And Finny, your graph kind of proves my point. Elite D is #1. Elite QB is 2nd. Elite RB? Of the top 5, only one made the Playoffs. SB winner had the 29th RB.

---

to you slapnuts.

---

And the #1 RB in the playoffs.

I'd say the same things about Walter Payton as Barry Sanders, minus the FB thing because I didn't see him play without one. And Walter would add another dimension, that you don't get with Barry Sanders.

Walter Payton could catch and was a threat doing so. I actually would say Walter Payton is worth more to your offense than Barry Sanders because of the dual threat. Barry couldn't catch that well, or maybe wasn't thrown the ball enough, either way, no one was really scared of him catching the ball.

One reason I think Elite QB is more important than Elite RB would be longevity. QB's last longer than RB's thus your window for championships is wider.

You can win a Super Bowl with an average QB and an Elite RB, problem is, there's just not that many Elite RB's out there. I think the closest would be Adrian Peterson. Elite to me is doing it year in year out, consistently and I feel he's done that. The prick.

Again, I think having an Elite QB increases your chances more than having an Elite RB as I've said before.

But Barry Sanders/Walter Payton (I'd even say LaDanian Tomlinson or Jim Brown in there too) is always going to be taken over Dimitri Nance by any GM who wants their job the next day. I'd love to see a poll on that so you'd have your facts.

I mean, DIMITRI NANCE, give me a break. That's insanely disrespectful to the Elite RB's mentioned. I'm offended for them being in the same post together. At least you could have used Ryan Grant, someone who's started a meaningful game and put him at a lower salary.

The whole 10 million elsewhere is a win win for you because if you don't open your mind up to the possibilities, of course it looks great on paper, but its not like the salary cap is 80 million dollars either.

No, I'm done this is just too annoying- I tried man, I really tried seeing it like you painted it. I just... I can't believe anyone in their right mind would argue to justify DIMITRI NANCE over BARRY SANDERS or WALTER PAYTON and I tried to rationalize it myself.

---

Yep, as I said earlier, it's easier to stop the run than it is the pass. I agree with that, partially because I'm cocky enough to think I could out throw any defense, but no way could I out run them. 🙂

---

That's because the Packers played more playoff games (4) than any other team this year. Starks had one excellent game. He didn't produce a whole lot in the other three.

I agree that Zombie's example of Dimitri Nance is a bit over the top. I think you need a decent RB to have enough of a rushing threat to keep the defense honest. Grant and Starks are both plenty good enough. Brandon Jackson--probably not.

---

Yeah, Nance might be extreme then. OK, let's go with B-Jack then. Similar salaries, and Jackson can get 60 yards on 15 carries. Nance maybe not.

I really do believe with an elite D and an elite QB, the importance of a good RB goes way down. We could have easily won the SB with Jackson. Heck, next year, hypothetically speaking, our receivers are healthy and actually catch the ball, can we win it all with Jackson? I'd say yes.

---

A - Elite QB + Brandon Jackson at 750k
B - Average QB + Barry Sanders @ 10 million.

Assuming everything is the same, I think the option A would have a more likely chance of winning a championship. You have no clue how hard that was to write.

Same team, with a starter from the draft, I'd say yes we could win next season with Brandon Jackson, because he's not a 60+ threat (yes, 71 long) but he's a threat to keep getting first downs (Urlacher?) and he's a threat out of the backfield.

I like Ryan Grant, but if I got his salary an incentives understood, I'd rather us move him, go with Brandon/James draft a RB.

---

But the numbers are what matter!! 😉

Really though, James Starks did make it less difficult for the Packers to win it all. Not saying it couldn't have been done without him, just saying he took a load off the passing game.

---

Wow. Took 3 pages but it looks like we're all pretty much in agreement then. :thumbright:

---

Zombie-I do understand what you're trying to say. It just doesn't make sense to me, logically. It's like saying 3 > 4.

If I hand the ball off to a RB, and he runs 90 yds for a TD, next time it looks like I'm going to hand it off to him the safetys are going to be coming up to stuff the box. Only it's a play action fake, and I've got Jennings streaking down the field, 1-on-1 with his defender and no help over the top. If the first run got stuffed for 0, then the play action wouldn't attract as much attention and there's likely a safety over the top.

So running successfully will attract the defense's attention more than running less successfully. Running successfully has GOT to be more relevant than simply running. And if running successfully is irrelevant, running in general is even more irrelevant.

To me, it appears the point you're trying to make is that running success was insignificant (e.g., irrelevant) to determining the SB winners. The statistics tend to not support that argument.

The SB winners over the last 20 years ranked 8th in rush attempts and 10th in rushing yardage during the regular season--both significantly toward the top of the league in both categories. And during the SB itself, the team with more rushing attempts has won 10 of the last 11 (with this year being the sole exception).

I agree with your comment that an elite RB can hurt you if it causes your offensive coordinator to skew too far to the running game.