Can RBs Change Their Running Style? (1 Viewer)

[Bob Magaw]

in a recent personal correspondence (shout out to who dat), he got me to thinking if it is possible for leopards to change their spots (or to teach an old dog new tricks)...

the context of the conversation revolved around peterson... specifically the viewpoint of some scouts that AD will have a spectacular, brutal, violent, incendiary & probably short career... like a star that burns brightly for a brief time & than explodes into a super nova...

my question for the board...

can we think of any historical instances where a RB significantly changed their style from college to pro...

this could take the form of learning to run less upright...

or even more so, i was thinking of the difference between learning to bring quickness & elusiveness into play more, & attempt to run by, around, between & away from defenders... & that of just trying to plow through them... to extend the thought... an incremental improvement might be to pick their shots more, & pick on DBs as opposed to LBs (making a distinction between who it is OK to try & run through, & who isn't... by position & size)...

this is obviously a big concern to some, because peterson has had trouble staying in one piece as it is (though diving into end zone was cause of most recent shoulder injury & self-inflicted), and will now be facing bigger, stronger, faster defenders at the next level...

back to the original question... not a lot of RBs leapt immediately to mind, or i would be listing them here... if any do come to mind, i'll note them below, but in the mean time, wanted to throw the question out to the board...

a related question is not just the general historical question, but the specific one about ADs crystal ball (how he projects from college to NFL... will he have short, long or somewhere in between career)... clearly how one views the first question will probably inform the latter one... but technically they are distinct & separate issues, & i am interested in what anybody thinks about either or both...

* no doubt some of these questions intersect & overlap with discussions already found in previous peterson threads, but hopefully the question of of how to attack problem of trying to project longevity of his career through a running style analysis & question of is change of style possible through look at historical comps (if any) is sufficiently different to warrant separate thread...

** i forgot to ask another related question... payton & emmitt smith were able to run through defenders with regularity, yet survived to have fairly lengthy careers... who dat used the quintessential & correct exemplar of a super nova (ie - earl campbell) where a violent running style was, not so good for durability purposes... payton would dish out punishment & stiff arm DBs, & not let them get into his body... peterson it is said on good authority has a nasty stiff arm, but the comparison between the two could end there... emmit, imo had extremely underrated feet quicks & make you miss ability, and much like bettis, was not just a wrecking ball... he would try & avoid defenders if the opportunity presented itself... so i guess this line of thought begs the question... can some RBs employ the violent running style with success, & can you tell the difference? payton had a more compact running style than peterson, as i recall... so did emmitt, so that might be a hint right there... this points back at upright running style concerns, & can he learn to run with a lower pad level where he can protect his body a bit more... another apparent difference to explain possibly why payton & smith may have been able to get away with an at times punishing rushing style... defenders were smaller, weaker & slower when those guys made hay, 10-15-20 years ago or more...

 

[Rovers]

Basic running style is not something that can be changed much IMO. Some things can be learned and coached though. Barber completely changed the way he carried the ball and over came his tendency to fumble. Some RB's can learn to get lower in their pads some of the time, for instance in a short yardage situation, and learning to be more patient when hitting a hole, allowing the blocking more time to set up. However, I think the basic runing style is instinctive, and is not something that can be expected to change.

Take a player's natural insticnts away from him and he won't be the same player, meaning not as good. I think some RB's can learn to lower a shoulder prior to getting hit, but their basic style still won't change much. One doesn't always see a hit coming. Upright runners tend to overuse their hamstrings, pulling their bodies more than using the upper thighs to drive forward. That's instinctive, and very hard to change in my opinion.

 

[Bob Magaw]

steven jackson might be a case of the flip side... i thought at first with STL he danced too much, but possibly through the influence of 06 acquisition stephen davis, he seemed to run much stronger & with more authority last season...

this doesn't really bear on AD from the other direction (possibility of a violent runner who seeks out contact learning to avoid it), but is perhaps case where runner changed style somewhat...

of course, i think jackson ran very strong in college, so it was perhaps easier for him to "rediscover" this style he had already employed at one time... rather than trying to evolve a completely foreign & unprecedented style?

* for those who watched LJ closely at penn st (blink & you missed his career) as well as followed him in KC, does he run less upright & try & be more elusive now than when he was in college?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

steven jackson might be a case of the flip side... i thought at first with STL he danced too much, but possibly through the influence of 06 acquisition stephen davis, he seemed to run much stronger & with more authority last season...this doesn't really bear on AD from the other direction (possibility of a violent runner who seeks out contact learning to avoid it), but is perhaps case where runner changed style somewhat...of course, i think jackson ran very strong in college, so it was perhaps easier for him to "rediscover" this style he had already employed at one time... rather than trying to evolve a completely foreign & unprecedented style?* for those who watched LJ closely at penn st (blink & you missed his career) as well as followed him in KC, does he run less upright & try & be more elusive now than when he was in college?

I don't think he's changed his style all that much, although I think you naturally need to change some going from college to pros. He could get away with less polished jukes in college and with not really having to drive into a defender. But he still runs pretty upright in the NFL. He has always had very good wiggle which allows him to avoid some bigger hits and keep his balance through them. In my opinion, a RB can't really change his style much physically, but what can change is his mental approach. In college, LJ may have known that he could always run through a CB or known at a glance that an approaching defender did not have the angle or speed to get him. In the NFL, he probably has changed his thinking on those things. Maybe he gives a better fake on a CB than he did in college. Maybe he runs away from more chasing defenders to get a better angle because he knows that straight line speed doesn't work anymore. But can a RB like LJ or AD go from an upright bruiser with some wiggle to a low pad level, quick cut back runner in the NFL? I don't think so.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

COMPLETELY change their style? Nah.

Still, adjustments can be made - Brandon Jacobs did not naturally get his pad level low when contact was coming, now he does. Thomas Jones danced way too much when he first came in the league, now he doesn't. Willie Parker ran "light" and went down on first contact a lot in 2005. Now, he doesn't.

So change is possible, but reinvention isn't.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Shanahan's attempts to change Tatum Bell's style were not successful, or maybe they were depending on how one defines success. Bell did learn to be a one cut runner and to secure the ball with two hands. Unfortunately doing so lessened his confidence and caused him to miss opportunities for big plays.

Running is instinctual and requires confidence. Style is an extension of ingrained personality. I am in the camp that if it can be done it should not. Coaches need to match backs to their systems, not mold them to the system.

