"Every down back" (1 Viewer)

[Otis]

The following quote from another thread got me to thinking:

I know they have Gore, but let's be honest this guy, imo, is not going to be an every down guy. I know they hoped he would, but just don't see it.

Why can't Frank Gore be an "every down guy"? What makes him less an every down prospect than any other back in the NFL? Because he never has had the chance to be yet?People seem to make conclusory statements about a back being an "every down back" all the time here, and I question what that's based on. Often times, it's not a guy who has yet had a chance to be an every down back (e.g., Chris Perry).

Is it based on size? Is there some misconception that a smaller back, for some odd reason, needs to rest more? Do small guys get hit harder? Are they in poorer condition than fat bigger backs? (This can't be right -- see Priest, Tiki, Dunn, and other guys who have carried the load plenty in their careers).

Is this misconception based on pass-catching abilities perhaps? Is it assumed that, if a guy is a good receiver out of the backfield, he is for some reason incapable of banging it inside too? I've heard Chris Perry characterized as "not an every down back," and this is the only possible reason I could come up with. No, despite the fact that he can catch the ball well, he isn't small at all, at over 6 feet and 220 pounds.

Do you guys have a link to a site that gives us info on a guy's cardio conditioning, such that we can determine who will be tired if he is in the game for every play?

Please help me dispel this myth, because it is one of the many commonplace sayings around here that completely baffles me.

TIA

Will answer yours

 

[GridironMenace]

It most certainly has everything to do with his size. No way can he sustain an entire season without a bruiser to take the goal line and short yardage carries. Even Barry Sanders was taken out at the goal line and short yardage situations because his body potentially could falter and Gore is nowhere near barry Sanders level. Just take a look at Westbrook or Dunn as well.Here is a quote from Rotoworld on Gore: Latest News Nov. 14, 2005 - 5:11 pm et Frank Gore may earn 15-18 carries a game the rest of the season.According to ESPN.com's Len Pasquarelli, the San Francisco coaches don't believe Gore can handle a full workload, but they want to see how productive he is splitting carries with Kevan Barlow.Source: ESPN.com

 

[mbuehner]

Because he'll get hurt.

 

[Otis]

It most certainly has everything to do with his size. No way can he sustain an entire season without a bruiser to take the goal line and short yardage carries. Even Barry Sanders was taken out at the goal line and short yardage situations because his body potentially could falter and Gore is nowhere near barry Sanders level. Just take a look at Westbrook or Dunn as well.

Here is a quote from Rotoworld on Gore:

Latest News

Nov. 14, 2005 - 5:11 pm et

Frank Gore may earn 15-18 carries a game the rest of the season.

According to ESPN.com's Len Pasquarelli, the San Francisco coaches don't believe Gore can handle a full workload, but they want to see how productive he is splitting carries with Kevan Barlow.

Source: ESPN.com

XFrank Gore is 5'9" and almost 220. That's not even close to "small."

But, overlooking that for a moment.

So is the party line here that smaller guys can't be an every down back? Do they get tired more often? Hurt more often?

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say

By the way, the reason you put in a bigger back at the goal line is not because the smaller guy is likely to get hurt there, it's because you are in a small space, everyone knows where you are going, there is going to be much contact, and sheer leverage is the only thing you can hope for -- your chances of busting through a crowd are increased with a bigger guy. But I don't see that this has anything to do with being an "every down back."

 

[mbuehner]

Guys that get hurt a lot, get hurt a lot. Gore has a history of injuries both serious and minor. He's alread been all over the injury list this season in limited duty. What makes you think increasing his work load will reverse that trend?

 

[Otis]

Guys that get hurt a lot, get hurt a lot. Gore has a history of injuries both serious and minor. He's alread been all over the injury list this season in limited duty. What makes you think increasing his work load will reverse that trend?

I didn't disagree with you.If Gore is considered "not an every down back" because he has a serious injury history, that is a fair assessment.

FWIW, I am not arguing that Gore IS an every down back. I just see this terminology tossed all over the place seemingly with no rhyme or reason. Perhaps in this instance it is justified due to his injury history.

Again, this is not about Gore in particular, but about this whole notion of "every down back."

 

[Keith R]

There is a distinction between "small" and "short" that is getting overlooked.

