Why You Can't Just Put ANY Running Back Behind A Great Offensive Line

Why You Can't Just Put ANY Running Back Behind A Great Offensive Line

8/21/16


When an opinion on a certain topic is popular and the majority seems to agree with it, I completely understand the reasons why the opinion is popular even if I don't have the same opinion. Ever since the Dallas Cowboys have rebuilt their offensive line and reestablished a dominant running game with DeMarco Murray in 2014, an old popular myth has been brought back to life. The myth is this: Any running back can run behind the Cowboys' offensive line. This ridiculous theory originated in the early 1990's when Emmitt Smith was the man carrying the load in the backfield.

To me, the belief that the best offensive line in the NFL can make rushing champions out of average RBs is up there with Jerry Jones saying years ago that "500 coaches could win the Super Bowl with this team". I honestly don't know which one is worse. By no means do I consider myself a football expert, but what I do know is this: No matter how great an offensive line is, you can't just put ANY running back behind them and expect the production to be the same. I have seen too much evidence over the years that proves this theory to be false. 

People forget that running back is a SKILL position. Does the RB have the ability to make incoming defensive players miss or run over them? Does he have the breakaway speed to outrun defenders when he gets into the open field? Can he pick up yards after contact? What about getting those tough 1 or 2 yards on 3rd down when everybody in the stadium knows that he's getting the ball? Can he get those tough yards when adjustments are made after halftime, where most games are usually won or lost? Nobody remembers or even cares that you got off to a fast start if you can't finish. Does the RB have receiving skills? Can he protect the quarterback on passing plays? All of those traits factor into being a complete RB with all of the skills necessary to handle the position. 

What also gets overlooked with RBs is the fact that maximizing the blocking in front of you is a skill. It's a skill that not all backs have in equal proportion. Even with a great offensive line, a RB still has to know how to hit the hole, when to hit it, when to be patient, and how he can use his vision to keep the chains moving. There have been a few running backs over the years that have benefited from great blocking more than most, but the best backs are creators. They use their physical abilities and the understanding of the system they play in to make things happen in unfavorable situations. In other words, they have the ability to do more than what their blockers create if need be. Emmitt Smith had all of these skills in abundance. That's why it's BS to say that he was only good because of his offensive line.

The offensive line is critical to the success of a running back because they open up the holes that allow the back to get down the field, but I believe that great running backs make a line better more so than the other way around. Again, even with a great line the RB still has to have the vision to hit the holes and know where to go. Running backs don't get clear paths to the end zone just because the offensive line is great. If you put some spare RB behind a great line, the line won't look as good in terms of run blocking because the RB's skills would be insufficient to take advantage of the blocking. The line can have Pro Bowlers at every position, but without that great runner they will see average effort and production in the running game every week. This can wear on the psyche of even the most dominant of offensive lines.

Because of this myth, there is a big misconception that having a great offensive line means that any and all running plays will work all the time. So many people believe that because a line is so good that it just comes together and holes just open up. The RB has just as much to do with it. A great offensive line can make an OK back serviceable, but if you want consistently great performances, you'll need a quality RB. It all starts with the line, but it helps to have a runner that they know will fight for some tough yards if they don't get the big push up front. Not to mention that the line feeds off of that. We saw these dynamics within the Cowboys' running game in 2014 and 2015.

In 2014, DeMarco Murray had a record-breaking season, rushing for a league-leading 1,845 yards and 13 touchdowns, which tied him for the league lead. That season earned him the Offensive Player Of The Year award. He gave the Cowboys offense their smash-mouth, run-first identity, and the rest of the team fed off of that energy. He can be replaced easier than Tony Romo or Dez Bryant, but the Cowboys wouldn't have won 12 games and been so close to a Super Bowl without him. The Cowboys front office convinced themselves that with their offensive line the running game wouldn't miss a beat with the runners that they had left, so they let Murray walk after his historic season. They missed him much more than they thought they would.

After the Cowboys let DeMarco Murray go, they passed on selecting a RB in the ensuing draft, named Joseph Randle the starter, and signed Darren McFadden as insurance. Those 2 backs, along with 3rd down running back Lance Dunbar, combined for 976 rushing yards in 2014 - 53% of Murray's total. The biggest question mark for the Cowboys going into the 2015 season was how Joseph Randle would perform as the feature back in Murray's place. When you let a RB go that led the NFL in rushing with 1,845 yards, you are gambling on the belief that you have an offensive line that can bring something special out of a back that hasn't proved to be an upper echelon NFL player. The Cowboys found out in 2015 that no matter how good your offensive line is, the running back matters.

The offensive line didn't look as good in 2015 without that stud RB to compliment them. As the season moved along, there was more and more talk about them being overrated, mostly in the media. It's funny how so many of the same people that were giving the line most of the credit for DeMarco Murray's great 2014 season were blaming them for not opening up holes for a couple of average backs that need space and a parting of the Red Sea to be effective. The perception of an average effort from the offensive line, as well as their psyche, was a direct reflection of the backs lining up behind them and the success that was being had by them. An offensive line will ALWAYS enthusiastically embrace a RB that consistently moves the chains, control the clock, and mix in the occasional long run. When those elements are missing from the running game, it's detrimental to the psyche of the guys in the trenches.

