Rank the 32 Best RBs

[Enter Apotheosis]

Let's try something different, then, since we all seem to be in agreement that a numerical ranking is pretty difficult to come up with.

Tier 1: BEST IN THE BUSINESS

Regarded as the best, most dangerous backs in the NFL at the moment. Typically only two or three backs have earned this title in or after any given season.

Tier 2: ELITE BACKS

Capable of carrying an entire team on their back, these guys are extremely tough to stop under any circumstances.

Tier 3: WORKHORSES/SYSTEM BACKS

Can carry the load for their current team but lacks the overall skillset and game-breaking ability to truly be considered elite. Behind the right line and in the right system, these backs may be very productive for periods of time.

Tier 4a: BATTERING RAMS

Do most of their damage by seeking out contact and punishing defenders. Typically relegated to a RBBC in an effort to better preserve their bodies over the course of multiple seasons.

Tier 4b: SCATBACKS

Possess a combination of elite speed, quickness, and elusiveness but lacks the durability to be an every down player. The home run threat in a RBBC.

Tier 4c: BALANCED CONTRIBUTOR

Falls somewhere in between the scatback and battering ram in terms of ability. Also receives limited touches as part of a RBBC.

Tier 5: UTILITY BACKS

Not consistent or particularly effective as runners due to a mix of poor size, poor vision, and/or poor instincts. These guys typically find a niche on the roster as receiving threats and/or returners.

Tier 6a: RETREADS

Former stars and/or solid contributors whose wheels are believed to have fallen off.

Tier 6b: UNDERACHIEVERS

Believed to have the tools necessary to succeed in the NFL, these players have so far failed to live up to their potential.

How's that look? Should be relatively easy to just throw backs in to the tier that fits them. The real debate is going to come over the borderline players in the first three tiers and perhaps the stray RBBC guy who people think could be a feature back.

[zoony]

nobody has steven jackson's combo of size, power, and plain old quickness.

I've never seen a big guy move like he does, EVER.

I really think if he was playing for just a 1/2 way decent team and offense we'd be talking about Steven Jackson as the GOAT. He would at least enter the conversation among Jim and Barry.

JMO of course

.....

[MattFancy]

Totally agree with you zoony! Steven Jackson is a beast, but has just been stuck on a bad Rams team most of his career. Put him on the Pats or Colts and he would be an MVP candidate every season. He's quick, has good hands, can run on the outside, run up the middle, the dude can do it all. Just plays for the wrong team.

[Going Commando]

nobody has steven jackson's combo of size, power, and plain old quickness.

Jackson's a good receiver which makes him stand out but he's not even close to being the best big back the Rams have ever had. Eric Dickerson is probably the best big back in the history of the game. Him or Brown. Jackson hasn't begun to approach Dickerson's level of achievement. But it's not just that. Dickerson was like 6'3 and suitably powerful of course, but when you watched him run his speed and shiftiness are what stood out. He routinely made defenders look stupid and easily outran defensive backs in the open field. We'll probably never see another player like him. Adrian Peterson and Steven Jackson are like a poor man's version of Dickerson.

[Going Commando]

Now that the decade is over, who are the 20 best running backs of the 2000's?

My list:

1.) Ladainian Thomlinson

2.) Jamal Lewis

3.) Shaun Alexander

4.) Curtis Martin

5.) Edgerrin James

6.) Clinton Portis

7.) Priest Holmes

8.) Tiki Barber

9.) Fred Taylor

10.) Ricky Williams

11.) Ahman Green

12.) Corey Dillon

13.) Adrian Peterson

13.) Chris Johnson

14.) Larry Johnson

15.) Thomas Jones

16.) Eddie George

17.) Brian Westbrook

18.) Steven Jackson

19.) Deuce McCallister

20.) Stephen Davis/Warrick Dunn/Jerome Bettis

I'm sure I'm forgetting some people. This is my personal opinion, Chris Johnson only gets on the list because of how special his 2009 season was.