 

[mbuehner]

Agreed, height doesnt equal durability. In fact it can make things worse. The shorter guy tends to get his pads lowed and has better leverage. Gore is a thick guy, definately more stout than a Tiki Barber. Looking at him without knowing his history I wouldnt suspect he couldnt be an every down back. Then again, thats a dying breed in the NFL.

 

[Otis]

There is a distinction between "small" and "short" that is getting overlooked.

I don't think height is a very relevant statistic for a RB, but I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on it. Generally if a guy is somewhere between 5'9"-6' and 210-225 pounds, I think he is in the prototypical RB size category.By way of example, Q.Griffin at 5'7" and 195 pounds is small for a RB, as is Dunn at 5'8" 180. Tiki at 5'10" 200 is a bit closer to the mark. But Gore at 5'9" 220 is the perfect RB size/weight..

 

[Couch Potato]

When did you turn 9, Otis? Happy Birthday!

 

[coolnerd]

There are several issues tied into "every down backs"1- durability (game in/game out) - has almost nothing to with size, the ability to start and play through the game. 2- durability- (within a game)- some guys are better players with 15 carries than 22 or 25. Not all backs get stronger with more work.3. goal-line- while power is factor it is overrated also. the ability to find crack and quickly hit them has much to with goalline success as running over guys. 4. Passing (blocking)- some Rbs can't get this job done. some or willing, some not5. Passing (receiving)- some players don't the ability to catch or get open in the passing game. Basicaly an every down back is one who is at least average in all these categories and probably exceptional at a couple. This is a back where you do not have to tip your hand as to what you are doing by personnel, stays on the field and is productive in all areas.

 

[Slinger]

Small backs can't produce in this league.Sincerely,Warrick Dunn

 

[dudaman]

Let's just say that guys that have the "total package" tend to be 3-down backs. Guys who aren't as multi-dimensional as say, LT, do not instill the confidence in their coaches, and will subsequently be benched in certain situations.Total package = talent + measurables + intangibles + whatever it is his particular coach feels he has that makes him a 3-down back.You are overanalyzing the topic.

 

[Otis]

Let's just say that guys that have the "total package" tend to be 3-down backs. Guys who aren't as multi-dimensional as say, LT, do not instill the confidence in their coaches, and will subsequently be benched in certain situations.

Total package = talent + measurables + intangibles + whatever it is his particular coach feels he has that makes him a 3-down back.

You are overanalyzing the topic.

How am I "overanalyzing"? It's a sincere question.

I still don't understand your position on this. Is it that a back who excels in all aspects of the game is an "every down back"? Or is it "measurables" and "intangibles"? That being the case, if we say a guy is not an every down back, does that mean he's just not very good? (but perhaps is the only decent option?)

I don't think I'm overanalyzing anything -- it's a very legit question considering how this kidn of terminology is sometimes tossed around with reckless abandon.

 

[Otis]

There are several issues tied into "every down backs"

1- durability (game in/game out) - has almost nothing to with size, the ability to start and play through the game.

2- durability- (within a game)- some guys are better players with 15 carries than 22 or 25. Not all backs get stronger with more work.

3. goal-line- while power is factor it is overrated also. the ability to find crack and quickly hit them has much to with goalline success as running over guys.

4. Passing (blocking)- some Rbs can't get this job done. some or willing, some not

5. Passing (receiving)- some players don't the ability to catch or get open in the passing game.

Basicaly an every down back is one who is at least average in all these categories and probably exceptional at a couple. This is a back where you do not have to tip your hand as to what you are doing by personnel, stays on the field and is productive in all areas.

This seems like a legitimate answer. Taking a guy like Gore, for example, from what I've seen he is pretty solid at the goal line (they had him in for at least series at first and goal this week, and he did have a TD recently), I think he is a decent receiver, though I admittedly don't know much about him to say for sure, and I don't know about his blocking, I don't think we've seen enough of him to say he is not durable within a game, but perhaps Gore is not an every down back for reason (1) i.e., general durability and ability to stay injury-free?

 

[coolnerd]

There are several issues tied into "every down backs"

1- durability (game in/game out) - has almost nothing to with size,  the ability to start and play through the game. 

2- durability- (within a game)- some guys are better players with 15 carries than 22 or 25. Not all backs get stronger with more work.

