Big play RB vs. Grinder (1 Viewer)

[Wildman]

I'm watching Adrian Peterson get 1-3 yard runs and then occasionally break a long one that completely deflates a defense and I wondered if I were an NFL coach and had a chance to pick my own groceries would I rather have a player like Adrian Peterson, Barry Sanders, and (if he becomes what some expect) and Darren McFadden type back who has a lot of small gains and then "makes up for it" with a long run for a score or would I rather have a Marion Barber, Ricky Watters, Curtis Martin, or Stephen Davis who may have a big run once in a while but you can count on them for 4-7 yard runs on a more consistent basis?

Of course all of us would want an LT or Emmitt Smith who can do both but when you look at the spectrum of NFL runners generally they lean more one way or another.

So if you couldn't get a guy that is can do both almost as well...which would you choose? I know we can nitpick that Peterson is more physical than say Steve Slaton and that might be a factor, but to keep it a little more simple I'm not exploring that factor.

Pros for Big Play Artist

To me it seems Peterson places so much pressure on the defense that one mistake can be the equivalent of a long pass but with the added benefit of him wearing down the defense with his physical play so they are more inclined to make a mistake due to wearing them down. I think we could say many big play artists have this benefit if the offense is run-oriented and they get enough carries regardless of how punishing they are because their offensive line does a lot of that dirty work anyhow.

These runners also can force a defense to neglect the passing game because they feel they have to be so vigilant against the run.

Cons against the Big Play Artist

When a back doesn't break these big plays and can only gain 1-3 yards, it places a lot more pressure on the passing offense when they face 2nd and 9 or 3rd and 7 on a consistent basis. Short yardage situations can be an adventure because they have this great, big-play guy but you have to wonder if the team has enough confidence in this player on a 4th QTR 3rd and 2 or a goal line situation and it forces them to go away from their perceived strength.

Pros for Grinder

Think about that game this season where Marion Barber basically drives the ball down field against the Redskins defense late in the 4th QTR. Washington's defense knew it was coming and Barber continued to make play after play after play. He's reliable and wears teams out. To me a Grinder is perfect in the play action pass game or a dynamic passing attack because he sets up your plays down field. Look at Edgerrin James against Atlanta. He was grinding out 5-9 yard plays in the 1st QTR and set up those two big plays in the passing game. It's what Addai had done to help Manning or Corey Dillon with Brady because it is easier to be aggressive in the passing game on 2nd a 4 or 3rd and 3.

Cons for a Grinder

I'm not sure there are any This is really what I'd like to know from you guys. Are there cons for this type of back other than they aren't that helpful in a 2-minute drill and they won't change the momentum of the game as quickly as a big play threat.

Thoughts?

 

[-OZ-]

Jeff Fisher asked himself the same question.

He slightly preferred Chris Johnson and I'd have to agree.

I grew up watching Barry and loved it, but a coach could have a stroke.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

There aren't many guys that put up a consistently good average without breaking some long runs. See Ryan Grant 2007 vs 2008 for one example of what happens when the big gains stop.

IOW... there just aren't very many guys who can get you 4-7 routinely without also having the talent to break off a long run.

 

[Road Warriors]

The biggest con I can see with the grinder type as described is that if you fall behind with this type of back, you mostly have to abandon the run to get back in the game. With the gamebreaker type of back, you can continue to take shots with your running game as well, which should keep defenses more honest and give you a better shot of getting back into the game.

 

[Gottabesweet]

Big Play RB's generally catch the ball and Grinder's don't so I choose a Big Play Back.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Despite what's happened the last couple games, Peterson is definitely not just one of those players that gets nothing a bunch of times and then breaks a big one. To the contrary, he doesn't have that many big runs this year, and has typically gotten his yards 4-9 yards at a time.

He's more of a grinder that also has big play ability.

 

[Garts]

Rudi Johnson was the classic grinder with the Bengals when they were explosive. If I remember correctly, he had well over 300 carries and his long was 22 yards or something like that a few years back.

Imagine that offence had a big play RB...he would have lit it up BIGTIME.

I guess they drafted Perry, but he was dinged up from the get-go.

 

[gianmarco]

Despite what's happened the last couple games, Peterson is definitely not just one of those players that gets nothing a bunch of times and then breaks a big one. To the contrary, he doesn't have that many big runs this year, and has typically gotten his yards 4-9 yards at a time.He's more of a grinder that also has big play ability.