[Enter Apotheosis]

Jackson's a good receiver which makes him stand out but he's not even close to being the best big back the Rams have ever had. Eric Dickerson is probably the best big back in the history of the game. Him or Brown. Jackson hasn't begun to approach Dickerson's level of achievement. But it's not just that. Dickerson was like 6'3 and suitably powerful of course, but when you watched him run his speed and shiftiness are what stood out. He routinely made defenders look stupid and easily outran defensive backs in the open field. We'll probably never see another player like him. Adrian Peterson and Steven Jackson are like a poor man's version of Dickerson.

There's really no doubt that Eric Dickerson was one of the best to ever play the game... but he was also a malcontent who managed to squander a good chunk of his best years. In fact, I'd argue that Steven Jackson is already the better career Ram. Since becoming St. Louis' feature back, Jackson's amassed yardage at an eerily similar rate as Dickerson did in a Ram's uniform (~116 ypg to Dickerson's ~125 ypg) and he's done it with less fanfare on a team that is (arguably) even worse than the Rams teams Dickerson was on.

[bedlamVR]

I do like Jackson . I am glad he is a ram and that the Cowboys passed over him for Jones but he still does not strike me as a top 3 back . Despite what he did last season, becasue i do not think that you can judge a guy on only one season .

He has rushed for more than 10 TDs once in his career, and only played one full season . I know the Rams are a bad team but there has to be some accountability, and Jackson doesn't have that kind of impact that a top 3 or even a top 10 back would have .

[S.T.real,lights,out]

Yea, i would take CJ #1!!

[ATLredskin]

well lets see...

-CJ should be over AP

-Michael Turner is in the top 3 (possibly past AP)

-Ray Rice had one good year...way too high on the list

-Ronnie Brown is arguably a top 5 back and Jonathan Stewart, Jamaal Charles is too high

-Shonn Greene too high, Portis too low and how did Fred Jackson make the list?

-missing from the list is Tashard Choice, Marshawn Lynch, Brian Westbrook, Michael Bush?, Laurence Maroney, Fred Taylor?, Ahmad Bradshaw

[ATLredskin]

and how did Knowshon make the list?

[DefenderoftheStar]

well lets see...

-CJ should be over AP

-Michael Turner is in the top 3 (possibly past AP)

-Ray Rice had one good year...way too high on the list

-Ronnie Brown is arguably a top 5 back and Jonathan Stewart, Jamaal Charles is too high

-Shonn Greene too high, Portis too low and how did Fred Jackson make the list?

-missing from the list is Tashard Choice, Marshawn Lynch, Brian Westbrook, Michael Bush?, Laurence Maroney, Fred Taylor?, Ahmad Bradshaw

wow someone noticed Tashard Choice, i gotta pay more attention to someone who does their homework.

[Hitman21ST]

-missing from the list is Tashard Choice, Marshawn Lynch, Brian Westbrook, Michael Bush?, Laurence Maroney, Fred Taylor?, Ahmad Bradshaw

Westbook is too much of a one-trick pony, which is the pass catching ability. He's deadly on the swing pass, but other than that, there's not much he can do.

8 years in the league, only 2 where he went for over 1000 yards and less than 6000 total rushing in his career...a third of his total yards come from receptions. A good RB needs to be able to do everything, and Westbrook really isn't the guy you want going in between the tackles...

[Enter Apotheosis]

Westbook is too much of a one-trick pony, which is the pass catching ability. He's deadly on the swing pass, but other than that, there's not much he can do.

8 years in the league, only 2 where he went for over 1000 yards and less than 6000 total rushing in his career...a third of his total yards come from receptions. A good RB needs to be able to do everything, and Westbrook really isn't the guy you want going in between the tackles...

Westbrook's lack of 1000 yard seasons has more to do with a lack of opportunity in Andy Reid's pass-heavy offense than it does a lack of ability. The man has been an absolutely devastating rusher when he's been given the chance to carry the load. For the sake of example... in the 17 games in his career where he's run 20 or more times he has averaged 4.9 yards per carry and only failed to rack up 100+ yards on the ground on 3 occasions.