3. goal-line- while power is factor it is overrated also. the ability to find crack and quickly hit them has much to with goalline success as running over guys.

4. Passing (blocking)- some Rbs can't get this job done. some or willing, some not

5. Passing (receiving)- some players don't the ability to catch or get open in the passing game.

Basicaly an every down back is one who is at least average in all these categories and probably exceptional at a couple.  This is a back where you do not have to tip your hand as to what you are doing by personnel, stays on the field and is productive in all areas.

This seems like a legitimate answer. Taking a guy like Gore, for example, from what I've seen he is pretty solid at the goal line (they had him in for at least series at first and goal this week, and he did have a TD recently), I think he is a decent receiver, though I admittedly don't know much about him to say for sure, and I don't know about his blocking, I don't think we've seen enough of him to say he is not durable within a game, but perhaps Gore is not an every down back for reason (1) i.e., general durability and ability to stay injury-free?

Given these standards there are probably only 5 to 10 legimate "every down backs " in the NFL. This does not mean that other backs are not effective, just not complete in this manner. Of the measures, durability is the toughest to figure out. No matter what a player college history or body type until a guy has several games of 25 or so touches, we are guessing. One thing to note, in a given year almost no Rb starts and finishes every game. Normally, no more the 5 to 7 of the guys who enter the year as a starter, starts 16 games and finishes all them w/o injury.

 

[GoBears84]

There are several issues tied into "every down backs"

1- durability (game in/game out) - has almost nothing to with size,  the ability to start and play through the game. 

2- durability- (within a game)- some guys are better players with 15 carries than 22 or 25. Not all backs get stronger with more work.

3. goal-line- while power is factor it is overrated also. the ability to find crack and quickly hit them has much to with goalline success as running over guys.

4. Passing (blocking)- some Rbs can't get this job done. some or willing, some not

5. Passing (receiving)- some players don't the ability to catch or get open in the passing game.

Basicaly an every down back is one who is at least average in all these categories and probably exceptional at a couple.  This is a back where you do not have to tip your hand as to what you are doing by personnel, stays on the field and is productive in all areas.

This seems like a legitimate answer. Taking a guy like Gore, for example, from what I've seen he is pretty solid at the goal line (they had him in for at least series at first and goal this week, and he did have a TD recently), I think he is a decent receiver, though I admittedly don't know much about him to say for sure, and I don't know about his blocking, I don't think we've seen enough of him to say he is not durable within a game, but perhaps Gore is not an every down back for reason (1) i.e., general durability and ability to stay injury-free?

Having watched (read: suffered through) every Niners game this year, the main reason Gore is not considered an every down back is that he doesn't have the blocking schemes down yet. Although Barlow doesn't always get it done w.r.t rushing the ball, he picks up the blitz well.Joel

 

[Tenderknee]

Someone who isn't an everydown back doesn't have that "It factor".

 

[Verbal Kint]

Let's just say that guys that have the "total package" tend to be 3-down backs. Guys who aren't as multi-dimensional as say, LT, do not instill the confidence in their coaches, and will subsequently be benched in certain situations.

Total package = talent + measurables + intangibles + whatever it is his particular coach feels he has that makes him a 3-down back.

You are overanalyzing the topic.

Is that how you talk to your 8 year old?

 

[redman]

So is the party line here that smaller guys can't be an every down back? Do they get tired more often? Hurt more often?

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say

Don't know about the party line, but all other things being equal, a smaller rather than a larger RB (when you're considering RB's in, say, the 230 lb. range or less) tend to be less durable over the course of the season as "every down backs" than are the larger backs. Now, back to the original question, "what is an every down back?" Defined as loosely as the way it is used here, it seems to mean one or a combination of several different criteria, in no particular order:

1) RB is a starter;

2) RB gets most of the carries;

3) RB remains in the game on first down and second and medium-to-short no matter where the team is on the field, especially on the goalline;

4) RB remains in the game in long-yardage situations;

5) RB is (depending upon who you talk to) 215 to 220 yards, or larger;

6) RB does not have a viable competitor for their job.

 

[Mungo Burrows]

If, after you have been in the game for at least 30-40 snaps and carried the ball at least 15 times during a game including the two preceding plays, - There is another running back on the roster who would be better than you at 2nd or 3rd and long situations (pass catching; elusiveness to make something happen on draws, screens, etc; and most importantly, blocking and blitz pick up)...~or~- There is another running back on the roster who would be better than you at consistently picking up first downs by power running in short yardage situations against 9 man fronts...then you are not an "every down back".