Due to the poor play calling and sub-par QB play, he's had more of those short or no gain type runs. But, he's had plenty of games where he rips of 6 and 7 yard chunks at a time moving the team down the field for an entire drive. He is NOT just a home-run hitter. I knew reading the title of this thread that it would reference him, but it's having a short-memory in doing so. Particularly last year, he had tons of games where he advanced the ball easily and didn't just thrive on the big play.As to the original question, I would prefer the big play RB simply because 1 or 2 of those plays can completely change a game. I do think you have to take a couple things into consideration. One is if you have a 2nd RB that can grind out some of those yards if you need to. The other is the kind of team makeup. If you have a potent, big-play passing attack, then I would prefer the grinder. Otherwise, give me the big play guy and I'd build around him. Case in point is that a team like New Orleans would benefit more from a grinder than a big play guy.

 

[gianmarco]

Rudi Johnson was the classic grinder with the Bengals when they were explosive. If I remember correctly, he had well over 300 carries and his long was 22 yards or something like that.Imagine that offence had a big play RB...he would have it it up BIGTIME.

Great example. Another was Edge when in Indy. Those teams passed the ball so well that a grinder like those 2 was a perfect match. On the other hand, take a team like Buffalo that can't move the ball in the air that much (well, they could with Evans even though they don't, but that's for another thread), a guy like Lynch who is more of a grinder at this point doesn't help that offense out as much.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Great example. Another was Edge when in Indy. Those teams passed the ball so well that a grinder like those 2 was a perfect match. On the other hand, take a team like Buffalo that can't move the ball in the air that much (well, they could with Evans even though they don't, but that's for another thread), a guy like Lynch who is more of a grinder at this point doesn't help that offense out as much.

Rudi is one of the few guys that fit the bill, yes. But there really aren't very many. Eddie George comes to mind.But Edge wasn't a grinder at all before the knee blew. Unless you think LT was too?Edge, 1st three seasons - 806 carries, 23 for 20+ (1 per 35)LT, 1st three seasons - 1024 carries, 29 for 20+ (1 per 35)

 

[AnonymousBob]

I'd be perfectly fine with a Brandon Jacobs to grind out the yards. Depends on your team...with a studly offensive line I'll take the grinder but both work well. If your line is crap you need somebody who can break big plays and catch the ball imo.

 

[gianmarco]

Great example. Another was Edge when in Indy. Those teams passed the ball so well that a grinder like those 2 was a perfect match. On the other hand, take a team like Buffalo that can't move the ball in the air that much (well, they could with Evans even though they don't, but that's for another thread), a guy like Lynch who is more of a grinder at this point doesn't help that offense out as much.

Rudi is one of the few guys that fit the bill, yes. But there really aren't very many. Eddie George comes to mind.But Edge wasn't a grinder at all before the knee blew. Unless you think LT was too?Edge, 1st three seasons - 806 carries, 23 for 20+ (1 per 35)LT, 1st three seasons - 1024 carries, 29 for 20+ (1 per 35)

Come on, Rob. Of course he had big play ability before the knee blew. I watched his entire career in Miami and know what he did when he first came in the league. But which is the Edge we know and has he been for the majority of his career?? He played 2 1/2 yrs and then blew his knee.He's played 7 yrs since he blew his knee.Don't you think I'm referencing him after his knee was torn up since that's made up about 75% of his NFL career?Edge's 1st 2 1/2 yrs -- 23 runs of 20+ ydsEdge's next 7 yrs -- 22 runs of 20+ ydsEdge since his rookie year (9 yrs) -- 2 runs of 40+ yds (He had 4 of them alone in 1999)(of note, Adrian Peterson in 2008 -- 20 runs of 20+ yds)Except for 1999, 2000, and 6 games of 2001, Edge has been a grinder.

 

[gianmarco]

I'd be perfectly fine with a Brandon Jacobs to grind out the yards. Depends on your team...with a studly offensive line I'll take the grinder but both work well. If your line is crap you need somebody who can break big plays and catch the ball imo.

Brandon Jacobs had 12 runs of 20+ yds in 2008. That's 5th in the NFL behind only AP, DeWill, Portis, and Slaton (more than Chris Johnson, Turner, and Forte). Only 3 less than DeAngelo who is 2nd on the list. He's far from just a grinder. In fact, that's what's amazing about him as an NFL RB. 5.0 ypc and ability to break a long one. Who wouldn't be fine with him other than H.K.?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Great example. Another was Edge when in Indy. Those teams passed the ball so well that a grinder like those 2 was a perfect match. On the other hand, take a team like Buffalo that can't move the ball in the air that much (well, they could with Evans even though they don't, but that's for another thread), a guy like Lynch who is more of a grinder at this point doesn't help that offense out as much.