[darrelgreenie]

So just rank who you think the 32 best RBs in the league are. Then we can compare and see what everyone thinks.

I expect to see alot of differences in this one and alot of good discussion!

1. Adrian Peterson

2. Steven Jackson

3. Chris Johnson

4. DeAngelo Williams

5. Ray Rice

6. Jamaal Charles

7. Frank Gore

8. Ronnie Brown

9. Matt Forte

10. Reggie Bush

11. Maurice Jones-Drew

12. Thomas Jones

13. Michael Turner

14. Ricky Williams

15. Joseph Addai

16. Rashard Mendenhall

17. Clinton Portis

18. LaDanian Tomlinson

19. Kevin Smith

20. Johnathon Stewart

21. Felix Jones

22. Pierre Thomas

HM Willis McGahee

23. Jerome Harrison

HM Larry Johnson

24. Marion Barber

25. Ryan Grant

26. Cedric Benson

27. Brandon Jacobs

28. Shonn Greene

29. Fred Jackson

30. Beanie Wells

31. Knowshon Moreno

32. LeSean McCoy

33. Ahmad Bradshaw

34. Ravens FB McClain

33. Darren Sproles

HM Rock Cartwright

HM Tampa Bay FB Ernest Graham

[PokerPacker]

how are Matt Forte and Reggie Bush so high, while Ryan Grant is so low?

Forte had under 1,000 yards rushing and fumbled the ball 5 times.

Bush had under 400 yards rushing.

Grant, on the other hand, had over 1,200 rushing yards, 8 rushes for 20+ yards and 2 rushes for 60+ yards. (7th, 11th, and 10th in the NFL, respectively). Also factor in the fact that he did not fumble once (no other running back with 700+ yards went without a fumble)

edit: I should mention that Grant isn't COMPLETELY without fumble. He did fumble ONE pass reception.

[illone]

I've never seen a big guy move like he does, EVER.

Don't you remember Bo Jackson?

I'd put CP higher than 19th, but I guess this list is more "What have you done for me lately" type list.

[darrelgreenie]

how are Matt Forte and Reggie Bush so high, while Ryan Grant is so low?

I like Forte's running style better and he's a receiving threat, Forte has even been split out wide and creates an instant mis-match against LBs in base personelle.

While Reggie Bush isn't a pound it between the tackles RB he's a dynamic player maker.

Bush is impossible to cover with a LB and even Safeties have a hard time matching-up, he's also home run threat on special teams.

I like Grant too if he was a better receiver i'd have him ranked higher but he's kinda a one dimensional RB.

I don't think Grant is ranked low its just how it shakes out.

[Going Commando]

But you have Adrian Peterson ranked high and he's still fairly one dimensional and the point about the fumbling is valid. Peterson and Forte fumble a ton and that's backbreaking for any running back because one of the points of running is to avoid turnovers.

I'm also not a huge fan of Forte's running style. He's stiff hipped and doesn't have much wiggle to him and he looks like he'll only ever be productive if 1.) he has an exceptional line to run behind, or 2.) he gets a TON of carries because I doubt he'll ever consistently top the 4.0 YPC mark. He definitely catches the ball well and is a solid blocker but he's a pretty bland and mediocre runner IMO. It's the same reason why I don't really like Toby Gerhart or Ryan Matthews as NFL backs except in certain roles, and why I think the Ryan Matthews selection at 12 was much worse than the Tyson Alualu selection at 10, FWIW. I doubt either of those backs will be even close to as good in the NFL as they were in college, even if you gave them 300+ carries this year. They don't create for themselves.

I would take Ryan Grant over Forte for almost any scheme if I were choosing between the two. With Grant, the biggest problem has been injuries, but Forte gets nicked up too.

[darrelgreenie]

But you have Adrian Peterson ranked high and he's still fairly one dimensional and the point about the fumbling is valid. Peterson and Forte fumble a ton and that's backbreaking for any running back because one of the points of running is to avoid turnovers.

Maybe he's one dimensional to you but he had 43 catches and that's without playing on most 3rd downs.