 

[DAG]

I remember last preseason a big question on Steven Jackson was whether he would always present an injury risk because of his upright style and height. I don't get to watch the Rams play much, but I do remember that he was nicked a lot in his first two seasons, and that he didn't shy away from contact. Friends who do get to watch the Rams play told me you could hear defenders smacking into his chest and ribs on the field.

This season I am told Jackson was a little more elusive and was able to avoid so many big hits. Again, most of this is second hand observation, but it seems to me that Jackson and Peterson are decent parallels from a height and upright style standpoint, as well as from a violent mentality standpoint (though Jackson has more wiggle and cutting ability). So, if Jackson has learned to avoid some contact, maybe Peterson can too, without having to fundamentally change his style.

 

[EBF]

No.

Running back is a position of instincts. Coaching and experience have very little to do with running the football, which is why so many rookies are able to step in and excel at this position.

If a guy runs high, then he runs high. The only thing he can be coached to do is step out of bounds instead of needlessly smashing into a DB for an extra 1 yard on a 20 yard gain.

 

[grind]

Yes. RB's can change their style. Look no further back then Ricky Williams. He used to alway look to get yardage regardless of contact. Then his last year in the league before "retirement", he would look for the sidelines and run out of bounds a lot. I thought this was a drastic change. I remember thinking that he lost his desire to play and was looking more toward staying healthy and being able to walk then getting yardage on the field and being the best RB he could be. This led me to trade him right after the season for D. McNabb. Two weeks later, he announces his retirement. If you go back in time, you will see a drastic difference in how Ricky finished runs in his first few years in the league versus how he finished runs his last year in the league before his "retirement". Of course, he ended up coming back so he didn't have to pay his signing bonus back to the dolphins, but this was way before that.

 

[Hairy Snowman]

Although no one pops right to mind, I know I have seen speed RBs change their styles as their careers wore on and their speed declined. Like Marcus Allen when he became a short yardage specialist.

 

[TwinTurbo]

I don't understand what people really mean when they say a RB runs "upright". All RB's run that way. Nobody runs all hunched over in a ball of defense. Some RB's are just taller than others. Is that what "upright" means? A guy that is over 6" tall? If Peterson were only 5'9", would he still be viewed in the same way? Even when a RB lowers their pads, they are still running upright. And lowering their pads doesn't make them any less injury prone. Not getting hit is the only guarantee against injury.

I think the concern for Peterson is not the "upright" style, but the fact the he is a bigger target and is more powerful than elusive. But I sort of like that. It means he's going to dish out plenty of punishment too. The guy also has a ridiculous stiff arm.

 

[EBF]

I don't understand what people really mean when they say a RB runs "upright". All RB's run that way. Nobody runs all hunched over in a ball of defense. Some RB's are just taller than others. Is that what "upright" means? A guy that is over 6" tall? If Peterson were only 5'9", would he still be viewed in the same way? Even when a RB lowers their pads, they are still running upright. And lowering their pads doesn't make them any less injury prone. Not getting hit is the only guarantee against injury.

I think the concern for Peterson is not the "upright" style, but the fact the he is a bigger target and is more powerful than elusive. But I sort of like that. It means he's going to dish out plenty of punishment too. The guy also has a ridiculous stiff arm.

Upright: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mh4albC37RgNot upright: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b5A8VYi-M0

The difference should be pretty clear if you pay attention.

Consider LT's run at about 1:21. Look at his pad level breaking through the line. He's extremely low. When he gets hit in these clips, he's usually below the tackler.

Then watch the Peterson clips again. Look at the first few runs. Look how high he is breaking through the line. He runs tall, even through trash at the line of scrimmage, meaning defenders are going to be able to get low and pop him (whereas LT is almost always lower than the tacklers).

 

[TwinTurbo]

I don't understand what people really mean when they say a RB runs "upright". All RB's run that way. Nobody runs all hunched over in a ball of defense. Some RB's are just taller than others. Is that what "upright" means? A guy that is over 6" tall? If Peterson were only 5'9", would he still be viewed in the same way? Even when a RB lowers their pads, they are still running upright. And lowering their pads doesn't make them any less injury prone. Not getting hit is the only guarantee against injury.

I think the concern for Peterson is not the "upright" style, but the fact the he is a bigger target and is more powerful than elusive. But I sort of like that. It means he's going to dish out plenty of punishment too. The guy also has a ridiculous stiff arm.

Upright: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mh4albC37RgNot upright: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b5A8VYi-M0

The difference should be pretty clear if you pay attention.

Consider LT's run at about 1:21. Look at his pad level breaking through the line. He's extremely low. When he gets hit in these clips, he's usually below the tackler.

Then watch the Peterson clips again. Look at the first few runs. Look how high he is breaking through the line. He runs tall, even through trash at the line of scrimmage, meaning defenders are going to be able to get low and pop him (whereas LT is almost always lower than the tacklers).

But this was my point. Peterson runs "tall" because he is tall: 6'2". LT is generously listed at 5'10". Peterson gets his pads down on a lot of runs as well. He just won't ever get as low at LT because he's 4-5 inches taller.

That's why I think it's silly when people say certain RB's have an upright running style. What they are really saying is that the RB is over 6 feet tall. Chris Brown, Eddie George, Eric Dickerson, etc. All over 6'2". Are there any RB's under 6ft that have been labeled with the upright running style tag?

 

[Bob Magaw]

i sort of saw what you meant a few times in the 3 min AD highlight, but i actually didn't see a lot of trash... usually all he needs is a little crease & he is off to the races... i realize some people here see it differently, but in his explosion through the hole (which you see quite a few times here), he is almost dickerson & bo jackson-like...

* he took very few kill shots (none by my count)... but then that is a skewed stat... kill shots don't make there way onto highlight videos...

but seriously, i'll see if there is any archival footage on you tube of okoye (i'm guessing doubtful, but i'll check)... he was the "upright" runner par excellance... i think atwater caved in one side of his body one time when he was coming through the line...

billy sims was an example of a guy who didn't seem to change his style... he could get away with hurdling in college... not such a great idea in the NFL... i think he didn't have a long pro career...

** found this...

 

[EBF]

I don't understand what people really mean when they say a RB runs "upright". All RB's run that way. Nobody runs all hunched over in a ball of defense. Some RB's are just taller than others. Is that what "upright" means? A guy that is over 6" tall? If Peterson were only 5'9", would he still be viewed in the same way? Even when a RB lowers their pads, they are still running upright. And lowering their pads doesn't make them any less injury prone. Not getting hit is the only guarantee against injury.

