what kind of running back would u rather have on your team, a big one like Jerome Bettis, or a smaller...?

Question

...or a smaller one like warrick dunn

Answer 1

"Bussie!"

Answer 2

It would depend on the style of offense that I ran. If I ran a primarily a run oriented offense then Bettis would be the ideal back. If I ran a safisticated spread or west coast offense then Warrick Dunn would be the back. Me personally I would go for Warrick Dunn because he brings so many facets to your team, he can catch the ball out of the backfield, he can run between the tackles, and he can flat out beat you to the outside. The problem with Warrick statistics is he is playing with a selfish Quarterback who thinks he is a running back.

Answer 3

Well lets look at this statistically and accomplishment wise. Bettis is the #13 all time runner. Bettis has won the Super Bowl. Dunn has no records to his name, no Super Bowl ring, and just plainly nothing to his name. I would take Bettis also because the big backs don't get hurt as often as the smaller ones.

Now if your small back example was Barry Sanders, it'd be a different story.

Answer 4

definitely a smaller one like warrick dunn. he'd be faster than hardly anyone. as if you had jerome bettis, not that fast, yet powerful. its just, he wont be able to break off every tackle. warrick dunn might be able to break one tackle, and go ahead for the touchdown. but a perfect running back would be a ladainian tomlinson/shaun alexander player. strong AND fast.

Answer 5

If I wanted a POWER Running back then yeah I would want one like Bettis. If I wanted a speed back I would want someone like Willie Parker. He was taught how to spot the holes and get through by Bettis and Duece Staley. Have to admit that is a great way to learn when you are a rookie. Actually it really depends on the team. Some need a power back. Some need a catching RB. There are multiple styles of back and you really need the one that fits your team best.

Answer 6

Depends on the system. But a back like Bettis is a plus because he is a North/South runner that usually falls forward. Rarely tackled for a loss. Not to mention, very effective around the Goal line. (Except against the Colts last year)

Answer 7

yes
i'd want both because it give the option of pounding the ball up the middle or running a sweep outside. just look at bettis's last season. with parker there to carry most of the load, bettis was a fresh pair of legs who could punch it in from 5 yards out. a big bruiser can wear down the defense, then a small back like parker can come in and tear it up.
as for the two options you gave, i'd have to pick the bus for several reasons.
1)he had quick feet. in his prime, bettis could make a cut with the best of them because he chopped his feet so quickly.
2)he was hard to take down. bettis shed tacklers like it was nothing, and the sheer intimidation factor made defenders think twice before they tried to take him down.
3)he could throw. he ended his career with an overall qb rating of 87.5 om 6 attempts, of which completed all tree for atouchdowns averaging 10.5 yds. he had one int, which came in 2000
4)awards. bettis was a six time probowler, two time comeback player of the year, recipiant of the walter payton man of the year, offensive rookie of the year, 5th leading rusher in nfl history, and 1st inductee to the International Bowling Museum & Hall of Fame's celebrity bowling hall of fame.
5) sure handed. despite the infamous fumble in the indy game, bettis was very good at holding on to the football. he averaged 2.8 fumbles per year, losing only 1.7 each season
6)he wasn't affected by cold. he actually averaged one more yard per carry in when it was under 40 degrees in his last season.
7)he had a sweet nickname. come on. the bus, who couldn't root for a guy named the bus. that has to rank in the top 5 all-time best nicknames.

dunn on the other hand has none of the above.

Answer 8

Warrick Dunn.Slick and small.I'd use Bettis as a fullback.

Answer 9

Neither one, If I had to pick a running back, it wouldn't be either types of these running backs. It would be a runner like Jason Elam. In the past season he had like a 7 yard-a-carry average. On that play where he ran the ball instead of kicking it, he gained about 7 yards, Just think about where the Broncos would be right now if they put Elam at RB. Of course they'd be in the playoffs. My second choice at RB would be Scott Player. Everyone in the NFL is jealous of his one bar facemask besides Matt Turk. If you gave Player the ball and had him run it, everyone trying to tackle him would be mad at him becuase he had a great helmet, while they didn't. These players would take him down by releasing their anger by pulling Player down by his facemask. Each time it would result in a 15 yard facemask penalty. So Player would gain 15 yards plus whatever yards he gained with his legs. Other guys that could play running back include Brett Favre, Vinny Testaverde, and Albert Haynesworth.

Answer 10

It all depends on all the other players and other things happening in the game.If you have a horrible D-Line and an OK QB, go for the runner who blocks better (bigger). If your line creates holes, go for the smaller, quicker Rb. If you at the goal line, use a bigger Rb. If its 3rd and 5, go with the smaller one. Every little thing is crucial.

Answer 11

Bettis, John Riggins, Csonka, Otis Anderson, Jim Brown. I'll take these men over any back