in 2011 but includes data from seasons beginning with 1991.

http://www.sports-central.org/sports/2011/03/15/does_size_matter_for_running_backs.php

 

[silver]

In 1972 both Pittsburgh and Dallas needed RB's. Pittsburgh took Franco at 13 in the first round and we took Newhouse in the second round. They had an advantage over us when we met in the '75 superbowl. Size does matter, it's not just scheme, in football and other endeveours.

 

[VACowboy]

In 1972 both Pittsburgh and Dallas needed RB's. Pittsburgh took Franco at 13 in the first round and we took Newhouse in the second round. They had an advantage over us when we met in the '75 superbowl. Size does matter, it's not just scheme, in football and other endeveours.

Harris was good because he was good, not because he was big. Statistics actually say big players, both taller and heavier, are less successful RBs in the NFL.. Check out the page I linked in my last post.

 

[BlindFaith]

Interesting article on RB size. Written in 2011 but includes data from seasons beginning with 1991.

http://www.sports-central.org/sports/2011/03/15/does_size_matter_for_running_backs.php

Great stuff!

 

[visionary]

Appreciate the insight guys but this is all irrelevant to the 2015 cowboys

AP has size and speed

 

[Fla Cowpoke]

Appreciate the insight guys but this is all irrelevant to the 2015 cowboys

AP has size and speed

Peterson is 6'1", 217 lbs and runs a 4.4.

Gordon is almost a clone at 6'1", 215 and 4.43 according to Sportsline's draft rankings. Would be about 1/10th the cost of Peterson.

 

[visionary]

Peterson is 6'1", 217 lbs and runs a 4.4.

Gordon is almost a clone at 6'1", 215 and 4.43 according to Sportsline's draft rankings. Would be about 1/10th the cost of Peterson.

Like I said "irrelevant"
He who shall not be named (HESNBN) is a done deal