Rudi is one of the few guys that fit the bill, yes. But there really aren't very many. Eddie George comes to mind.But Edge wasn't a grinder at all before the knee blew. Unless you think LT was too?Edge, 1st three seasons - 806 carries, 23 for 20+ (1 per 35)LT, 1st three seasons - 1024 carries, 29 for 20+ (1 per 35)

Come on, Rob. Of course he had big play ability before the knee blew. I watched his entire career in Miami and know what he did when he first came in the league. But which is the Edge we know and has he been for the majority of his career?? He played 2 1/2 yrs and then blew his knee.He's played 7 yrs since he blew his knee.Don't you think I'm referencing him after his knee was torn up since that's made up about 75% of his NFL career?Edge's 1st 2 1/2 yrs -- 23 runs of 20+ ydsEdge's next 7 yrs -- 22 runs of 20+ ydsEdge since his rookie year (9 yrs) -- 2 runs of 40+ yds (He had 4 of them alone in 1999)(of note, Adrian Peterson in 2008 -- 20 runs of 20+ yds)Except for 1999, 2000, and 6 games of 2001, Edge has been a grinder.

You're the one that said Edge in Indy. When I think of Edge in Indy, I think of an elite back, not a grinder.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I think we really need a definition of grinder. There hasn't been a back since the merger that can run for 4-7 yards the majority of the time.

 

[lyon812]

Depends.

4-7 yard chunks generate first downs, eat up clock, and allow you more flexibility in play calling on 3rd down. They also help wear down a defense, and tend to get stronger/more effective as the game goes on.

1-3 yard runs don't do any of the above. Big play or not, I prefer the advantages above.

That being said, I think your two descriptions are a bit extreme. Almost every running back will break a handful of long runs each year. Only 6 players had more than 10 20-yard runs this year--Turner, Jacobs, Slaton, Portis, Williams, Peterson. Of those 6, I think that most would perceive Jacobs and Turner as grinders, even Portis; conversely, you'd consider Slaton, Williams, and Peterson big-play backs. That's an even split between the types, though it's worth noting that only Slaton, Williams, and Peterson had 5 runs of 40 yards or more.

Comparatively, 18 running backs had between 5 and 9 20-yard runs, and 26 running backs had 3 or 4 20-yard runs. Things get pretty muddled there in the middle. Is Grant a grinder because he didn't hit the big plays but was still effective? Last year at this time, people probably would have considered him big play.

I think your original question disregards the "true grinder"; that is, the 3-down player that gets between 2.5-4.4 yards a carry and is only moderately effective/utilized in the passing game--players like Julius Jones, or hell, Willie Parker. Teams routinely roll these players out--and many coaches espouse their virtues and rely on them to shoulder the load. And many people might choose them over the flashy, big play guy--which is precisely why some RBs languish on the bench even though fantasy owners scream for them to get more opportunities (e.g., Jerome Harrison). These are the true grinders. Anything higher than 4.5 a carry makes you pretty good no matter what type you are.

 

[DropKick]

I remember asking a similar question watching Terrell Davis in his prime and comparing him to Barry Sanders who often ran for little or even negative yardage. It seemed Davis would bang out 4-5 yards every time. A great way to control the clock and keep the chains moving. I think the word you've chosen ("grinder") is not as accurate as "consistent" because I think of a Rudi Johnson as a grinder not a Terrell Davis, who could certainly bust a big play.

 

[puckalicious]

I think the answer most teams are going with now is both types. You need a grinder to get those tough yards AND a playmaker to create matchup problems for defenses.

These are the definitions to me:

Grinder: Big, powerful, durable. Can handle 30 carries a game but gets 3-4ypc.

Big Play: Smaller, quicker, versatile. Deadly in open space (5+ ypc) but is more effective with <20 carries a game mixed in with screen passes.

If forced to pick only 1, I'd go with the "big play" type. The Grinder moves the chains and can keep drives alive, but the Big Play RB can score from long distance, which makes moving the chains less important.

 

[lyon812]

Just as an added note of interest, you have to go to the 47th running back to get below 4.5 yards a carry, and to the 75th running back to find one below 4.0 ypc.

 

[Jerry Lawler]

Generally, I would pick the big play guy with the thought that he would probably be a dangerous receiver out of the backfield and might be able to bulk up and learn to be a more all-around back during the course of his career. On the other hand, you can't teach speed. I picked the grinder though, because a guy who can get 4-7 yards on most of his carries would have to be one of the grinders of all time.

 

[gianmarco]

Great example. Another was Edge when in Indy. Those teams passed the ball so well that a grinder like those 2 was a perfect match. On the other hand, take a team like Buffalo that can't move the ball in the air that much (well, they could with Evans even though they don't, but that's for another thread), a guy like Lynch who is more of a grinder at this point doesn't help that offense out as much.