I think the concern for Peterson is not the "upright" style, but the fact the he is a bigger target and is more powerful than elusive. But I sort of like that. It means he's going to dish out plenty of punishment too. The guy also has a ridiculous stiff arm.

Upright: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mh4albC37RgNot upright: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b5A8VYi-M0

The difference should be pretty clear if you pay attention.

Consider LT's run at about 1:21. Look at his pad level breaking through the line. He's extremely low. When he gets hit in these clips, he's usually below the tackler.

Then watch the Peterson clips again. Look at the first few runs. Look how high he is breaking through the line. He runs tall, even through trash at the line of scrimmage, meaning defenders are going to be able to get low and pop him (whereas LT is almost always lower than the tacklers).

But this was my point. Peterson runs "tall" because he is tall: 6'2". LT is generously listed at 5'10". Peterson gets his pads down on a lot of runs as well. He just won't ever get as low at LT because he's 4-5 inches taller.

I think there's an actual difference in the way they run the ball. Scouting reports will talk about something called "forward lean." When a guy with a good forward lean hits the line of scrimmage, his body is literally leaned forward, making his chest a difficult target for a defender. But when you look at the clips of Peterson, you notice that he has a tendency to run with his back straight, almost like he's leaning back.

Compare his style to the clips of LT or to these clips of Marshawn Lynch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxwFmss2EwA

Watch the catch-and-run against UCLA between seconds 0:20-0:28. Note how low Lynch is when he makes his cuts, and also that he does a good job of getting low when a defender is near. That's running low, with good pad level.

The difference might not be as much as I'm making it out to be, but I definitely think it's there.

Also, even if it's true that Peterson only "runs high" because he's taller than LT, it's still true that he runs high. It's a bad thing regardless of its cause.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I don't understand what people really mean when they say a RB runs "upright". All RB's run that way. Nobody runs all hunched over in a ball of defense. Some RB's are just taller than others. Is that what "upright" means? A guy that is over 6" tall? If Peterson were only 5'9", would he still be viewed in the same way? Even when a RB lowers their pads, they are still running upright. And lowering their pads doesn't make them any less injury prone. Not getting hit is the only guarantee against injury.

I think the concern for Peterson is not the "upright" style, but the fact the he is a bigger target and is more powerful than elusive. But I sort of like that. It means he's going to dish out plenty of punishment too. The guy also has a ridiculous stiff arm.

Upright: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mh4albC37RgNot upright: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b5A8VYi-M0

The difference should be pretty clear if you pay attention.

Consider LT's run at about 1:21. Look at his pad level breaking through the line. He's extremely low. When he gets hit in these clips, he's usually below the tackler.

Then watch the Peterson clips again. Look at the first few runs. Look how high he is breaking through the line. He runs tall, even through trash at the line of scrimmage, meaning defenders are going to be able to get low and pop him (whereas LT is almost always lower than the tacklers).

But this was my point. Peterson runs "tall" because he is tall: 6'2". LT is generously listed at 5'10". Peterson gets his pads down on a lot of runs as well. He just won't ever get as low at LT because he's 4-5 inches taller.

I think there's an actual difference in the way they run the ball. Scouting reports will talk about something called "forward lean." When a guy with a good forward lean hits the line of scrimmage, his body is literally leaned forward, making his chest a difficult target for a defender. But when you look at the clips of Peterson, you notice that he has a tendency to run with his back straight, almost like he's leaning back.

Compare his style to the clips of LT or to these clips of Marshawn Lynch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxwFmss2EwA

Watch the catch-and-run against UCLA between seconds 0:20-0:28. Note how low Lynch is when he makes his cuts, and also that he does a good job of getting low when a defender is near. That's running low, with good pad level.

The difference might not be as much as I'm making it out to be, but I definitely think it's there.

Also, even if it's true that Peterson only "runs high" because he's taller than LT, it's still true that he runs high. It's a bad thing regardless of its cause.

Certainly some of it has to do with a RB being tall, but as EBF points out, it's also the upper body lean and whether it's forward or straight up. Forward is almost always better.

Great film study EBF!

 

[Wildman]

I don't understand what people really mean when they say a RB runs "upright". All RB's run that way. Nobody runs all hunched over in a ball of defense. Some RB's are just taller than others. Is that what "upright" means? A guy that is over 6" tall? If Peterson were only 5'9", would he still be viewed in the same way? Even when a RB lowers their pads, they are still running upright. And lowering their pads doesn't make them any less injury prone. Not getting hit is the only guarantee against injury.

I think the concern for Peterson is not the "upright" style, but the fact the he is a bigger target and is more powerful than elusive. But I sort of like that. It means he's going to dish out plenty of punishment too. The guy also has a ridiculous stiff arm.

Upright: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mh4albC37RgNot upright: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b5A8VYi-M0

The difference should be pretty clear if you pay attention.

Consider LT's run at about 1:21. Look at his pad level breaking through the line. He's extremely low. When he gets hit in these clips, he's usually below the tackler.

Then watch the Peterson clips again. Look at the first few runs. Look how high he is breaking through the line. He runs tall, even through trash at the line of scrimmage, meaning defenders are going to be able to get low and pop him (whereas LT is almost always lower than the tacklers).

But this was my point. Peterson runs "tall" because he is tall: 6'2". LT is generously listed at 5'10". Peterson gets his pads down on a lot of runs as well. He just won't ever get as low at LT because he's 4-5 inches taller.

I think there's an actual difference in the way they run the ball. Scouting reports will talk about something called "forward lean." When a guy with a good forward lean hits the line of scrimmage, his body is literally leaned forward, making his chest a difficult target for a defender. But when you look at the clips of Peterson, you notice that he has a tendency to run with his back straight, almost like he's leaning back.

Compare his style to the clips of LT or to these clips of Marshawn Lynch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxwFmss2EwA

Watch the catch-and-run against UCLA between seconds 0:20-0:28. Note how low Lynch is when he makes his cuts, and also that he does a good job of getting low when a defender is near. That's running low, with good pad level.

The difference might not be as much as I'm making it out to be, but I definitely think it's there.

Also, even if it's true that Peterson only "runs high" because he's taller than LT, it's still true that he runs high. It's a bad thing regardless of its cause.

