Jump to content

My Top 20 Rbs In The Nfl


J-Wall
 Share

Recommended Posts

1. Adrian Peterson

2. Arian Foster

3. Ray Rice

4. MJD

5. LeSean McCoy

6. Matt Forte

7. Marshawn Lynch

8. Steven Jackson

9. Doug Martin

10. Alfred Morris

11. Frank Gore

12. Chris Johnson

13. Jamal Charles

14. C.J. Spiller

15. Trent Richardson

16. Steven Ridley

17. Demarco Murray

18. Reggie Bush

19. Darren McFadden

20. Fred Jackson

Edited by J-Wall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A typo? Or you forgot him? Lol. Either way, I think 13 is way too low for him. He's every bit as good as Matt Forte, at least.

no way dude. Charles is only a home run threat. If he doesn't hit a huge run then he doesn't contribute that much.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

no way dude. Charles is only a home run threat. If he doesn't hit a huge run then he doesn't contribute that much.

Maybe you should watch Charles play more before making such assertions. He's a valuable asset in the passing game and he's averaged nearly 6 yards per carry for his career! 784 carries. To quell the "he's a homerun threat only" nonsense here's some of his game logs from last year.

33 for 233 long of 91

31 for 140 long of 25

23 for 100 long of 12

23 for 107 long of 15

17 for 127 long of 16

22 for 226 long of 86

He also wasn't used appropriately at times by the KC brass. He rushed for 1500 yards! I mean, Jesus, he saw 6 touches in week 2. Not even to mention his receiving abilities and the fact that he also hasn't proven to succumb to injury like Forte. So do tell me...what exactly does Forte do better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only one has a ring.

It's posts like this that make me wish we could give negative votes to other posts. It's bad enough that this nonsense is believed about QBs....Barry Sanders can't compete with the greatness of Kevin Faulk, including to the stupid, backwards, nonsensical and illogical idea that rings define a player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't even notice Charles was that low that really is a shame that he is that low. He also is way better than forte in every aspect

They're different types of backs. Charles is the patient and quick type runner, who waits for a whole to open up that he can get a chunk of yards through, Forte is more of a run through the hole, take what's there type of back. I wouldn't say Charles is better than Forte in every way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe you should watch Charles play more before making such assertions. He's a valuable asset in the passing game and he's averaged nearly 6 yards per carry for his career! 784 carries. To quell the "he's a homerun threat only" nonsense here's some of his game logs from last year.

33 for 233 long of 91

31 for 140 long of 25

23 for 100 long of 12

23 for 107 long of 15

17 for 127 long of 16

22 for 226 long of 86

He also wasn't used appropriately at times by the KC brass. He rushed for 1500 yards! I mean, Jesus, he saw 6 touches in week 2. Not even to mention his receiving abilities and the fact that he also hasn't proven to succumb to injury like Forte. So do tell me...what exactly does Forte do better?

Yards per carry is a bad argument against him being purely a home run threat, backs that are pure home run threats always have high yards per carry. Stats in general though, really are much more of the line. KC has been an awful team, but they do run block well.......He isn't a pure home run threat though, he does a good job of getting yards wiggling in the hole. He also does a good job of diving forward after he makes a cut, if he can't juke completely away to get the most out of his yards....I wouldn't prefer a back like him for running down the clock, but he is a very good back otherwise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's posts like this that make me wish we could give negative votes to other posts. It's bad enough that this nonsense is believed about QBs....Barry Sanders can't compete with the greatness of Kevin Faulk, including to the stupid, backwards, nonsensical and illogical idea that rings define a player.

i took it as how worthless great rbs are these days. or atleast the idea that you can ride a great rb to a super bowl . without a really good defense, you're just wasting your time handing off

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yards per carry is a bad argument against him being purely a home run threat, backs that are pure home run threats always have high yards per carry. Stats in general though, really are much more of the line. KC has been an awful team, but they do run block well.......He isn't a pure home run threat though, he does a good job of getting yards wiggling in the hole. He also does a good job of diving forward after he makes a cut, if he can't juke completely away to get the most out of his yards....I wouldn't prefer a back like him for running down the clock, but he is a very good back otherwise.

But having a high YPC doesn't indicate him being a homerun threat only (which you did mention). Adrian Peterson had a 6.0 ypc, for instance, last season. Charles has been my favorite running back since he burst onto the scene in 2010. He's shifty and he has top end speed, but he's more than that. You can run him between the tackles and he doesn't need a hole the size of Texas to make something happen. I just love watching him play. All I was trying to point out was the ridiculousness of the OP's list. He first didn't even list Charles and then after I mention that, he slots him 7 spots below Matt Forte. I even like Forte, but that's a complete joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...