Hall of Fame RB Tony Dorsett On the Value of a One-Back System
by Joel Thorman on Feb 4, 2010 1:05 PM CST
Email
Print
I had the opportunity to talk with Hall of Fame running back Tony Dorsett this afternoon about a variety of topics. One portion that I wanted to share was particularly relevant to the Kansas City Chiefs.
The one-back vs. two-back system.
Parts of the interview can be seen at SBNation.com and the one-back/two-back stuff can be seen after the jump.
A lot of the talk surrounding the Senior Bowl and the rest of the NFL Draft has been about acquiring a "big back" to complement Jamaal Charles. This is the trend that we've been seeing in the NFL and it makes sense for a lot of reasons.
However, in my conversation with Dorsett, he said that's not the way he would've wanted to do things. I specifically cited Larry Johnson when talking about the longevity (or lack thereof) of running backs today.
"I'm not a big believer in [the two-back system]. You pick a guy and go with it. You get somebody to back him up just in case he gets hurt. That's not bad to have - trust me. When a guy goes down you gotta have somebody that's comparable to him waiting in the wings ready to go."
"But when you're in there all the time, you just get a better feel for the game. You see how defenses are reacting to certain formations, how they react to a certain play you've run before and you get a better feel of how you want to make your adjustments and how you want to attack the defense yourself as a runner."
He indicated that the two-back system would be difficult on a running back like, for example, Charles.
"Just doing that sparingly, in and out," he said, "you may get lucky and hit some big plays but that's not going to happen all the time."
Busy day at the Super Bowl. I'll be back soon with Rich Gannon talking about his time with the Chiefs and Raiders.
Thanks to the folks from YesterYear Fantasy Sports for getting me in touch with Mr. Dorsett.
23 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I know other backs have said things similar
For a lot of backs, it’s about getting into a rhythm when you are out there. The two back system takes a lot of that away in favor of durability. People usually dont look at the pluses of having a one back system and focus only on the negatives.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not condoning a one-back system in KC. I just don’t know that we NEED to use the two-back system. If that makes sense.
Kinda my thoughts too
I’m not too keen on this “thunder and lightning” approach others seem to be taking. You build the team for what you have available. I don’t see how having a guy to run up the gut does any good when your team is suited to end arounds or screens or whatever. You’re trying to change your teams identity in the middle of a game, and identity seems to be a pretty big part of Haley’s plan here.
So full of sh*t that toilet bowls have to wipe.
What do you say to JC just completely gassing a defense between the 20s
Only to be replaced by a guy that can flat-out bull doze said gassed defenders? All the while resting JC up for the next series to do it all over again.
Frankly, I don’t feel comfortable using JC in short yardage scenarios, where you need a guy that HAS to fall foward — especially at the goal line where running the ball is the safest bet.
Afterall, it worked for the Titans.
"The first step to penetration... must not be lateral"
-Confucius
Is the other back for the Titans available?
I’m for the 2 back system personally. There are too many benefits for all of the other reasons on the post. However, I don’t think we need to break the bank for one. We can survive and hope for no injury to JC.
by Ren on Feb 4, 2010 8:55 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
Maybe a three back system
the second would play similar to Charles and the third would be the goal/short yardage guy and they BOTH sit on the bench a lot:)
"For what we are about to see next, we must enter quietly into the realm of genius." Scott "Young Frankenstein" Pioli
by Steve_Chiefs on Feb 4, 2010 11:48 PM CST up reply actions
Not to mention......
with a one back attack, IF the #1 goes down with an injury, or for a breather, if you have someone behind him with the same style, you don’t have to change the game-plan….you stick to your game plan and if executed efficiently, it should work. – I also see how having a BIG power back or good FB, will help in short yardage situations, as long as we don’t waste a top pick to get him…..I’m 50-50
or them
"For what we are about to see next, we must enter quietly into the realm of genius." Scott "Young Frankenstein" Pioli
by Steve_Chiefs on Feb 4, 2010 11:49 PM CST up reply actions
pfffff
LJ said the same thing. Don’t get carried away with the rhythm thing, a good back runs hard every carry and has the talent to be productive no matter how many carries he gets. I’m not saying I disagree completely with what he says, just saying don’t excuse poor running with not enough carries. 2 backs has many more positive qualities than 1 as long as the 2nd back is close to the same quality of runner as the first is.