I think a great example of a runner that runs low is Edgerrin James. It's not how a runner starts, but how he finishes the play. James always seems to get low enough to get the better end of the contact. He does tend to run a bit lower in terms of knee bend and shoulders lower while going through the hole. Although not a great prospect, RB Robert Hubbard of Nevada runs low to the ground...yes, he's 5-10 or 5-11 but you can see it with his knee bend.

 

[Wildman]

I don't understand what people really mean when they say a RB runs "upright". All RB's run that way. Nobody runs all hunched over in a ball of defense. Some RB's are just taller than others. Is that what "upright" means? A guy that is over 6" tall? If Peterson were only 5'9", would he still be viewed in the same way? Even when a RB lowers their pads, they are still running upright. And lowering their pads doesn't make them any less injury prone. Not getting hit is the only guarantee against injury.

I think the concern for Peterson is not the "upright" style, but the fact the he is a bigger target and is more powerful than elusive. But I sort of like that. It means he's going to dish out plenty of punishment too. The guy also has a ridiculous stiff arm.

Upright: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mh4albC37RgNot upright: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b5A8VYi-M0

The difference should be pretty clear if you pay attention.

Consider LT's run at about 1:21. Look at his pad level breaking through the line. He's extremely low. When he gets hit in these clips, he's usually below the tackler.

Then watch the Peterson clips again. Look at the first few runs. Look how high he is breaking through the line. He runs tall, even through trash at the line of scrimmage, meaning defenders are going to be able to get low and pop him (whereas LT is almost always lower than the tacklers).

But this was my point. Peterson runs "tall" because he is tall: 6'2". LT is generously listed at 5'10". Peterson gets his pads down on a lot of runs as well. He just won't ever get as low at LT because he's 4-5 inches taller.

I think there's an actual difference in the way they run the ball. Scouting reports will talk about something called "forward lean." When a guy with a good forward lean hits the line of scrimmage, his body is literally leaned forward, making his chest a difficult target for a defender. But when you look at the clips of Peterson, you notice that he has a tendency to run with his back straight, almost like he's leaning back.

Compare his style to the clips of LT or to these clips of Marshawn Lynch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxwFmss2EwA

Watch the catch-and-run against UCLA between seconds 0:20-0:28. Note how low Lynch is when he makes his cuts, and also that he does a good job of getting low when a defender is near. That's running low, with good pad level.

The difference might not be as much as I'm making it out to be, but I definitely think it's there.

Also, even if it's true that Peterson only "runs high" because he's taller than LT, it's still true that he runs high. It's a bad thing regardless of its cause.

Definitely good stuff

 

[nygiants56]

I don't understand what people really mean when they say a RB runs "upright". All RB's run that way. Nobody runs all hunched over in a ball of defense. Some RB's are just taller than others. Is that what "upright" means? A guy that is over 6" tall? If Peterson were only 5'9", would he still be viewed in the same way? Even when a RB lowers their pads, they are still running upright. And lowering their pads doesn't make them any less injury prone. Not getting hit is the only guarantee against injury.

I think the concern for Peterson is not the "upright" style, but the fact the he is a bigger target and is more powerful than elusive. But I sort of like that. It means he's going to dish out plenty of punishment too. The guy also has a ridiculous stiff arm.

Upright: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mh4albC37RgNot upright: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b5A8VYi-M0

The difference should be pretty clear if you pay attention.

Consider LT's run at about 1:21. Look at his pad level breaking through the line. He's extremely low. When he gets hit in these clips, he's usually below the tackler.

Then watch the Peterson clips again. Look at the first few runs. Look how high he is breaking through the line. He runs tall, even through trash at the line of scrimmage, meaning defenders are going to be able to get low and pop him (whereas LT is almost always lower than the tacklers).

But this was my point. Peterson runs "tall" because he is tall: 6'2". LT is generously listed at 5'10". Peterson gets his pads down on a lot of runs as well. He just won't ever get as low at LT because he's 4-5 inches taller.

I think there's an actual difference in the way they run the ball. Scouting reports will talk about something called "forward lean." When a guy with a good forward lean hits the line of scrimmage, his body is literally leaned forward, making his chest a difficult target for a defender. But when you look at the clips of Peterson, you notice that he has a tendency to run with his back straight, almost like he's leaning back.

Compare his style to the clips of LT or to these clips of Marshawn Lynch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxwFmss2EwA

Watch the catch-and-run against UCLA between seconds 0:20-0:28. Note how low Lynch is when he makes his cuts, and also that he does a good job of getting low when a defender is near. That's running low, with good pad level.

The difference might not be as much as I'm making it out to be, but I definitely think it's there.

Also, even if it's true that Peterson only "runs high" because he's taller than LT, it's still true that he runs high. It's a bad thing regardless of its cause.

Definitely good stuff

good video!am I the only who thinks AD runs a lot like Curtis Martin? haven't heard any comparisons to Martin, but they are very similar backs, imo.

 

[WhoDat]

Sims' career was tragically cut short by a combination of bad knees and a lack of modern surgery. Chicken or egg scenario but he was special and we all missed out. He had such raw athleticism and talent. There was/is so much energy and dynamic in and to his runs/actions. For those who do not know about him dig up his stats on http://www.pro-football-reference.com. Ok, I got them. That is still one of the best rookie campaigns of all time. Another player that burned bright and out far too quickly but his was due to injury.

+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| Rushing | Receiving |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| 1980 det | 16 | 313 1303 4.2 13 | 51 621 12.2 3 |

| 1981 det | 14 | 296 1437 4.9 13 | 28 451 16.1 2 |

| 1982 det | 9 | 172 639 3.7 4 | 34 342 10.1 0 |

| 1983 det | 13 | 220 1040 4.7 7 | 42 419 10.0 0 |

| 1984 det | 8 | 130 687 5.3 5 | 31 239 7.7 0 |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| TOTAL | 60 | 1131 5106 4.5 42 | 186 2072 11.1 5 |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

There is a saying that you should make yourself small from time to time if you have the football. Peterson's just not that player. Physically speaking, the guy is a specimen. Nobody has any business looking like that and nobody that size has any business being that fast. Ditto for C. Johnson. Peterson is fluid but he has some of that same very raw energy that I remember seeing in Sims. However, Peterson is bruising. He is going to punish ball carriers. He is going to run through people. His size and speed are what make him the player he is and, hopefully, will be on Sundays.

A few things...

You can teach/coach a RB to step out of bounds or learn to go down, when necessary.

You can teach/coach a RB to keep his pads down when running.

You get hurt when you do not play your game; half speed; timid or scared.

