Running Back Position

No one would trade us for a twice injured veteran RB by the name of Hunter.

Maybe Hayne makes the team, but its not at the expense of RB. I dont care what his YPC were. There is no way I see him as an effect inside runner. I dont even think he'll be effect against first string defenses. He's strong with great vision, but lacks real speed and runs way too high.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

Dont sleep on Hunter.

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
No one would trade us for a twice injured veteran RB by the name of Hunter.

Maybe Hayne makes the team, but its not at the expense of RB. I dont care what his YPC were. There is no way I see him as an effect inside runner. I dont even think he'll be effect against first string defenses. He's strong with great vision, but lacks real speed and runs way too high.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

Dont sleep on Hunter.

Hey guys, I am from down under, so forgive the lack of understanding.
What is the big deal with 'running high' and 'above pad level'.
Down under we play a pretty brutal contact sport, which goes non stop for 40 minutes each half, 17 men on each side, 12 replacements per game, 13 on the field at one time, 6 tackles in offense and then you get your line set quick smart and prepare for 6 tackles in defence. No pads, no helmets etc.
So not sure about the significance of 'pad height' and 'running high'
It sounds by reading some other posts here, it is more of a player 'self preservation' issue.
Jarryd's mixed it up with plenty of Front Rowers, Second Rowers and Locks before down south, so not sure he is particularly interested in 'self preservation', and is prepared to take a risk of personal safety in order to make some yards. Is it not up to him?
Or is it best to play 'safety football' and take 'no risks' and get a pissweak outcome.
I always thought that Risk and Opportunity are friends, but the way you guys are talking, that is not always necessarily the case in NFL or acceptable?
For a novice, why not?

Originally posted by Cattledog:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
No one would trade us for a twice injured veteran RB by the name of Hunter.

Maybe Hayne makes the team, but its not at the expense of RB. I dont care what his YPC were. There is no way I see him as an effect inside runner. I dont even think he'll be effect against first string defenses. He's strong with great vision, but lacks real speed and runs way too high.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

Dont sleep on Hunter.

Hey guys, I am from down under, so forgive the lack of understanding.
What is the big deal with 'running high' and 'above pad level'.
Down under we play a pretty brutal contact sport, which goes non stop for 40 minutes each half, 17 men on each side, 12 replacements per game, 13 on the field at one time, 6 tackles in offense and then you get your line set quick smart and prepare for 6 tackles in defence. No pads, no helmets etc.
So not sure about the significance of 'pad height' and 'running high'
It sounds by reading some other posts here, it is more of a player 'self preservation' issue.
Jarryd's mixed it up with plenty of Front Rowers, Second Rowers and Locks before down south, so not sure he is particularly interested in 'self preservation', and is prepared to take a risk of personal safety in order to make some yards. Is it not up to him?
Or is it best to play 'safety football' and take 'no risks' and get a pissweak outcome.
I always thought that Risk and Opportunity are friends, but the way you guys are talking, that is not always necessarily the case in NFL or acceptable?
For a novice, why not?

It is a little of both. Yes running high makes you susceptible to getting lit up and your opinion on how he will hold up to that is certainly valid...but Pad height is key to making good yards in traffic in the American game also. If you run high in tight spaces it is much easier for the defenders who are often several inches to a foot taller and more than 100 lbs heavier to get their hands on you as you run through the gaps. Also the linebackers and secondary can see you much more clearly coming out of the backfield and are more able to anticipate what gap you will hit and meet you there at the hole.

If Hayne makes it, he will be the 4th running back on the depth chart. He would be the primary return man and that's about it. I doubt the coaching staff ever lets him touch the field on first string offense this season. So there is little need to worry whether he can get his pads low enough at this point in time..

Originally posted by insanemike27:
If Hayne makes it, he will be the 4th running back on the depth chart. He would be the primary return man and that's about it. I doubt the coaching staff ever lets him touch the field on first string offense this season. So there is little need to worry whether he can get his pads low enough at this point in time..

