|
|
Post by groundchuck on May 10, 2006 9:49:46 GMT -6
For discussion: Which is tougher to defend in your opinion. I know there are other factors involved but take it at face value.
A) A horse of a runningback with good speed who can pound it inside or run outside. The OL is average and there is not much else to help him.
OR
B) A QB-WR combo that is almost always on target. WR does not have to be a burner but runs great routes and has excellent hands. He has enough speed to go deep if you don't give him at least a little respect. But he's a possession type reciever. QB does not throw deep great but is accurate on the short to intermediate throws and makes good decisions. Also there are no other good recievers just these two guys.
|
|
|
|
Post by tog on May 10, 2006 10:08:10 GMT -6
a horse of a qb that can run it
|
|
|
|
Post by coachjd on May 10, 2006 10:50:04 GMT -6
I would vote stud RB is tougher to defend. You can get the ball to the TB a lot easier and more often than the receiver.
|
|
|
|
Post by superpower on May 10, 2006 11:05:41 GMT -6
a) Jim Brown
b) Joe Montana to Jerry Rice
My feeling is that Jim Brown is harder to defend, but Montana to Rice was very successful.
|
|
|
|
Post by superpower on May 10, 2006 11:10:29 GMT -6
Oops. I would have to modify b) after reading the info above again because the other receivers were pretty good.
b) Jim Zorn to Steve Largent
That makes a) the obvious answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by pegleg on May 10, 2006 11:24:57 GMT -6
the answer is (c) none of the above.
the reason is your gonna get your ass kicked with either one. its easy to defend one guy at any spot.
barry sanders didn't win many game because he was it. you couldn't stop him but it didn't matter.
zorn/largent was the same thing. couldn't stop them but they still couldn't win.
i'm not saying you have to have studs everywhere but the others better be seviceable to at least provide the idea of other options.
you better have more than one thing you can do or your screwed, blued, and tattooed!
|
|
|
|
Post by coachjblair on May 10, 2006 11:46:42 GMT -6
I would rather have a stud RB, strictly due to the fact I like to get the ball a lot of receivers in the passing game (kind of the Texas Tech method).
|
|
|
|
Post by tye2021 on May 10, 2006 13:27:27 GMT -6
In high scool a stud running back could be a nightmare. And that one offensive weapon could be all you need. A good DC could put together a scheme to minimize the damage of the QB/WR combo. But I've seen a runningback in (highschool) brack the will of defenses and teams were able to win that way.
You could also be successful on the college and pro level as long as you have a defense to back you up.....or lead the way!!!(Ravens)! Though it doesn't happen often on this level.
|
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on May 10, 2006 13:37:00 GMT -6
I too would rather have the stud RB for the same reasons mentioned in the posts above. Not that the QB-WR combo is a bad thing but there are other factors like weather, pass pro, and double coverage that limit how many times he touches the ball. I suppose though if you used a lot of fly/jet/rocket sweep with the WR it would be a good way to get the ball in his hands too. But that is a whole 'nother discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachdawhip on May 11, 2006 10:57:07 GMT -6
in college and pros give me the WR and QB combo, in HS give me the RB
|
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on May 11, 2006 11:08:45 GMT -6
RB touches the ball a lot more, so I'll go with the RB.
|
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on May 14, 2006 12:39:41 GMT -6
I agree with the RB for HS. If you scheme a little bit you can still have him be the focus of your O and get some other guys involved with good faking.
I also agree with tog, I might make him my QB. If he can flip it 5-yards on a sprint out, and fake tossing the football to someone else, we might let him touch it every play.
|
|