I am not inferring Peterson plays half speed, timid or scared. However, if he is instructed to start changing how he plays the game, then my feeling is that he is going to actually increase not lower his risk of injury. As EBF stated, the RB is damn near all instinct. You either have the gifts to see, get to and through a whole or you do not. Someone starting to tinker with Peterson's playing tendencies and too a lesser degree his running physics will have the kid thinking WAY too much once he is down in a 3 pt stance in the backfield or as he passes between his OL or as he starts to encounter DB. You have to let him play his game. A RB is who he is by this point and time, which is speaking directly to skill set.

Of course, Peterson plays a nasty brand of football and we have seen the results. He has missed time. (Conversely, he has played hurt, which is often left out of this discussion. Peterson played his entire second season a pair...not a single...but a pain of badly damaged ankles. He was told he could sit the season out after it was clear OU was done. However, he elected to continue to do whatever he could for the team. Thus, if he is going to be tagged injury prone then he needs to be tagged kid has a large set of stones.) Is he going to miss time in the pros? Yes, he will. Can a new coaching staff decrease or augment Peterson's style enough to, perhaps, mitigate the risk of injury? Yes, a little. Can a new coaching staff overhaul his running style enough to completely rule out injury and make a different type of runner? No, I do not think so.

| Rushing | Receiving |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| 1978 hou | 15 | 302 1450 4.8 13 | 12 48 4.0 0 |

| 1979 hou | 16 | 368 1697 4.6 19 | 16 94 5.9 0 |

| 1980 hou | 15 | 373 1934 5.2 13 | 11 47 4.3 0 |

| 1981 hou | 16 | 361 1376 3.8 10 | 36 156 4.3 0 |

| 1982 hou | 9 | 157 538 3.4 2 | 18 130 7.2 0 |

| 1983 hou | 14 | 322 1301 4.0 12 | 19 216 11.4 0 |

| 1984 nor | 8 | 50 190 3.8 0 | 0 0 0.0 0 |

| 1984 hou | 6 | 96 278 2.9 4 | 3 27 9.0 0 |

| 1985 nor | 16 | 158 643 4.1 1 | 6 88 14.7 0 |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| TOTAL | 115 | 2187 9407 4.3 74 | 121 806 6.7 0 |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| Rushing | Receiving |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| 1981 nor | 15 | 378 1674 4.4 13 | 16 126 7.9 0 |

| 1982 nor | 6 | 122 535 4.4 3 | 4 21 5.2 0 |

| 1983 nor | 13 | 256 1144 4.5 5 | 12 69 5.8 0 |

| 1984 nor | 16 | 239 914 3.8 2 | 12 76 6.3 0 |

| 1985 was | 15 | 231 1093 4.7 7 | 4 29 7.2 0 |

| 1986 was | 15 | 303 1203 4.0 18 | 3 24 8.0 0 |

| 1987 was | 11 | 163 613 3.8 6 | 4 23 5.8 0 |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| TOTAL | 91 | 1692 7176 4.2 54 | 55 368 6.7 0 |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

These are the respective career numbers for E. Campbell and G. Rogers, which are provided by http://www.pro-football-reference.com. Peterson is who he is. Physically, he looks like Dickerson on the field but that is where it stops. Peterson is a thumper. In terms of skill set he is far more closer to Campbell and Rogers. He is going to be very good for a very short period of time and will have stat logs very similiar to what is above.

That is just my take. Whereas a QB can change his mechanics & footwork or a WR can become a craftsman or a OL can significantly enhance his technique, I just think a RB can only be taught so much at a certain point. This is specifically regarding what happens once he has the ball. There is a certain level of risk/reward and or buyer beware with Peterson.

 

[Bri]

Bob,

remember Jacobs working with Eddie George last spring/summer?

 

[Phil M]

steven jackson might be a case of the flip side... i thought at first with STL he danced too much, but possibly through the influence of 06 acquisition stephen davis, he seemed to run much stronger & with more authority last season...

This can also just be read as rookie jitters, and geting used to the NFL speed. He probably didn't "change" styles, just fell into the flow of the game better.

 

[Bob Magaw]

Bob, remember Jacobs working with Eddie George last spring/summer?

no, but thanx for the reminder... i'll look that up...reggie bush is a guy that didn't really "change styles", but proved he was adept running inside in college (USC would sub him a lot for white in certain situations)... about halfway through his rookie year, some were writing him off as a bust... he was turning almost everything outside... by the second half, he settled down, started to take what was there if the play called for an inside run, and even started to bust some long gainers that were run through the middle...i agree that probably has more to do with getting acclimated to the speed of the game and the superior overall athletic talent of defenders...did eddie george run high? he definitely delivered a blow on contact... twin turbo has raised some interesting points about height almost = runs high... george was a tall guy... any tall RBs (lets say 6'1"-6'2" & bigger) that WEREN'T characterized as running high? is it almost a tautology... robert smith seemed tall, but i don't recall if he was 6'1" or taller... he was a sprinter at ohio state, lanky, almost built like a WR, long strider, was dinged a lot early in his career, finishing strong before retiring "prematurely" (ie - while he still had the use of his legs)...* thanx for weighing in, who dat... fitting, since you were the genesis of this post...

 

[TwinTurbo]

The difference might not be as much as I'm making it out to be, but I definitely think it's there. Also, even if it's true that Peterson only "runs high" because he's taller than LT, it's still true that he runs high. It's a bad thing regardless of its cause.

I don't think Peterson's style is a bad thing, at least in the sense that it would make him any more injury prone than the average RB in the league. LT is obviously in a league of his own, much like Barry Sanders, when it comes to avoiding hits and overall elusiveness. But over half of the starting RB's in the NFL have suffered a serious injury at some point in their pro or college career (examples include Gore, McAllister, J.Lewis, A.Green, Edge, Taylor, KJ, McGahee, Portis, D.Foster, Caddy, Westbrook, Henry, Rhodes, etc...) Usually these injuries have a lot more to do with bad luck than with running style or height. Ask Priest Holmes or Marshall Faulk. Why do you think Tiki Barber wants to retire? He runs low with good body lean, but still takes a pounding every Sunday. I just don't think the injury prone tag should be automatically applied to an "upright" back. All RB's are injury prone. It's a brutal position to play. But tall RB's like Eric Dickerson and Eddie George can still have long productive careers. And plenty of shorter RB's that run low have torn an ACL making a simple cut. At this point in his career, Peterson has never suffered a serious injury that would have a long term impact on his speed or ability. I think it would be a mistake for any team to pass on Peterson because of a concern over potential injuries. Peterson does not appear to be any more injury prone than the average NFL RB. Yet his skills are extremely above average. It seems like a very favorable risk/reward ratio to me.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I've stayed out of the Peterson threads, but what's the consensus on how he's rushed for fewer yards every year, and his YPC average as a junior was the same as his YPC average as a freshman/sophomore?