Rudi is one of the few guys that fit the bill, yes. But there really aren't very many. Eddie George comes to mind.But Edge wasn't a grinder at all before the knee blew. Unless you think LT was too?Edge, 1st three seasons - 806 carries, 23 for 20+ (1 per 35)LT, 1st three seasons - 1024 carries, 29 for 20+ (1 per 35)

Come on, Rob. Of course he had big play ability before the knee blew. I watched his entire career in Miami and know what he did when he first came in the league. But which is the Edge we know and has he been for the majority of his career?? He played 2 1/2 yrs and then blew his knee.He's played 7 yrs since he blew his knee.Don't you think I'm referencing him after his knee was torn up since that's made up about 75% of his NFL career?Edge's 1st 2 1/2 yrs -- 23 runs of 20+ ydsEdge's next 7 yrs -- 22 runs of 20+ ydsEdge since his rookie year (9 yrs) -- 2 runs of 40+ yds (He had 4 of them alone in 1999)(of note, Adrian Peterson in 2008 -- 20 runs of 20+ yds)Except for 1999, 2000, and 6 games of 2001, Edge has been a grinder.

You're the one that said Edge in Indy. When I think of Edge in Indy, I think of an elite back, not a grinder.

Chase, go and look at Edge's #'s in Indy after the injury. First of all, the guy spent 7 yrs in Indy. Only 2 1/2 of those yrs were before the injury. Again, if you want to think of Edge as the elite back BTK(i.e. BTK--before the knee), then fine, but the majority of his time in Indy was after the injury. He was still elite, but in a different way and in much more of a "grinder" way. His last 3 yrs in Indy--2003 -- 310 carries for 1259 yds (4.1 ypc). Only 3 runs over 20 yds (good for 28th in the league in 20+ yd runs)2004 -- 334 carries for 1548 yds (4.6 ypc). Only 6 runs over 20 yds (good for 12th in the league in 20+ yd runs)2005 -- 360 carries for 1506 yds (4.2 ypc). Only 5 runs over 20 yds (good for 13th in the league with 7 other guys)In your post below, you asked if there's been a RB who averaged 4-7 yards on almost every carry and that's EXACTLY what Edge did in those 4 yrs after his injury. He had very few long runs but also almost never lost yardage. In fact, in 2004, he had THIRTEEN games where his longest run was 17 yds or less. And he ran for almost 1600 yds that year. You don't maintain a 4.6 ypc average without those long runs unless you're consistently churning out 4-5 yds on every play. In 2005, his longest run was 16 yds in 10/15 games.Of note, I didn't include 2002 above because he didn't have a great year (only 3.6 ypc) and didn't even top 1000 yds. But, he also only had 3 carries over 20 yds in that year as well on almost 280 carries. He was still an elite RB those years, but he did it by consistently churning out positive yards on every play, not by busting out big plays. Ever since the knee injury, that big play has been virtually non-existent yet he's still been successful in putting up 100 yd games and putting up big rushing totals.

 

[Chase Stuart]

In 2005, James had 25% of his runs go for one yard or less, 26% of his runs go for two or three yards, 32% of his runs go for 4-7 yards and 17% of his runs go for 8 yards or more. In 2004, it was 25% for one yard or less, 22% for 2-3 yards, 35% for 4-7 yards, and 17% for 8 yards or more. That's not exactly getting four to seven yards on almost every carry; it's getting four to seven yards on a third of his carries.

 

[gianmarco]

In 2005, James had 25% of his runs go for one yard or less, 26% of his runs go for two or three yards, 32% of his runs go for 4-7 yards and 17% of his runs go for 8 yards or more. In 2004, it was 25% for one yard or less, 22% for 2-3 yards, 35% for 4-7 yards, and 17% for 8 yards or more. That's not exactly getting four to seven yards on almost every carry; it's getting four to seven yards on a third of his carries.

That's an interesting breakdown. Of course, it's interesting to note that he got 4+ yds on 50% of his carries. Any way to find out what the league "average" is or what the RB's who had 200+ carries did in those same breakdowns?

 

[bonesman]

46-16 for the grinder at the time of this posting.

 

[Ash]

It depends on what type of passing game you're running as well. Two examples:

1. Mid 90s Vikes (pre Moss) with Moon, Carter and Reed working an effecient, high percentage passing game with Robert Smith breaking long runs. Their bread and butter as far as moving the chains go was the short passing game.

2. 98 Falcons, grinding it out with Anderson and Chandler airing it out off play action to Martin and others.

Current Eagles are another example of #1, with the passing game generating yards, but not very explosive, with the big plays coming from Westbrook.

If you're lucky enough to have a back who can grind it out and also break long runs, you're golden but if not, then the offense does fall to bits if you get a couple of scores behind, because the running game will do the opponent's job for them as far as killing the clock so you become one dimensional.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

To me, a grinder is like Jerome Bettis. I'd definitely take that guy over a big-play guy. You can't rely on a big play, but you can rely on the grinder. One less thing to worry about when game-planning.

 

[coolnerd]