Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

More impact on offense: RB or WR?

More Impact for College Offense

  • Running Back

    Votes: 36 67.9%

  • Wide Receiver

    Votes: 17 32.1%
  • Total voters
    53
Buffnik

Buffnik

Real name isn't Nik
Club Member
Junta Member
In the NFL, the worm has turned and it seems like a playmaker at WR does more to make a team great than a playmaker at RB. Pretty well evidenced by where teams spend their early round draft picks and money.

But what about college?

Is a great RB or a great WR going to mean more to a college offense?
 
Buffnik said:
In the NFL, the worm has turned and it seems like a playmaker at WR does more to make a team great than a playmaker at RB. Pretty well evidenced by where teams spend their early round draft picks and money.

But what about college?

Is a great RB or a great WR going to mean more to a college offense?
Click to expand...
Based on your NFL draft example, I would say Offensive Line.

But to address your question, I think it depends on the QB. The impact of the WR is at least somewhat dependent on the skill of the QB. But with a competent QB, I think a dynamic WR is a bigger asset because of the increased opportunities for scoring plays.
 
I think that with all of the different types of offenses in college, that it really just depends on the team.
 
Good question.

WRs are dependant on having a QB who can get them the ball.

RBs can take it on a pitch or a handoff.

Biggest difference though is that on both levels LBs and even DL have gotten much faster and more agile. A well blocked play with the RB hitting the hole can still only get you 2-3 yards because guys fill so quickly. Leaves you with a 2nd down and 7/8 and now the defense has the advantage over the running team which has to get at least 4-5 yards to get back on schedule.

These things are always cyclical though. I think eventually as defenses keep sacrificing size and power for speed somebody will come back with a smashmouth scheme that negates that and puts the smaller guys at a disadvantage. Win a championship with it or even resurrect a down program and others will start to copy.

In the pros the balance to the WRs will stay much stronger because the league like a product with lots of big plays and will continue to change the rules to emphasize the passing game.
 
A dominant back can wreak havoc in the college game, but offenses are set up these days so that even if he isn't dominant, a receiver is still more likely to be an impact player and put up numbers.
 
lawdogg said:
A dominant back can wreak havoc in the college game, but offenses are set up these days so that even if he isn't dominant, a receiver is still more likely to be an impact player and put up numbers.
Click to expand...

Good back works all day to get 70 yards, good reciever slips a tackle and gets it on one play.
 
What about the Pac12?

In the Pac12 all of the good teams have stellar RBs.

USC has a stable of backs.
Stanford has an ungodly OL with a serious stable of backs (their only real playmakers).
UO...enough said. Their WRs are good, but that's not what makes them special.
Zona had Carey. Dude ran for like 600 yards against us. Glad he's gone.
UDub has had some GREAT backs the last few years. Then again, our D has made just about any opposing RB a Heisman contender that week.
UCLA had a converted LB to RB. And the dude was a freaking beast. Nasty.

The next tier of teams
OSU. Good QB, DL + WRs. No RBs I can remember besides Jacquizz a couple of years ago.
WSU. :lol: No RB would want to play for Leach.
Cal. The team recruits RBs well, but can't develop any. Their QB passed for like 60 passes a game last year.
Utah. Can't remember.
ASU. Can't remember watching past the first 6 minutes of the game so I don't recall them having a good RB or not.


Seems like the Pac12 is a running backs league more than WR league overall. But it's not what I'd classify as a smash mouth league (Stanford the exception). Speed at RB is what matters more in the Pac12 with people using space to their advantage.
 
I think it's easier to take a WR out of a game than it is to take a RB out of a game. An effective double team can neutralize a stud WR. If you don't have another WR to take up the slack, you're in trouble. Much harder to do to a RB.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Good offensive lines can make a decent RB a Heisman winner.

Not true at WR. A stud is needed to be a stud.
 
Duff Man said:
The good ones are getting more than 70. A lot more.
Click to expand...