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

If, after you have been in the game for at least 30-40 snaps and carried the ball at least 15 times during a game including the two preceding plays,

- There is another running back on the roster who would be better than you at 2nd or 3rd and long situations (pass catching; elusiveness to make something happen on draws, screens, etc; and most importantly, blocking and blitz pick up)...

~or~

- There is another running back on the roster who would be better than you at consistently picking up first downs by power running in short yardage situations against 9 man fronts...

then you are not an "every down back".

It all depends on circumstance and who is or is not on a specific team.

 

[Otis]

Don't know about the party line, but all other things being equal, a smaller rather than a larger RB (when you're considering RB's in, say, the 230 lb. range or less) tend to be less durable over the course of the season as "every down backs" than are the larger backs.

I thought we dispelled this myth already?

 

[Otis]

If, after you have been in the game for at least 30-40 snaps and carried the ball at least 15 times during a game including the two preceding plays,

- There is another running back on the roster who would be better than you at 2nd or 3rd and long situations (pass catching; elusiveness to make something happen on draws, screens, etc; and most importantly, blocking and blitz pick up)...

~or~

- There is another running back on the roster who would be better than you at consistently picking up first downs by power running in short yardage situations against 9 man fronts...

then you are not an "every down back".

I don't disagree with you, but I think the question I have is slightly different -- this characterization ("every down back") is often times used to describe players when there is no context at all. For exmple "Frank Gore is not an every down back." Someone is not saying this because of the game situation, or Kevan Barlow, or anything else, they are saying this because Frank Gore alone lacks some quality or characteristic that makes up an "every down back." That is the question I am trying to get at.Here is another one I hear a lot this year:

"Reggie Bush is not an 'every down back' in the NFL."

 

[lod2005]

Guys that get hurt a lot, get hurt a lot. Gore has a history of injuries both serious and minor. He's alread been all over the injury list this season in limited duty. What makes you think increasing his work load will reverse that trend?

Yet he is out there every week playing with pain and running as hard as any RB in the league. Gore is a stud barring a major injury to his knees. He is currently playing better than Cadillac and is on a far worse team. Over their last 4 games Gore smokes the cadillac with the flat tire. Check these powerhouse caddy numbers vs the hard running FRANK f'ing GORE:Caddy: 45-82 yards....OUCH ZIP TD's

GORE: 41-207 yards 1 TD

Gore kicks major ###.

 

[Otis]

Guys that get hurt a lot, get hurt a lot. Gore has a history of injuries both serious and minor. He's alread been all over the injury list this season in limited duty. What makes you think increasing his work load will reverse that trend?

Yet he is out there every week playing with pain and running as hard as any RB in the league. Gore is a stud barring a major injury to his knees. He is currently playing better than Cadillac and is on a far worse team. Over their last 4 games Gore smokes the cadillac with the flat tire. Check these powerhouse caddy numbers vs the hard running FRANK f'ing GORE:Caddy: 45-82 yards....OUCH ZIP TD's

GORE: 41-207 yards 1 TD

Gore kicks major ###.

While this is very nice, and we can go there if you like (I like Gore very much myself), I don't really think it has any bearing on the ultimate question here.

 

[lod2005]

Ok. Gore can easily be an every down back. He can catch and can run inside and outside with speed and power. If he couldn't catch then he gets the label of not being an every down back.

 

[Lemmiwinks]

I think Gore could be a future stud. He was considered more talented that McGahee at the U, but freak knee injuries derailed him there. He looks to have gotten some burst back, and is a load to bring down. He could end up being the best player in the 2005 draft class.

 

[Otis]

I think Gore could be a future stud. He was considered more talented that McGahee at the U, but freak knee injuries derailed him there. He looks to have gotten some burst back, and is a load to bring down. He could end up being the best player in the 2005 draft class.

I have thought some of this as well, esepcially after watching him recently. What impressed me the most is his quickness, burst, and maybe most of all, his ability to break tackles. I've seen the guy drag piles of tacklers several yards. That does not look like a guy with knee problems.But again, we digress...