Here's an excerpt from my previous blog that further emphasizes my point:

Since 2011, the Cowboys have used 3 first round picks to rebuild the line, and last year signed a first round talent in La'el Collins as an undrafted free agent. With that being said, it just made too much sense not to take Zeke. With all of the resources that were put into building the line, the best way to get a return on that investment is to get the best running back you can find and put him behind them. If not, you are putting a lot of pressure on your offensive line to make average RBs good, and also wasting a great line. Putting average RBs behind an elite offensive line is like buying a Bentley or Rolls-Royce and putting the cheapest gas in it. How often do you get the chance to put the best running back in the draft behind the best offensive line in the NFL? An elite RB can turn what was an above average to good running game in 2015 into the elite running game it was in 2014.


One thing that often gets overlooked in the equation is the chemistry between a running back and his offensive line. Emmitt Smith had it with his line, and DeMarco Murray had it with his. Chemistry takes time to build. I also believe that it outweighs saving money in contract negotiations. It's not easy to create chemistry, so when you have it you should keep it. I don't think you can put a price on how valuable it is to have a situation where the line and the RB know each other's tendencies and abilities. You can have a back that's gifted and has all of the attributes, but not understand or have a feel for what's going on. With that being said, when you replace your lead RB, chemistry has to be built between the offensive line and the new back.

The relationship between a running back and his offensive line is a partnership - a mutually inclusive effort. One can either drag the other one down or make it look better. They get better as they work together. This is a big reason why I feel like you can't put anybody in your backfield and expect to not miss a beat. This was the biggest myth in football 20 years ago, and since the Cowboys have fixed their offensive line, it's the biggest myth in football today.

Back then (and still to this day), there was a widespread assumption that if Barry Sanders had Emmitt Smith's offensive line he would do better than Emmitt. The exact words I hear people use most are, "If Barry had Emmitt's line he would have 2,000 yards every year." I'm sorry, but nobody will ever get me to believe that one. This has nothing to do with me being a Cowboys fan. First of all, Emmitt and Barry had different running styles. If Barry had run behind the Cowboys' line, would he have developed the patience to wait for them to open up holes? What about waiting for the right moment to explode up the field? Those 2 skills were critical necessities behind that offensive line. 

Even if you replace a back with another one that's similar in talent level, but is a different style runner, it still won't work......especially if the line is built to fit the RB that you replaced. Barry ran a bunch of tosses and sweeps because he had that extra gear that Emmitt didn't have, which has nothing to do with ball control and eating up the clock. I'm not sure the Cowboys had a line that could handle that style of runner. With all the size they had, they were more built for north-south runners. Not having the right back to compliment your line will limit what your offense can do. In other words, you can't just put a different style runner behind an offensive line - even if it is Emmitt or Barry - and expect the same results.

One other key contributor to this myth is the changes that the NFL has made in recent years. The evolution of offenses and rule changes designed to increase scoring has led to the devaluing of running backs and the belief that it's a plug-n-play position. As a result, the belief is that you can find solid contributors at literally any point in the draft, which has caused teams to shy away from picking a RB high in the draft. Most teams have also shifted to a running back-by-committee approach, as well as a short passing game as a substitute for a running game.

I have NEVER been a fan of the RBBC approach, and never will be. I believe running backs need touches to get into a rhythm and get stronger as the game goes on, which is hard for them to do when they go in and out of the game with limited carries. Whether it's by specialty or limitation, each back in the committee brings different skills to the table. A lot of teams feel like this approach is the best way to game plan each back into their best situation, but depending on which back is in the game and when, it could tip off the opposing defense to your plays. These are the biggest reasons why I don't like the RBBC approach.

To me, versatility the most overlooked and important part of being a running back. If you have a complete back that can do it all - run inside with power, run outside with speed, block, and catch out of the backfield, you can keep the defense guessing all day. Having a stud offensive line is great, but having a back with all the necessary skills and durability to carry the load is better. In 2014, DeMarco Murray's production overcompensated for a defense that overachieved and allowed them to be off the field twice as much as previous seasons. It also made Tony Romo's job much easier. After Murray left, the Cowboys couldn't make up for the lost production.

The obvious silver lining to finishing the 2015 season with a 4-12 record was the drafting of Ezekiel Elliott with the #4 overall pick in April. The Cowboys did have other pressing needs, but I don't see how you could pass on the player who could have the most immediate impact on the team, as well as the opportunity to put the best running back in the draft behind the league's best offensive line. Besides, who knows when we would get another chance to add a talent of Zeke's caliber to the team? Again, the Cowboys would have been doing the offensive line a huge disservice by not putting a star RB behind them.

Speaking in generalities, I also want to point out that the Cowboys most certainly could have found other running backs to produce, but an 1,100-yard rusher won't have the same impact on an offense that an 1,800-yard back would. Having a back capable of rushing for 1,800 yards draws an extra defender into the box for run support, opens up the passing lanes for the QB, and opens up the whole playbook for an offense. This keeps defenses honest and not sure if they should play the run or pass. In other words, PICK YOUR POISON. An added bonus to having a player like that is that his mere presence instantly helps the QB's durability, mainly because whenever he's on the field he has to be accounted for. 

One last thing......great runners watch what great offensive lines provide for them and then take full advantage of it. I believe Ezekiel Elliott will do just that. I'm especially looking forward to seeing him using his vision and mental decisiveness to hit the zone blocks that he'll get from his line. With Zeke in the fold, I'm ready to see if the Cowboys coaches have enough confidence in the running game to go to it in clutch situations. I'm ready for Zeke to prove that it really does matter what running back you put behind your offensive line.