Chris Evans

[WeezyBengal]

(10-26-2022, 03:42 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: No. In the cases of elite RBs, it is minimal. Derrick Henry has largely played second fiddle to Tannehill when it came to Titans' victories. It wasn't how well Henry ran that was predictive of TN success, but how well Tannehill played that predicted TN success. The Browns have poor QB play, so obviously they are bad despite how great Chubb is playing. The Giants are overperforming with mediocre QB play, certainly, but they aren't a real threat to do anything and are a likely outlier. 

You can't easily replace what Nick Chubb is doing, but the impact that Chubb has on team success is minimal. That was the point of that post. RBs are always, always, second fiddle to QBs. Most RBs are not the Nick Chubbs of the world, so they largely don't matter. The Nick Chubbs of the world matter more, but they don't matter much. 

I was talking about when comparing running back to running back. Having Henry or Chubb on your team is clearly more of an advantage than having someone like Jerrick Mckennon. 

Having an average running back is fine in today's NFL. I wouldnt pay top dollar for one, obviously. But to sit here and to act like having a good running back from a bad one doesn't matter is just crazy.