 

[Otis]

Here is another one I hear a lot this year:

"Reggie Bush is not an 'every down back' in the NFL."

This one is resurfacing.

 

[Keysersoze666]

There are several issues tied into "every down backs"

1- durability (game in/game out) - has almost nothing to with size, the ability to start and play through the game.

2- durability- (within a game)- some guys are better players with 15 carries than 22 or 25. Not all backs get stronger with more work.

3. goal-line- while power is factor it is overrated also. the ability to find crack and quickly hit them has much to with goalline success as running over guys.

4. Passing (blocking)- some Rbs can't get this job done. some or willing, some not

5. Passing (receiving)- some players don't the ability to catch or get open in the passing game.

Basicaly an every down back is one who is at least average in all these categories and probably exceptional at a couple. This is a back where you do not have to tip your hand as to what you are doing by personnel, stays on the field and is productive in all areas.

This post is your answer, well said Nerd. Guys like EJames are probably better than 80% of all NFL backs in all 5 of those categories. A guy like Rudi is lacking in category #5 and on 3rd down passing situations doesn't stay in. Someone mentioned that if you have a quality backup you may also spell your starter within a game to keep him fresh and I personally don't consider that to count against an "every-down" back.No way Reggie Bush fulfills this set of criteria, at least not as a rookie. Neither does Westbrook yet in PPR leagues Westy is top 5. For a player like that, total "meaningful touches" is the key to production.

 

[Tau837]

There are several issues tied into "every down backs"

1- durability (game in/game out) - has almost nothing to with size, the ability to start and play through the game.

2- durability- (within a game)- some guys are better players with 15 carries than 22 or 25. Not all backs get stronger with more work.

3. goal-line- while power is factor it is overrated also. the ability to find crack and quickly hit them has much to with goalline success as running over guys.

4. Passing (blocking)- some Rbs can't get this job done. some or willing, some not

5. Passing (receiving)- some players don't the ability to catch or get open in the passing game.

Basicaly an every down back is one who is at least average in all these categories and probably exceptional at a couple. This is a back where you do not have to tip your hand as to what you are doing by personnel, stays on the field and is productive in all areas.

Very good post. I think in particular that the bolded final statement sums it up. This implies (to me) that an every down back is a back that can adequately perform RB duties on all plays in the offensive playbook.You don't mention running abilities, perhaps you are taking that for granted. But perhaps it shouldn't be ignored. In general an every down back should be able to run effectively both inside and to the outside, and run effectively in short, medium, and long yardage situations... in addition to being durable and effective at blocking and receiving.

 

[coolnerd]

There are several issues tied into "every down backs"

1- durability (game in/game out) - has almost nothing to with size,  the ability to start and play through the game. 

2- durability- (within a game)- some guys are better players with 15 carries than 22 or 25. Not all backs get stronger with more work.

3. goal-line- while power is factor it is overrated also. the ability to find crack and quickly hit them has much to with goalline success as running over guys.

4. Passing (blocking)- some Rbs can't get this job done. some or willing, some not

5. Passing (receiving)- some players don't the ability to catch or get open in the passing game.

Basicaly an every down back is one who is at least average in all these categories and probably exceptional at a couple.  This is a back where you do not have to tip your hand as to what you are doing by personnel, stays on the field and is productive in all areas.

Very good post. I think in particular that the bolded final statement sums it up. This implies (to me) that an every down back is a back that can adequately perform RB duties on all plays in the offensive playbook.You don't mention running abilities, perhaps you are taking that for granted. But perhaps it shouldn't be ignored. In general an every down back should be able to run effectively both inside and to the outside, and run effectively in short, medium, and long yardage situations... in addition to being durable and effective at blocking and receiving.

I remember doing this pretty quickly while working and it could use some tweeking for future discussion of this type. Especially addressing the obvious.

 

[Keysersoze666]

I will admit that I when I read the post I did take the running for granted since there are only a handful of guys to even consider for this label.

 

[one4thumb]

An every down back is basically a complete back, one who has all the intangibles HIS coach is looking for and stay on the field and do everything that is expected of him.I'd also suggest that a player does not garner such a label until he is in that role and there is no alternative to anyone taking over for him. If you consider Tatum Bell and Mike Anderson both every down backs, what sense does it make to call them that? Each has a role to play on the team. An every down back is just a different role some teams ask of a player that can meet those requirements and such a role they can only ask one player to play.Coach on sidelines: "Mike, you're my man, my every down back. Get r done."Play one: Mike breaks leg.Coach on sidelines: "Tatum, I've known all along you're my man, my every down back. Get r done."