The elite ones yes. The target for most backs is still 1,000 yards a season which over 13 games comes out not far from 70.

Lots of games the leading rusher is at 70 or below. Of course the good running teams with a quality back manage to regularly have a leading rusher over 100 yards but the "normal" back is happy with 70. On the balance it's also fair to say that most games don't include a 70 yard reception and lacking a quality QB/WR combination it isn't unusual not to have a single receiver with 70 yards in a game.

The point is that in an era of increased scoring and a focus on big plays the pass to the WR provides the more explosive option. It used to be that guys who couldn't play RB at the college level were moved to WR. Now it seems that more often the explosive guys are at WR already in HS.


Don't get me wrong, I would love to see the Buffs be a team known for a highly effective running game. I have posted in other threads that as defenses continue to move toward defending the pass an opportunity exists to exploit those defenses with a solid running game. The positive for schools like CU in that regard is that it seems that with good scouting and recruiting followed by development at team can build a highly effective run blocking OL without having to bring in a bunch of 4* and 5* talents. You still need quality recruits it isn't like WR where everyone knows who the kids who are going to be 6'2" sub 4.5 guys.
 
The nfl is a different beast. They are choosing the elite guys and there is only 32 teams. Each year there is 2-3 super awesome WRs followed by 4-5 good ones. Even then guys like megaton are generational players. In college those guys are spread very few and far between. Teams need RBs more than WRs unless they luck out and get a Prich type.

And we only got Prich because of a youthful indiscretion. Dude was going to UCLA. Otherwise who was the last explosive WR we had?
 
NFL is also a different issue because even the worst QBs can throw the ball well (well except when Tebow was playing lol.) College you can have a dominant WR and not have anyone to get him the ball.

No offense to Cody but did Cody have the arm and downfield vision to make use of the skills of a guy like PRich. Cody loved the 3 yard out because that was his best throw. Scotty was a perfect fit for him.
 
NMBuff said:
What about the Pac12?

In the Pac12 all of the good teams have stellar RBs.

USC has a stable of backs.
Stanford has an ungodly OL with a serious stable of backs (their only real playmakers).
UO...enough said. Their WRs are good, but that's not what makes them special.
Zona had Carey. Dude ran for like 600 yards against us. Glad he's gone.
UDub has had some GREAT backs the last few years. Then again, our D has made just about any opposing RB a Heisman contender that week.
UCLA had a converted LB to RB. And the dude was a freaking beast. Nasty.

The next tier of teams
OSU. Good QB, DL + WRs. No RBs I can remember besides Jacquizz a couple of years ago.
WSU. :lol: No RB would want to play for Leach.
Cal. The team recruits RBs well, but can't develop any. Their QB passed for like 60 passes a game last year.
Utah. Can't remember.
ASU. Can't remember watching past the first 6 minutes of the game so I don't recall them having a good RB or not.


Seems like the Pac12 is a running backs league more than WR league overall. But it's not what I'd classify as a smash mouth league (Stanford the exception). Speed at RB is what matters more in the Pac12 with people using space to their advantage.
Click to expand...

I'd disagree with you to an extent. When I think USC, I'm not thinking about stellar RB play, their receivers have gotten more attention of late. Stanford as you say is built around a superlative offensive line, so it isn't necessarily a situation where their backs are great, but as someone posted above, a dominant line can make an average back look great. Oregon has definitely had some very good backs, but that offense seems to really go based on the threat of a running QB in addition to the RBs. Zona and UDub might be better examples of Pac 12 teams that have been successful with RB play, but I don't know that I would classify Zona and UDub as being in a tier above ASU and OSU. Can't say I would look at the Pac 12 as being a RB-driven league.
 