LJ did run hard every play
Just ask the offensive linemen who’s backs he bruised by running right into them.
OK...the Koolaid buzz is gone now. I'm forced to admit that the state of the team had deteriorated far beyond what I had realized. The good news is I get to start mixing up a fresh batch of koolaid for next year. Oh Yeah!
Nice Z
Hope things are well.
Our timing is off
"For what we are about to see next, we must enter quietly into the realm of genius." Scott "Young Frankenstein" Pioli
by Steve_Chiefs on Feb 4, 2010 11:50 PM CST up reply actions
Don't fix what ain't broken.....
….I like the production Jamaal Charles is giving us and I would only ask for a decent back for backup and breather. As far as I’m concerned all the carries can go to JC.
The question is not how far. The question is, do you possess the constitution, the depth of faith, to go as far is as needed?
I believe in the RB being the most acquirable and interchangeable part.
Get a good RB, run him till the wheels come off. Say 3-5 seasons, when he’s done, get another one. When teams are good at this, they seem to do well. ie Patriots, Ravens, Titans, Jags, Broncos
by Your_Moms_Boyfriend on Feb 4, 2010 1:36 PM CST reply actions
and THAT'S why we need a truly dominant OLine ... Okung, Albert, Waters, Ducasse, Iupati ... (drooling)
"I shall conquer untruth by truth" - Mahatma Gandhi
Whilock Rocks!
hi, Mo!
5 minutes!!!
Agree with everything except.....
....Okung will be a backup o-lineman in this leauge at best.
The question is not how far. The question is, do you possess the constitution, the depth of faith, to go as far is as needed?
The patriots have a strong rusher and running attack?
WTF have you been smoking? Must’ve been some good stuff!!
So full of sh*t that toilet bowls have to wipe.
I 1000% agree
especially with a running back like Charles who is able to bust one wide open on any play.
I played rb my whole life from the time i was 12 till now, 27. I always need to be in the game to get the rhythm, you get a great feel for who over pursues who sits on their heel, how the line reacts to certain D formations.
Gotta be careful as well
It’s only a good idea IF the 2nd back makes just as large of an impact as the 1st back but in a different way. We can’t afford to give the opposing D a breather when out starter is out just because we want give him a rest . It would be my guess that the reason that most teams are using the 2back system is because they recognize that there’s too much talent sitting the bench. I don’t think we’re at the point in the new chiefs era to have that luxury. I’m also a big fan of our current depth at running back ( provided we have a healthy Kolby Smith). Battle isn’t bad either.
As far as the O-line, they need to be big and more agile than the standard NFL linemen. It’s Zone blocking baby and those hogs gotta be able to move. I think Lupati will end up here. That would be sick.
Smith and Battle won't be on the team next year...
Savage is better than either of them in my opinion. Smith is NOT very good and Battle has a running style that is very upright much like LJ. I don’t think either of them will stay here past training camp. We need somebody new in here who can bring the same quickness and speed that JC brings to the table. I’d love to see Lendale White here but, that is very unlikely with all of our other needs so, they need to find another speedster somewhere in the later rounds of the draft who can be brought along slowly as a reserve for JC.
by Chiefsfan1970 on Feb 4, 2010 2:18 PM CST up reply actions
I agree to an extent
I think the reason a lot of us want to acquire a back is that we don’t have a proven backup that could step in if JC were to miss any extended time. Kolby Smith can’t stay healthy. Jackie Battle, Dantrell Savage….meh.
Javarris Williams is only a rookie and we knew he was a raw project player coming in, so he may be able to mature into a servicable back up in due time. but he sure looked pretty far off in the limited time we saw him last year.
The 2-RB system has worked well in places like Miami, Indy, New Orleans, Philly, Pittsburgh, Arizona, Dallas, Atlanta, San Diego, etc. so there is definitely evidence to support that it does work so I wouldn’t be completely against bringing in another proven running back.
What about LT
Yea he’s gettin old and he’s starting to decline but he has proven himself to be a nice starter. Bring him in and if JC would get injured (knok on wood) he will fit into a similar game plan
by Risktaker on Feb 4, 2010 5:50 PM CST via mobile reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