From what I recall, the hype on Peterson was enormous because what he did as a freshman was oustanding. A freshman rushing for 241 yards per game is incredible; but a junior rushing for 145 yards per game is monumentally less impressive.

Thoughts?

 

[Bri]

Bob,

remember Jacobs working with Eddie George last spring/summer?

no, but thanx for the reminder... i'll look that up...

http://www.giants.com/news/eisen/story.asp?story_id=16335

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

I've stayed out of the Peterson threads, but what's the consensus on how he's rushed for fewer yards every year, and his YPC average as a junior was the same as his YPC average as a freshman/sophomore? From what I recall, the hype on Peterson was enormous because what he did as a freshman was oustanding. A freshman rushing for 241 yards per game is incredible; but a junior rushing for 145 yards per game is monumentally less impressive.Thoughts?

The quality of his team decreased from his frosh to soph years, particularly the QB, so that teams could really focus most of their energy on stopping AD. He still broke some teams backs, but I believe being the focus of the opposing D wore Peterson down quicker. His lower YPC was the result of being banged up at times and being in an imbalanced offense, and the being banged up was somewhat the result of the one-sided offense because teams were keying on peterson.

 

[redman]

steven jackson might be a case of the flip side... i thought at first with STL he danced too much, but possibly through the influence of 06 acquisition stephen davis, he seemed to run much stronger & with more authority last season...

Interesting that you mention Stephen Davis. 'Skins fans will remember that Davis was a 4th round pick out of Auburn in 1996, and had displayed some talent in his first two years but had frequently been injured and didn't seem to have a lot more potential than what he'd shown.In 1998, the team started 0-7 due, among other things, to a rash of injuries. They were particularly devastated at the FB position, so much so that when FB Sam Bowie went down with a broken ankle, they called upon Davis to play the position and lead block for Skip Hicks who was a 3rd rounder drafted that year as the heir apparent to Terry Allen at HB. The 1998 season came and went but when people were at camp in 1999, they noticed that Davis was running much harder and seemed to get much lower for contact, enabling him not only to fall forward but also to break tackles much better. He ended up putting up an outstanding year as the primary RB for a playoff team. He has said that his work as a FB lead blocking for Hicks turned him into a better ball-carrier because it taught him how to get leverage.

+--------------------------+-------------------------+				 |		  Rushing		 |		Receiving		|+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| Year  TM |   G |   Att  Yards	Y/A   TD |   Rec  Yards   Y/R   TD |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| 1996 was |  12 |	23	139	6.0	2 |	 0	  0   0.0	0 || 1997 was |  14 |   141	567	4.0	3 |	18	134   7.4	0 || 1998 was |  16 |	34	109	3.2	0 |	21	263  12.5	2 || 1999 was |  14 |   290   1405	4.8   17 |	23	111   4.8	0 || 2000 was |  15 |   332   1318	4.0   11 |	33	313   9.5	0 || 2001 was |  16 |   356   1432	4.0	5 |	28	205   7.3	0 || 2002 was |  12 |   207	820	4.0	7 |	23	142   6.2	1 || 2003 car |  14 |   318   1444	4.5	8 |	14	159  11.4	0 || 2004 car |   2 |	24	 92	3.8	0 |	 2	 32  16.0	0 || 2005 car |  13 |   180	549	3.0   12 |	 5	 45   9.0	0 || 2006 stl |  15 |	40	177	4.4	0 |	12	 90   7.5	1 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+|  TOTAL   | 143 |  1945   8052	4.1   65 |   179   1494   8.3	4 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

 

[Liquid Tension]

steven jackson might be a case of the flip side... i thought at first with STL he danced too much, but possibly through the influence of 06 acquisition stephen davis, he seemed to run much stronger & with more authority last season...

Interesting that you mention Stephen Davis. 'Skins fans will remember that Davis was a 4th round pick out of Auburn in 1996, and had displayed some talent in his first two years but had frequently been injured and didn't seem to have a lot more potential than what he'd shown.In 1998, the team started 0-7 due, among other things, to a rash of injuries. They were particularly devastated at the FB position, so much so that when FB Sam Bowie went down with a broken ankle, they called upon Davis to play the position and lead block for Skip Hicks who was a 3rd rounder drafted that year as the heir apparent to Terry Allen at HB. The 1998 season came and went but when people were at camp in 1999, they noticed that Davis was running much harder and seemed to get much lower for contact, enabling him not only to fall forward but also to break tackles much better. He ended up putting up an outstanding year as the primary RB for a playoff team. He has said that his work as a FB lead blocking for Hicks turned him into a better ball-carrier because it taught him how to get leverage.

+--------------------------+-------------------------+				 |		  Rushing		 |		Receiving		|+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| Year  TM |   G |   Att  Yards	Y/A   TD |   Rec  Yards   Y/R   TD |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| 1996 was |  12 |	23	139	6.0	2 |	 0	  0   0.0	0 || 1997 was |  14 |   141	567	4.0	3 |	18	134   7.4	0 || 1998 was |  16 |	34	109	3.2	0 |	21	263  12.5	2 || 1999 was |  14 |   290   1405	4.8   17 |	23	111   4.8	0 || 2000 was |  15 |   332   1318	4.0   11 |	33	313   9.5	0 || 2001 was |  16 |   356   1432	4.0	5 |	28	205   7.3	0 || 2002 was |  12 |   207	820	4.0	7 |	23	142   6.2	1 || 2003 car |  14 |   318   1444	4.5	8 |	14	159  11.4	0 || 2004 car |   2 |	24	 92	3.8	0 |	 2	 32  16.0	0 || 2005 car |  13 |   180	549	3.0   12 |	 5	 45   9.0	0 || 2006 stl |  15 |	40	177	4.4	0 |	12	 90   7.5	1 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+|  TOTAL   | 143 |  1945   8052	4.1   65 |   179   1494   8.3	4 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

Blocking can teach you the importance of leverage and balance when taking on a tackler (running or blocking)

 

[redman]

BTW, I meant Larry Bowie, not Sam Bowie.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I've stayed out of the Peterson threads, but what's the consensus on how he's rushed for fewer yards every year, and his YPC average as a junior was the same as his YPC average as a freshman/sophomore? From what I recall, the hype on Peterson was enormous because what he did as a freshman was oustanding. A freshman rushing for 241 yards per game is incredible; but a junior rushing for 145 yards per game is monumentally less impressive.Thoughts?