Rules of the NFL game favor WR and passing game. A stud college RB and competent OL can just demoralize the opposition and control a game.
 
lawdogg said:
I'd disagree with you to an extent. When I think USC, I'm not thinking about stellar RB play, their receivers have gotten more attention of late. Stanford as you say is built around a superlative offensive line, so it isn't necessarily a situation where their backs are great, but as someone posted above, a dominant line can make an average back look great. Oregon has definitely had some very good backs, but that offense seems to really go based on the threat of a running QB in addition to the RBs. Zona and UDub might be better examples of Pac 12 teams that have been successful with RB play, but I don't know that I would classify Zona and UDub as being in a tier above ASU and OSU. Can't say I would look at the Pac 12 as being a RB-driven league.
Click to expand...

USC has been about its WRs for a lot of years now.

UCLA had multiple WRs drafted this year.

Stanford was looking for answers last year until Ty Montgomery busted out and made their offense dangerous.

I don't know. I had always been a RB guy, but I think things are changing. College football has at least reached a balance and I think that WR has become a shade more impactful than RB.
 
NMBuff said:
Cal. The team recruits RBs well, but can't develop any.
Click to expand...

Except the 3/4 that are in the NFL.

Marshawn Lynch
Jahvid Best
Shane Vereen
CJ Anderson

I get your point though. It's highly unlikely that this continues in the Bair Gayd offense.
 
Last edited:
If the OL is better at pass blocking, the stud WR stands to have a bigger impact. If the OL is better at run blocking, then the RB. But I'll side with RB as someone who can create opportunities with the ball. The WR needs the cooperation of others to get him the ball past the line of scrimmage.
 
Duff Man said:
How come people only assume the OL helps RBs and not the other way around?
Click to expand...

Great point.

A dynamic RB (or QB) will make an OL look better than it is. Only positions that bring those 5 positions with them.
 
Duff Man said:
How come people only assume the OL helps RBs and not the other way around?
Click to expand...

During the Shanahan years, my favorite player was TD. However, post TD, there was RB Du Jour, and all of them looked very, very good. And I can barely remember any of them.

To me, the epitome was when we traded a successful Clinton Portis for Champ Bailey. Just plugged in another UFA at RB (or 2-3 of them) and kept pumping it out. A lot of people were upset until they saw that UFA after UFA that got plugged in at RB were just as productive.

Guys like Barry Sanders and Gale Sayers made O-Lines look good - granted. But for whatever reason, I don't see that happening much anymore if at all. It can be an edge, but not like a top WR can be.
 
Fair point, Holic. I think LSU, Stanford, and Wisconsin are examples of those systems at the college level.

My counterargument would be last year's Oregon State team. Good QB, great WR, but a losing conference record.
 
So the question comes down to having a talent who is transcendent vs. having talent that is good.

Stanford and Wisconsin are programs that have systems and offensive lines that can be productive with RBs who are good. I wonder how effective their backs would have been running behind our OL last season.

I think with a good OL and a great RB you can dominate in college football. The problem is that those great RBs are few and far between. Of course you can make the same argument about WRs but as long as you have a QB who can get him the ball all a WR has to beat is his coverage, not the entire defense like a RB does.
 
Duff Man said:
I think our RBs get way too much of a pass for our running game woes.
Click to expand...

Can't argue with this statement.

Which backs have we had in the past few years who would have been regular contributors for most of our conference competitors.

Rodney Stewart did well but was more quick than fast. Powell is a good banger when he is healthy but has trouble staying on the field and lacks top end speed. Adkins has shown some flashes but hasn't exactly dominated.

Plenty of blame to go around though for the Buffs failures.
 
Duff Man said:
Wider hash marks gives more opportunities to RBs.
Click to expand...

Why's that? I would think a case could be made for both - wider hash marks give more opportunity for an inside run (zone read type stuff). But wider give more opportunity to an outside play (I.e. a burner who can get to the corner or passes in the flat/screens).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
CUAviator said:
Why's that? I would think a case could be made for both - wider hash marks give more opportunity for an inside run (zone read type stuff). But wider give more opportunity to an outside play (I.e. a burner who can get to the corner or passes in the flat/screens).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Which matchup do you like more: a RB against a DE/OLB in space or a WR against a CB in space?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top