I could see him in a sub package...some end around stuff and screen passes. Get him in space once or twice a game and let him do what comes natural. But yeah...he is a developmental player as a between the tackles runner at this point. El Guapo, Bush, Davis, Hunter would all have to go down before he sees significant carries.

Originally posted by Cattledog:
Hey guys, I am from down under, so forgive the lack of understanding.
What is the big deal with 'running high' and 'above pad level'.
Down under we play a pretty brutal contact sport, which goes non stop for 40 minutes each half, 17 men on each side, 12 replacements per game, 13 on the field at one time, 6 tackles in offense and then you get your line set quick smart and prepare for 6 tackles in defence. No pads, no helmets etc.
So not sure about the significance of 'pad height' and 'running high'
It sounds by reading some other posts here, it is more of a player 'self preservation' issue.
Jarryd's mixed it up with plenty of Front Rowers, Second Rowers and Locks before down south, so not sure he is particularly interested in 'self preservation', and is prepared to take a risk of personal safety in order to make some yards. Is it not up to him?
Or is it best to play 'safety football' and take 'no risks' and get a pissweak outcome.
I always thought that Risk and Opportunity are friends, but the way you guys are talking, that is not always necessarily the case in NFL or acceptable?
For a novice, why not?

NFL tacklers have been taught to use their pads and helmet as weapons, hitting at soft spots of the runner. As an American football player I had to learn not to put my head in front of the runners knees while tackling...it's pretty easy to remember after being knocked unconsious a couple of times in Rugby! LOL! Rugby tacklers are more upright (for the most part) while tackling.

If you want to see an excellent low runner, watch some video of Frank Gore. He reduces his target areas by leaning forward and bending his knees to avoid tackles and injuries. It also increases his impact on the tackler in front of him allowing him to fall forward.

My memory (it's been a few decades) of rugby is that players are usually trying to stay up in order to pass the ball at any moment. Laterals are extremely rare in football...can't recall the last time I saw one past the line of scrimmage.

Football may be heading toward rugby rules due to head trauma issues. More and more studies are showing significant brain injury in youth football, let alone NFL level. Refs are calling more use of helmet penalties as well for the same reason.

Both of these sports are incredibly rough and I respect the courage of ruggers.

Urban Dictonary's definition of ruggers:

"Someone who can sustain several concussions and still manage to go to the pub after running for 80 minutes while tackling men that look like they have taken steroids since 3. Also, known for their ability to engage in sex for long periods of time and pleasure their partners to the utmost.

The team of ruggers went to the bar after playing in 105 degree weather while being practically beat up and pleased the entire 18-25 year old female population of Sweden."

Originally posted by PhillyNiner:

Originally posted by Cattledog:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
No one would trade us for a twice injured veteran RB by the name of Hunter.

Maybe Hayne makes the team, but its not at the expense of RB. I dont care what his YPC were. There is no way I see him as an effect inside runner. I dont even think he'll be effect against first string defenses. He's strong with great vision, but lacks real speed and runs way too high.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

Dont sleep on Hunter.

Hey guys, I am from down under, so forgive the lack of understanding.
What is the big deal with 'running high' and 'above pad level'.
Down under we play a pretty brutal contact sport, which goes non stop for 40 minutes each half, 17 men on each side, 12 replacements per game, 13 on the field at one time, 6 tackles in offense and then you get your line set quick smart and prepare for 6 tackles in defence. No pads, no helmets etc.
So not sure about the significance of 'pad height' and 'running high'
It sounds by reading some other posts here, it is more of a player 'self preservation' issue.
Jarryd's mixed it up with plenty of Front Rowers, Second Rowers and Locks before down south, so not sure he is particularly interested in 'self preservation', and is prepared to take a risk of personal safety in order to make some yards. Is it not up to him?
Or is it best to play 'safety football' and take 'no risks' and get a pissweak outcome.
I always thought that Risk and Opportunity are friends, but the way you guys are talking, that is not always necessarily the case in NFL or acceptable?
For a novice, why not?