Also, Peterson is such a special back that i place him and Chris Johnson on higher echelon then other RBs fumbles and all.

I'm also not a huge fan of Forte's running style. He's stiff hipped and doesn't have much wiggle to him and he looks like

To each his own.

I like his vision and quick feet and his quick side to side stutter step fake.

Just in case........

OpUOzG0DWFI&feature

he'll only ever be productive if 1.) he has an exceptional line to run behind, or 2.) he gets a TON of carries because I doubt he'll ever consistently top the 4.0 YPC mark.

You don't think he's been productive already?

And when has he played behind an exceptional OL his OL last year wasn't even good.

I would take Ryan Grant over Forte for almost any scheme if I were choosing between the two. With Grant, the biggest problem has been injuries, but Forte gets nicked up too.

Except schemes that value RBs catching the ball, which happens quite often in a passing league.

[thespaniard]

While Reggie Bush isn't a pound it between the tackles RB he's a dynamic player maker.

Bush is impossible to cover with a LB and even Safeties have a hard time matching-up, he's also home run threat on special teams.

I totally agree. A lot of people have a hard time quantifying Bush's value to the Saints offense, because the traditional rushing yards are not there. But make no mistake, he is a huge part of the Saints' offensive success. Here is a really good post that breaks him down:

http://saintsreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163837

a small taste:

But here is the real STATS that you don't see. The Saints amassed 6500 yards of offense in the regular season last year. The average yards per play on offense was 6.1 yards per play. The Saints averaged 14.6 yards per play when Bush was ON the field as compared to 4.9 yards per play when he was on the sideline. What that tells you is Bush is as effective as a logistical nightmare to defenses by JUST being there. Second, and I found this absolutley amazing, when Bush was lined up in the slot, the Wide Out or TE on that side of the field had a 86 percent completion rate. That means that when he runs a clear out, he commands coverage, opening up other receivers.

When Bush lines up as a RB, the Saints average yards per reception is 8.8. When Bush lines up as a WR or slot receiver, that number jumps to 19.7. Stats do not lie. The Saints are a significantly better offense when he is on the field with or without the ball.

[PokerPacker]

I totally agree. A lot of people have a hard time quantifying Bush's value to the Saints offense, because the traditional rushing yards are not there. But make no mistake, he is a huge part of the Saints' offensive success. Here is a really good post that breaks him down:

http://saintsreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163837

a small taste:

Sounds like he's not a very productive runningback, but rather a productive receiver.

[thespaniard]

Sounds like he's not a very productive runningback, but rather a productive receiver.

In a pass heavy league, anyone who hopes to be a successful running back better have good receiving skills as well. I'm not sure why that is a knock against him. Do his receiving yards not move the chains the same way rushing yards do? Are receiving touchdowns worth less points than rushing touchdowns?

[ptr77]

In a pass heavy league, anyone who hopes to be a successful running back better have good receiving skills as well. I'm not sure why that is a knock against him. Do his receiving yards not move the chains the same way rushing yards do? Are receiving touchdowns worth less points than rushing touchdowns?

I think he was implying that Bush is a very good football player, but not a very good running back. Until this year he was horrific running the ball up the gut, and not very good at running the ball at all. He is a heck of a weapon, but his value is more seen as a third down back, being split out, playing the slot, and on special teams. He would not be my choice lining up in the backfield.

[thespaniard]

I think he was implying that Bush is a very good football player, but not a very good running back. Until this year he was horrific running the ball up the gut, and not very good at running the ball at all. He is a heck of a weapon, but his value is more seen as a third down back, being split out, playing the slot, and on special teams. He would not be my choice lining up in the backfield.

I understand what he is trying to say, I just disagree. Being a 'good runningback' means being productive at that position. Productivity can be achieved in several different ways, including both running and receiving. It might be splitting hairs a little, but there is a difference between saying someone is 'not a good running back' versus 'not good at running the ball'.

Bush clearly has not been great running the ball (although he is improving), but his overall contributions to the offense greatly offset this weakness in his game.