The quality of his team decreased from his frosh to soph years, particularly the QB, so that teams could really focus most of their energy on stopping AD. He still broke some teams backs, but I believe being the focus of the opposing D wore Peterson down quicker. His lower YPC was the result of being banged up at times and being in an imbalanced offense, and the being banged up was somewhat the result of the one-sided offense because teams were keying on peterson.

That might help to lessen the blame for his less than stellar last years, but wouldn't that also take away from the credit he gets for his first year?

 

[TwinTurbo]

I've stayed out of the Peterson threads, but what's the consensus on how he's rushed for fewer yards every year, and his YPC average as a junior was the same as his YPC average as a freshman/sophomore? From what I recall, the hype on Peterson was enormous because what he did as a freshman was oustanding. A freshman rushing for 241 yards per game is incredible; but a junior rushing for 145 yards per game is monumentally less impressive.Thoughts?

The quality of his team decreased from his frosh to soph years, particularly the QB, so that teams could really focus most of their energy on stopping AD. He still broke some teams backs, but I believe being the focus of the opposing D wore Peterson down quicker. His lower YPC was the result of being banged up at times and being in an imbalanced offense, and the being banged up was somewhat the result of the one-sided offense because teams were keying on peterson.

That might help to lessen the blame for his less than stellar last years, but wouldn't that also take away from the credit he gets for his first year?

Marshall Faulk would be another example of a college RB that compiled one of the greatest freshman seasons in NCAA history. He averaged 158 YPG, 15.6 PPG, and 7.1 YPC. His next two seasons were still extremely good but overall not as good as the freshman campaign. He went on to avg 6.1 YPC as a soph and 5.1 YPC as a junior. His carries increased each year, but his YPC went down. Part of it was the fact that he became a marked man and part of it was minor injuries. I see some similarities there with Peterson, although Peterson was on his way to duplicating his YPC as a junior (5.7) and increasing his YPG (155). But he got hurt and wasn't able to play a full season. I think one has to consider that the freshman seasons of Faulk and Peterson were so outstanding, that it would be difficult for any player to continue to duplicate those numbers. Faulk came close. But they both continued to display the necessary talent that was required to put up those type of stats.

 

[Tyrion]

in a recent personal correspondence (shout out to who dat), he got me to thinking if it is possible for leopards to change their spots (or to teach an old dog new tricks)...the context of the conversation revolved around peterson... specifically the viewpoint of some scouts that AD will have a spectacular, brutal, violent, incendiary & probably short career... like a star that burns brightly for a brief time & than explodes into a super nova...my question for the board...can we think of any historical instances where a RB significantly changed their style from college to pro...this could take the form of learning to run less upright...or even more so, i was thinking of the difference between learning to bring quickness & elusiveness into play more, & attempt to run by, around, between & away from defenders... & that of just trying to plow through them... to extend the thought... an incremental improvement might be to pick their shots more, & pick on DBs as opposed to LBs (making a distinction between who it is OK to try & run through, & who isn't... by position & size)...this is obviously a big concern to some, because peterson has had trouble staying in one piece as it is (though diving into end zone was cause of most recent shoulder injury & self-inflicted), and will now be facing bigger, stronger, faster defenders at the next level...back to the original question... not a lot of RBs leapt immediately to mind, or i would be listing them here... if any do come to mind, i'll note them below, but in the mean time, wanted to throw the question out to the board...a related question is not just the general historical question, but the specific one about ADs crystal ball (how he projects from college to NFL... will he have short, long or somewhere in between career)... clearly how one views the first question will probably inform the latter one... but technically they are distinct & separate issues, & i am interested in what anybody thinks about either or both...* no doubt some of these questions intersect & overlap with discussions already found in previous peterson threads, but hopefully the question of of how to attack problem of trying to project longevity of his career through a running style analysis & question of is change of style possible through look at historical comps (if any) is sufficiently different to warrant separate thread...** i forgot to ask another related question... payton & emmitt smith were able to run through defenders with regularity, yet survived to have fairly lengthy careers... who dat used the quintessential & correct exemplar of a super nova (ie - earl campbell) where a violent running style was, not so good for durability purposes... payton would dish out punishment & stiff arm DBs, & not let them get into his body... peterson it is said on good authority has a nasty stiff arm, but the comparison between the two could end there... emmit, imo had extremely underrated feet quicks & make you miss ability, and much like bettis, was not just a wrecking ball... he would try & avoid defenders if the opportunity presented itself... so i guess this line of thought begs the question... can some RBs employ the violent running style with success, & can you tell the difference? payton had a more compact running style than peterson, as i recall... so did emmitt, so that might be a hint right there... this points back at upright running style concerns, & can he learn to run with a lower pad level where he can protect his body a bit more... another apparent difference to explain possibly why payton & smith may have been able to get away with an at times punishing rushing style... defenders were smaller, weaker & slower when those guys made hay, 10-15-20 years ago or more...

According to Tiki Barber, he changed his running style quite a bit. He said he started running in a lower position while working on the treadmill to change his up right style and that it vastly improved his game.

 

[Bob Magaw]

since 06 RB class is fresh in our minds, a breakdown might be instructive...

reggie bush - best RB prospect in a while, though there are/were some doubts about whether he could run inside or would be a one dimensional runner... i thought he answered them at USC... maybe a good comp player would be westbrook... faulk, westbrook & bush are likely the best pass catching RBs to come along in past decade plus (& among best ever), but faulk was a more accomplished runner in his prime... bush is similar as receiver, is faster than westbrook & just as explosive, but maybe not as strong at breaking tackles (westbrook is deceptively strong... bush did lift a lineman-like 25 reps at combine)... because of his elusiveness, not a big concern to have short career...

joseph addai - i thought in the few clips i saw from LSU he had an upright running style, and somewhat troubling injury history... he seemed to acquit himself well in his rookie season, and is definitely in a great position to suceed, taking over for edge in one of most explosive offenses in NFL history... he may not be the most natural RB, having been a prep QB, & played WR & FB at LSU... then again, as he is still learning the position (didn't get a lot of carries at LSU), that could conversely be interpreted as him having a lot of upside... though most in this thread think it is a dubious notion or prospect to think RBs can dramatically revise & "remake" their style... subtle modifications yes, but otherwise the way a RBs career unfolds is almost pre-destined, dictated & driven by deep rooted instincts...