It is a little of both. Yes running high makes you susceptible to getting lit up and your opinion on how he will hold up to that is certainly valid...but Pad height is key to making good yards in traffic in the American game also. If you run high in tight spaces it is much easier for the defenders who are often several inches to a foot taller and more than 100 lbs heavier to get their hands on you as you run through the gaps. Also the linebackers and secondary can see you much more clearly coming out of the backfield and are more able to anticipate what gap you will hit and meet you there at the hole.

By running upright, he is also exposing the ball more than you would like. Though, he is very good at naturally switching the ball from side to side.

Hayne would make the team strictly for special teams IMO. He may be effective on swing passes, but at this point in his development, he can't run inside as Oaktown says. He looks good in space though.

We need to see Hunter in preseason. At this point, we have no idea if he is the "old" Hunter we were used to seeing.

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by Cattledog:
Hey guys, I am from down under, so forgive the lack of understanding.
What is the big deal with 'running high' and 'above pad level'.
Down under we play a pretty brutal contact sport, which goes non stop for 40 minutes each half, 17 men on each side, 12 replacements per game, 13 on the field at one time, 6 tackles in offense and then you get your line set quick smart and prepare for 6 tackles in defence. No pads, no helmets etc.
So not sure about the significance of 'pad height' and 'running high'
It sounds by reading some other posts here, it is more of a player 'self preservation' issue.
Jarryd's mixed it up with plenty of Front Rowers, Second Rowers and Locks before down south, so not sure he is particularly interested in 'self preservation', and is prepared to take a risk of personal safety in order to make some yards. Is it not up to him?
Or is it best to play 'safety football' and take 'no risks' and get a pissweak outcome.
I always thought that Risk and Opportunity are friends, but the way you guys are talking, that is not always necessarily the case in NFL or acceptable?
For a novice, why not?

NFL tacklers have been taught to use their pads and helmet as weapons, hitting at soft spots of the runner. As an American football player I had to learn not to put my head in front of the runners knees while tackling...it's pretty easy to remember after being knocked unconsious a couple of times in Rugby! LOL! Rugby tacklers are more upright (for the most part) while tackling.

If you want to see an excellent low runner, watch some video of Frank Gore. He reduces his target areas by leaning forward and bending his knees to avoid tackles and injuries. It also increases his impact on the tackler in front of him allowing him to fall forward.

My memory (it's been a few decades) of rugby is that players are usually trying to stay up in order to pass the ball at any moment. Laterals are extremely rare in football...can't recall the last time I saw one past the line of scrimmage.

Football may be heading toward rugby rules due to head trauma issues. More and more studies are showing significant brain injury in youth football, let alone NFL level. Refs are calling more use of helmet penalties as well for the same reason.

Both of these sports are incredibly rough and I respect the courage of ruggers.

Urban Dictonary's definition of ruggers:

"Someone who can sustain several concussions and still manage to go to the pub after running for 80 minutes while tackling men that look like they have taken steroids since 3. Also, known for their ability to engage in sex for long periods of time and pleasure their partners to the utmost.

The team of ruggers went to the bar after playing in 105 degree weather while being practically beat up and pleased the entire 18-25 year old female population of Sweden."

Cheers for that.
Good to get some tips from locals
I was thinking that running upright allows you to have a wider field of view of whats coming, and provide balance for some evasive stepping and swerves, but guess I never thought of the helmet being used as a weapon!
Thanks

Originally posted by Cattledog:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by Cattledog:
Hey guys, I am from down under, so forgive the lack of understanding.
What is the big deal with 'running high' and 'above pad level'.
Down under we play a pretty brutal contact sport, which goes non stop for 40 minutes each half, 17 men on each side, 12 replacements per game, 13 on the field at one time, 6 tackles in offense and then you get your line set quick smart and prepare for 6 tackles in defence. No pads, no helmets etc.
So not sure about the significance of 'pad height' and 'running high'
It sounds by reading some other posts here, it is more of a player 'self preservation' issue.
Jarryd's mixed it up with plenty of Front Rowers, Second Rowers and Locks before down south, so not sure he is particularly interested in 'self preservation', and is prepared to take a risk of personal safety in order to make some yards. Is it not up to him?
Or is it best to play 'safety football' and take 'no risks' and get a pissweak outcome.
I always thought that Risk and Opportunity are friends, but the way you guys are talking, that is not always necessarily the case in NFL or acceptable?
For a novice, why not?