 

[Velcro]

Way too much thinking here.Every Down Back = One whose coach believes he should be on the field every offensive play.This can be equally applied to Every Down Defensive Lineman (as opposed to pass rushing specialists), Every Down Defensive Backs (as opposed to the nickle back) or Every Down Wide Receiver (as opposed to the #3 receiver).

 

[coolnerd]

Way too much thinking here.

Isn't that what we do on this board?? Take a pretty simple game in fantasy football and analyze every aspect of it to death.

 

[jurb26]

The more I watch football, the more I'm convinced that an "every down back" has more to do with the coaching staff and team he is on than any talent and ability the player actually possesses.

 

[stevec]

Ironically, guys who aren't "every down" backs can gain that label. I'd say Tiki Barber has gained that label fairly well the last 2 years.I think the main criteria is related to how they play in the passsing game, because if they can't run the ball well enough to play RB, they have serious job issues that mean they need to prove that they are a "NFL backup quality" back.

 

[flapgreen]

Ah, Otis the SP guy, right where he belongs.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Donny Anderson of the Green Bay Packers was an every offensive down back because he would stay in on forth down and punt. He would laugh at the three down backs of today calling themselves every down backs.

 

[JohnnyU]

Donny Anderson of the Green Bay Packers was an every offensive down back because he would stay in on forth down and punt. He would laugh at the three down backs of today calling themselves every down backs.

I remember watching Donny Anderson. I don't remember him being anything special. The best he ever did was 800+ yds once, 700+ twice with a career 3.9 ypc. He did have 10 tds in 1973 and was a decent receiver out of the backfield however. I remember him being a very blue collar, bring his lunch box type of player.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

IMHO, a "every down back" is a guy who either excels or is at least above average at the following:

running

catching

blocking

conditioning

If a guy has all four of those traits, he can be a every down back. Now it's up to the coach to leave him in or not.

On a highjack-esk note: IMO, far too many coaches are over coaching when they take out studs on 3rd down and in the redzone. For example, when the lunatics who took Barry Sanders out of the game in the redzone, they lost out on the threat he was to carry the ball and de-valued the playaction.

 

[switz]

Latest News Nov. 14, 2005 - 5:11 pm et Frank Gore may earn 15-18 carries a game the rest of the season.According to ESPN.com's Len Pasquarelli, the San Francisco coaches don't believe Gore can handle a full workload, but they want to see how productive he is splitting carries with Kevan Barlow.Source: ESPN.com

Ah yes, Barlow was so good, he would keep Gore off the field. Too funny....

 

[Chase Stuart]

Donny Anderson of the Green Bay Packers was an every offensive down back because he would stay in on forth down and punt. He would laugh at the three down backs of today calling themselves every down backs.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/tiny/82glH

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Donny Anderson of the Green Bay Packers was an every offensive down back because he would stay in on forth down and punt. He would laugh at the three down backs of today calling themselves every down backs.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/tiny/82glH

Looks like he was better at punting than carrying the ball.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Donny Anderson of the Green Bay Packers was an every offensive down back because he would stay in on forth down and punt. He would laugh at the three down backs of today calling themselves every down backs.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/tiny/82glH

Looks like he was better at punting than carrying the ball.

A left footed punter whose hang time and awkward spin nearly negated returns. He was an adequate back running, blocking, and receiving.

 

[kaa]

If I could conjure up Jerome Bettis in his prime and place him on any team today, he'd take over the goal line and short yardage carries. Does this mean no current NFL back is truly an every down back?

 

[Otis]

[QUOTE='Otis]Here is another one I hear a lot this year:

"Reggie Bush is not an 'every down back' in the NFL."



<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This one is resurfacing. [/QUOTE]Good posting.

 

[DaveGrumbles]

People seem to make conclusory statements about a back being an "every down back" all the time here, and I question what that's based on. Often times, it's not a guy who has yet had a chance to be an every down back.

Brilliant bump. I would say the above is one of the most salient points posted in here...well..I guess in at least the last six years.