Is it something im missing??

The Super Bowl champion Patriots had a RB by committee approach and of course to win that championship, they beat a team with a "workhorse" back.

You asked. 😊

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:
The Super Bowl champions Patriots had a RB by committee approach and if course to win that championship they beat a team with a "workhorse" back.

You asked. 😊

That didnt work out at all... they had 3 different starters this season lol.... plus you can thank Edleman & Gronk for that offensive success superbowl night..

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:

The Super Bowl champion Patriots had a RB by committee approach and of course to win that championship, they beat a team with a "workhorse" back.

You asked. 😊

And if Seattle feeds their workhorse at games end they probably win. But more importantly, those two teams have very different approaches (committee vs workhorse) yet both got to the big game.

Originally posted by DeHubb:

That didnt work out at all... they had 3 different starters this season lol.... plus you can thank Edleman & Gronk for that offensive success superbowl night..

Yeah. It's called Brady picking apart the hawks. New England's running game got nothing. Blount had what 39 yards. The committee rarely works unless you're Brady Bree's or rogers

Originally posted by DeHubb:

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:
The Super Bowl champions Patriots had a RB by committee approach and if course to win that championship they beat a team with a "workhorse" back.

You asked. ????

That didnt work out at all... they had 3 different starters this season lol.... plus you can thank Edleman & Gronk for that offensive success superbowl night..

Not sure I'm following your logic. The reason they went to a RB by committee was because of injury to their top RB. Which is the fundamental flaw of just having one big-time option at that position. Imagine how beatable Seattle would be if their main workhorse went down.

Btw, if you win the Super Bowl, by default, your decisions/approach "worked out" unless you're using some other NFL metric or bar of success that I'm not aware of.

RB by committee is only applied when you dont have a clear cut better RB... all the teams that pretty much started that ended up with a main RB by seasons end beside the patriots and in which they had to Blount late in the sign cause Riddle got hurt. Rams started with a committee and Mason took the job, Saints tried it and Ingram won over the position. Committee at RB isnt a success approach to a run game. Its not like this team is the Cards, or Patriots, We have a RB of the future who can be a workhorse so drafting a RB so high doesnt make much sense to me.

Eli Manning and his two titles?

Yes, you are missing something. If Gore is gone, the Niners will have to draft a RB. If he stays, Baalke will still draft a RB because he's drafted one every year since he took over as GM whether he's needed one or not.

In 2011 Baalke to Hunter in the 4th

In 2012 he took James in the 2nd

In 2013 he took Lattimore in the 4th

In 2014 he took Hyde in the 2nd

In 2015 - what RBs will be there in the 4th, cause history says we are taking RB with that pick.

Originally posted by DeHubb:
I see folks so eager to draft a RB 1st or 2nd round High.. special when this team needs impact players at other positions. What Im confused about is, Did i miss something.. Is Hyde crap and I just didnt notice it last season? and what RB by committee scenario has worked out, I can understand change of pace back in which I wouldnt draft one above the 4 or 5th round..

Hyde is not crap at all, but he also hasn't proven he can be a star caliber starter at RB. He averaged less than 4 ypc. Not to say Hyde can't be a good player or is incapable, but he is not an All-World talent whose presence alone alleviates all RB concerns.

Hunter is a gigantic question mark, so is Gore even being here.

The folks wanting to take a RB high in this years draft are because there are some bad ass RB's in this year's class. A guy like Todd Gurley or Tevin Coleman has the ability to be the next great RB in the NFL.

RB-by-committee works when you are a pass heavy team and teams are afraid to put 8+ in the box so even mediocre RB's can get wider running lanes and easier yards against nickel and dime defenses.

Honestly they only have two backs on the roster with any experience. Hyde and hunter. Obviously hunter is a question mark on how effective he can be after the injury. Last year the crowded backfield didn't work out too well as they dropped like flies or were prematurely cut loose (West)

Originally posted by midrdan:

In 2011 Baalke to Hunter in the 4th

In 2012 he took James in the 2nd

In 2013 he took Lattimore in the 4th

In 2014 he took Hyde in the 2nd

In 2015 - what RBs will be there in the 4th, cause history says we are taking RB with that pick.

With 9 picks this year, I'm all for Trent drafting another RB, but not higher than the third round.

Originally posted by elguapo:
Yeah. It's called Brady picking apart the hawks. New England's running game got nothing. Blount had what 39 yards. The committee rarely works unless you're Brady Bree's or rogers

And if Colin Kap faced an injury riddled Seahawks secondary, we might be talking about how he picked the Seahawks apart.

Regardless of how battered and far from form Seattle's D was in that Super Bowl, the Pats BARELY winning does nothing to "prove" that being run heavy and having a work-horse RB can't win in today's NFL.

The game was lost on a historically stupid play call, and they won last year using the same exact formula for success... it was a coin flip that could have gone either way and the Pats just barely came out on top.

There is more than one way to win in the NFL, there are no secret formulas that garner 100% success or fail rates. Comes down to the quality of players and coaching.

Originally posted by DeHubb:
RB by committee is only applied when you dont have a clear cut better RB... all the teams that pretty much started that ended up with a main RB by seasons end beside the patriots and in which they had to Blount late in the sign cause Riddle got hurt. Rams started with a committee and Mason took the job, Saints tried it and Ingram won over the position. Committee at RB isnt a success approach to a run game. Its not like this team is the Cards, or Patriots, We have a RB of the future who can be a workhorse so drafting a RB so high doesnt make much sense to me.

Not true. Sometimes you have 2/3 really good RBs that do different things, so you want them on the field to fit their strengths. Sometimes you want to keep your horse fresh for the playoff run so you share the load early in the season with another back. Sometimes a coach doesn't give two s**ts about who the RB is because their scheme is so good you can plug my grandmother in and she'll get 4.5 yards per carry. It doesn't always mean what you said.

Also, selecting a RB early doesn't automatically mean anything. It can mean they're not totally sure about Hyde being THE MAN so they want to see what someone else might do (he's talented, but there's ZERO guarantee that Hyde is the RB of the future), or it could mean they want to run the ball A LOT and need two premium ball carriers...or it could mean nothing at all.

Again, the SB champion Giants of 2011 ran a committee with Bradshaw and Jacobs getting roughly the same amount of carries (171 and 152 respectively) and they ended beating one of the greatest teams of all time. It was even more pronounced in 2007 when the G-men won it all; Jacobs only carried it 202 times for 4 TDs while Derrick Ward/Reuben Droughns accounted for the other 210 carries and 9 combined TDs. The ultimate RB-by-committee success story right there.