lawrence maroney - looked like a budding superstar initially, but got banged up & his blistering early pace was slowed noticeably as the season wore on... rookie wall? belichick must like what he sees, & NE seems content to let dillon move on... at his best, maroney looks like a beast, with potent combo of speed, power & moves... i'd characterize him as having a bit of an upright running style, but he is so fast & elusive he seems to get to the second level a lot, and once he gets there he can use a vicious stiff arm against hapless DBs... if he can't get through his soph 07 season without some injuries, imo there will start to be some questionos about how robust he is, as he never carried the load at MIN (splitting carries first with MBIII, then gary russell)...

deangelo williams - very compact running style, and what you are looking for based on some of the definitions delineated above collectively, regarding better & worse running styles for injury risk... great physique & running form for the position... some scouts compared him to LT coming up, and he could be a star if he has a chance to become the feature RB in CAR...

lendale white - the most accomplished big RB in the draft class... can be a punishing RB, able to get tough yards on the inside, in short distance & goal line situations... not sure, but i think he left with USC career rushing TD record, despite leaving as underclassmen... good enough to displace bush in certain situations in college, & if you think about it, that is aying a lot... not sure if he has an upright style, but he is a taller player... does have good forward lean, & will deliver a blow, and generally falls forward... he will run through players at times, but has the deceptive burst & feet quickness to have some make-you miss ability... not just a bruiser, a good athlete (cousin is hoopster chauncey billups, so good bloodlines) with agility & field awareness to step over & around trash & capable of quick cuts... i'm not sure i would call him upright, but if he is, definitely not as bad as okoye or chris brown... needs to work harder & toughen up his body, increase his endurance & stamina if he wants to carry the load... could get a shot with henry & brown gone (latest is brown could return & compete for job or provide depth)... the wild card is that his college OC, norm chow, likes him & vouched for him in draft, so you have to think at some point he will get his chance... reportedly was working out with reggie bush & taking training more seriously...

maurice drew - the little giant... showed he was more joe morris than scat back, & rare munchkin sized prospect with the legit ability to be a big time back (perhaps there are still some questions about being a feature RB as he shared the load with fred taylor, but not too many questions in my mind)... not an upright runner & a nasty combo of tree trunk thigh power & jitterbug moves... really devastating in open field & like westbrook DBs won't be able to arm tackle him... even if he WAS an upright runner, he could still between & through defenders legs, rendering it a moot point...

 

[Liquid Tension]

since 06 RB class is fresh in our minds, a breakdown might be instructive...reggie bush - best RB prospect in a while, though there are/were some doubts about whether he could run inside or would be a one dimensional runner... i thought he answered them at USC... maybe a good comp player would be westbrook... faulk, westbrook & bush are likely the best pass catching RBs to come along in past decade plus (& among best ever), but faulk was a more accomplished runner in his prime... bush is similar as receiver, is faster than westbrook & just as explosive, but maybe not as strong at breaking tackles (westbrook is deceptively strong... bush did lift a lineman-like 25 reps at combine)... because of his elusiveness, not a big concern to have short career...joseph addai - i thought in the few clips i saw from LSU he had an upright running style, and somewhat troubling injury history... he seemed to acquit himself well in his rookie season, and is definitely in a great position to suceed, taking over for edge in one of most explosive offenses in NFL history... he may not be the most natural RB, having been a prep RB, & played WR & FB at LSU... then again, as he is still learning the position (didn't get a lot of carries at LSU), that could conversely be interpreted as him having a lot of upside... though most in this thread think it is a dubious notion or prospect to think RBs can dramatically revise & "remake" their style... subtle modifications yes, but otherwise the way a RBs career unfolds is almost pre-destined, dictated & driven by deep rooted instincts...lawrence maroney - looked like a budding superstar initially, but got banged up & his blistering early pace was slowed noticeably as the season wore on... rookie wall? belichick must like what he sees, & NE seems content to let dillon move on... at his best, maroney looks like a beast, with potent combo of speed, power & moves... i'd characterize him as having a bit of an upright running style, but he is so fast & elusive he seems to get to the second level a lot, and once he gets there he can use a vicious stiff arm against hapless DBs... if he can't get through his soph 07 season without some injuries, imo there will start to be some questionos about how robust he is, as he never carried the load at MIN (splitting carries first with MBIII, then gary russell)...deangelo williams - very compact running style, and what you are looking for based on some of the definitions delineated above collectively, regarding better & worse running styles for injury risk... great physique & running form for the position... some scouts compared him to LT coming up, and he could be a star if he has a chance to become the feature RB in CAR...lendale white - the most accomplished big RB in the draft class... can be a punishing RB, able to get tough yards on the inside, in short distance & goal line situations... not sure, but i think he left with USC career rushing TD record, despite leaving as underclassmen... good enough to displace bush in certain situations in college, & if you think about it, that is aying a lot... not sure if he has an upright style, but he is a taller player... does have good forward lean, & will deliver a blow, and generally falls forward... he will run through players at times, but has the deceptive burst & feet quickness to have some make-you miss ability... not just a bruiser, a good athlete (cousin is hoopster chauncey billups, so good bloodlines) with agility & field awareness to step over & around trash & capable of quick cuts... i'm not sure i would call him upright, but if he is, definitely not as bad as okoye or chris brown... needs to work harder & toughen up his body, increase his endurance & stamina if he wants to carry the load... could get a shot with henry & brown gone (latest is brown could return & compete for job or provide depth)... the wild card is that his college OC, norm chow, likes him & vouched for him in draft, so you have to think at some point he will get his chance... reportedly was working out with reggie bush & taking training more seriously...maurice drew - the little giant... showed he was more joe morris than scat back, & rare munchkin sized prospect with the legit ability to be a big time back (perhaps there are still some questions about being a feature RB as he shared the load with fred taylor, but not too many questions in my mind)... not an upright runner & a nasty combo of tree trunk thigh power & jitterbug moves... really devastating in open field & like westbrook DBs won't be able to arm tackle him... even if he WAS an upright runner, he could still between & through defenders legs, rendering it a moot point...

It is a shame that your post ended this thread because the above was Just wanted you to know that many of us did read this!