NFL tacklers have been taught to use their pads and helmet as weapons, hitting at soft spots of the runner. As an American football player I had to learn not to put my head in front of the runners knees while tackling...it's pretty easy to remember after being knocked unconsious a couple of times in Rugby! LOL! Rugby tacklers are more upright (for the most part) while tackling.

If you want to see an excellent low runner, watch some video of Frank Gore. He reduces his target areas by leaning forward and bending his knees to avoid tackles and injuries. It also increases his impact on the tackler in front of him allowing him to fall forward.

My memory (it's been a few decades) of rugby is that players are usually trying to stay up in order to pass the ball at any moment. Laterals are extremely rare in football...can't recall the last time I saw one past the line of scrimmage.

Football may be heading toward rugby rules due to head trauma issues. More and more studies are showing significant brain injury in youth football, let alone NFL level. Refs are calling more use of helmet penalties as well for the same reason.

Both of these sports are incredibly rough and I respect the courage of ruggers.

Urban Dictonary's definition of ruggers:

"Someone who can sustain several concussions and still manage to go to the pub after running for 80 minutes while tackling men that look like they have taken steroids since 3. Also, known for their ability to engage in sex for long periods of time and pleasure their partners to the utmost.

The team of ruggers went to the bar after playing in 105 degree weather while being practically beat up and pleased the entire 18-25 year old female population of Sweden."

Cheers for that.
Good to get some tips from locals
I was thinking that running upright allows you to have a wider field of view of whats coming, and provide balance for some evasive stepping and swerves, but guess I never thought of the helmet being used as a weapon!
Thanks

In the open field like kick returns or after receiving the ball running upright is just fine as you have seen, he does great there. It is in the trenches that you need to get low. So your thoughts are not totally without merit, but for the position Hayne wants to ultimately play, at this level, his game needs some fine tuning.

Hunter has, IMO, one more game to make a case for keeping him.

Originally posted by Cattledog:

Cheers for that.
Good to get some tips from locals
I was thinking that running upright allows you to have a wider field of view of whats coming, and provide balance for some evasive stepping and swerves, but guess I never thought of the helmet being used as a weapon!
Thanks

Lookup videos of Barry Sanders...the very definition of elusive.

u guys really think Hayne stays over Hunter?

Originally posted by ChazBoner:
u guys really think Hayne stays over Hunter?

How was the fishing expedition?

Originally posted by Cattledog:
Hey guys, I am from down under, so forgive the lack of understanding.
What is the big deal with 'running high' and 'above pad level'.

Look at Jarryd's first rush in Q3 against the Broncos.

He ran into traffic and the opposingLB (or was he TE) had lower centre of gravity and was able to leverage underneath him, push him upright and push him back.

Watch Hyde or Davis in similar situations and they get extremely low (they are shorter guys to start with) and burrow through, turning a no gain or small loss into a few metres of rush.

The other thing people are talking about is him copping a big shoulder charge or even helmet missile around the unprotected chest in more open play.


I think there is some merit in what you say though. If you change Jarryd into every other RB, he will turn into every other RB. And he just doesn't appear to have the physical attributes to stand out that way; he is on the tall side for an RB. He is fresh and has an X-factor that is entirely due to his unorthodox habits and skills.

I've said it before, I think he can make an impact by moving from orthodox strategy to one that incorporates him, rather than have him adapt (completely at least) to the orthodox.