Is the the 2 running back system more effective?

Question

A lot more teams have split up the carries between running backs (Colts, Cowboys, Bears, Saints, Patriots). All of said teams were in the playoffs. So is the 2 back system more effective in your eyes and if so why?

Answer 1

you said it yourself....
look at the teams in the playoffs


it seems like that's the way to go, but of course there are tons of other factors involved....having two good RBs won't win you ballgames in its self, but if you look at the numbers....it's obviously successful.
reasons:

-fresh legs (especially compared to the defense after a while)
-different styles
-defensive confusion
-and i think a big part of it is mental for the backs. Guy A knows that if he gets lazy Guy B is going to come in and get more carries, so Guy A busts his butt every play.
as does Guy B in order to get on the field more himself

just a couple points.
hope that was what you were looking for
have a good one buddy

Answer 2

Yes it is. If a player carries the ball 300-400 times in a season, by the time he reaches the postseason, he's worn down. The teams that had a two running back system were more effective this past season. Look at the playoff teams: Saints (Bush/McAllister), Jets (Washington/Houston), Colts (Addai/Rhodes), Cowboys (Barber/Jones) Patriots (Maroney/Dillon), Bears (Benson/Jones) Even the Chargers had a great 2nd option in Michael Turner. It makes your rushing attack more effective, especially when the two running backs have different running styles. When you have the power running back with the change of pace scatback combo, you can do some damage on offense. The 2 running back system becomes less effective when you have two backs with similar running styles. It'll be interesting to see how it works with the Giants (north-south runners Droughons & Jacobs) and the Raiders (between the tackle runners Rhodes and LaMont Jordan). But as the saying goes, two is better than one.

Answer 3

establishing the run is a very important part of football. it allows you to control the clock and keep your defense well rested. most backs cannot handle more than 20 carries per game. the 2 back system allows for more run plays in a game. it also allows for back to specialize. in the two back system there is usually a slasher type back and a power back. the patriots were actually using a 3 back system with Dillon being the power back, Maroney the slasher, and Faulk a 3rd down/receiving back. it clearly works, since most of the top teams in the NFL used the 2 back system. not every team can have a LaDanian Tomlinson, but with the 2 back system it doesn't matter as much.

Answer 4

Sure seems to be more effective. Depending on the down, the yardage, the defensive front, the fatigue of one of the backs...there are lots of reasons to switch in a fresh back...

Indy did well last year to give Addai one series, then Rhodes, then switch back to Addai.

University of Georgia was using three backs a couple of seasons ago (Danny Ware, Kregg Lumpkin, and Thomas Brown). When Brown was hurt, they still had two experienced quality backs to turn to. Seemed like a good system.

As evidenced by your list of playoff teams with two rotating backs, I would say it is an effective system.

I wouldn't be surprised if you see some wishbone formations popping up in the next year or two!!!

Answer 5

yes the 2-back system is by far much better then using one back throughout the game

usually in the 2-back system, both HBs have a different type of running style (usually one is speed, and one is power) and will provide a better offense for your team and will confuse the defense with using 2 different types of runners

lets take the Broncos for an example, last year Tatum Bell was a speed back and Mike Bell was the power back, both having good seasons and lets take another team for an example, the Patriots, Corey Dillon as the power back and Laurence Maroney as the speed back

GO BRONCOS

Answer 6

Yes, it is. You get a fast RB then a powerful RB and put them together, you're going to wear down the defense more effectively. Look at what the colts did. They wouldn't have won so many games if they didn't have Addai's power to go with Rhode's speed. It also effects the D's knowledge on what play the offense is going to run. They can't really read it as well.

2 Backs is much better than one.

Answer 7

Yes it is more efefctive. LT was in on a lot of the plays, but Turner seem to do a lot when he gave him a break. The best answer would be look at what they do for the defensive linemen now. They usually rotate seven into the game for certian situations. This provides them more rest so they are fresher and more energized when they get in the game. It also help that if one gets injured, the don't lose that much as compared to a person who plays every play.

Answer 8

As long as you have two diverse backs then yes it is agood system. If you haev a power back and a speed back then it can be very beneficial. It works becauseyou are constantly keeping the defense on their toes, your backs can stay fresher the whole game by limiting their carries, and it can open up the air game more. The two back is very effective currently because it gives the defense more to think about, they have to game plan for more and different running styles.

Answer 9

Yes, super bowl champs have had them since Tampa's Alstott-Dunn combo is the early 2000's, its the best way to keep backs healthy and effective throughout a whole season.

Note: Any team looking to do this (Atlanta, NE, Indy, Pitt) should look at Michael Bush from Louisville in the 2nd round as a power back, he may have injury problems but he is a tank.

Answer 10

yes it is more effective because using two running backs can confuse a defense with different running styles. Also a lot of running backs just cannot carry the ball by themselves for the length of a whole game. it also reduces the chance of getting hurt