Skip to main content

Do the Raiders Need a Power Back?

Much like the understanding that the NFL has become a passing league, it has also has adopted the "running back by committee" model. In a day and age where running backs seem to be a dime a dozen, teams are less likely to commit to one guy and therefore take on the RBBC approach to the season. With the mindset of having multiple backs sharing the touches, many also assume that each team needs a "speed back" and a "power back". The idea, of course, being that the power back gets the tough yards and wears down the defense while the speed back plays the finesse role and provides the home run threat to the offense.

The last few years the Raiders have had the luxury of a backfield that consisted of Darren McFadden and Michael Bush. In some ways, it seemed to be the perfect combination power and speed that would be a nightmare for any defense. Except when you break down the games when both running backs were healthy last year, you saw more of McFadden wearing down the defense and Bush playing more of a backup/short yardage role. Bush only averaged 7 touches per game through the first 6 games last season while McFadden was averaging nearly 22. With that stat alone, it's tough to make any kind of argument that Bush had a big impact on games while McFadden was playing.

Of course Bush was also used as the short yardage back which lead many to wonder how the Raiders would convert short yardage plays without him. There is no doubting that Bush was pretty effective in short yardage and he proved that over the last three years by converting a respectable 42% (15 for 36) of his carries inside the 5 yard line for touchdowns according to Chet Gresham of writing for However, with Bush getting most of the short yardage carries, it was assumed that McFadden couldn't handle those duties when that is far from the truth.

Per the same data, McFadden has converted 7 of his 9 attempts from inside the 5 yard line over the last three years (78%). That conversion percentage is tops in the league for that statistic, meaning McFadden is more than capable of converting short yardage plays as well. Cedric Benson, who many have been calling for to replace Michael Bush, had a 31% (12 for 39) conversion rate from inside the 5 over that same span.

While McFadden possesses the speed and agility to turn any play into a home run, he certainly is not your prototypical speed back by any means. McFadden brings with him a wicked stiff arm and is not afraid to lower his pads and seek contact. Take a look at a few examples:

However, even though Darren has the ability to do it all, Dennis Allen will have to find the right balance between his running backs and not overuse him throughout the season. Mike Goodson and Taiwan Jones are vying for the backup role and both have the ability to provide a spark off the bench to help keep McFadden rested, but neither bring much value to the short yardage game. Owen Schmitt and Marcel Reece will get a chance to show what they can bring to the backfield at times this year too, and both are capable of hammering out a few yards when needed. Lonyae Miller is also one to keep an eye on. Miller has a much more hard-nosed running style was impressive at times with Dallas last season. Be careful how quickly you judge the unknowns like Miller, because Arian Foster was also once an undrafted free agent.

When people talk about wearing down defenses, why is it that big backs always come to mind? Sure they can punish tacklers at times, but more times than not bigger backs are slower to the hole and can be bottled up and gang tackled before doing much damage. Speed backs on the other hand force the defense to always be chasing for fear of being a step late and giving up a potential touchdown on every play. You factor in a guy like Chris Johnson who can stop on a dime and reverse field and McFadden who can deliver a devastating stiff arm if you do finally catch up to him and you begin to reevaluate which one would wear you down quicker.


  1. good read and i couldn't agree more

  2. I've been bleeding Black & Silver since watching my first RAIDERS game in 1968. My two all-time favorite short-yardage specialists in that time were Pete Banaszak and Marcus Allen, two vastly different short-yardage styles.

    Here's what Shell, Upshaw, and Coach Flores said of Banaszak:
    All-Pro offensive guard and NFL Hall of Famer, Gene Upshaw, was one
    of Banaszak’s admirers. “Some runners make it easy to block. They get to
    the hole fast and then you don’t have to stay with the man you block.
    Pete does that. He can really move,” Upshaw said.

    Another who marveled at the way Banaszak went about his business was
    tackle Art Shell. “Pete was the toughest guy I’ve seen on short-yardage
    situations,’ said the All-Pro and NFL Hall of Fame lineman. “Even if
    there were no holes, he would get the first down.”

    Madden and Flores, of course, had plenty of kind words to say about
    their persevering employee. “Pete is symbolic of the Raider tradition,”
    Coach Flores said about his former Raider teammate. “He was always the
    total team player, a very unselfish person who was willing to contribute
    any way possible.”

    As for Marcus ... remember how he flew over the top of any pile ... the Black & Silver version of Superman!

    I think McFadden and Reece can be counted on for short yardage, but maybe someone can talk Marcus Allen into teaching Jones and Goodson how to fly.

    Excited for this season ... let's get it on!

  3. I enjoy your recollection of the Raiders and those are no doubt great memories. You're talking about guys who helped form the Raiders into what they are today. This season should be exciting for sure, and I'll see what I can do about getting Taiwan and Mike some flying lessons. :)


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Oakland Raiders Swing for the Fences in 2016 NFL Draft

[embed align="center"][/embed] These aren't your daddy's Oakland Raiders or even your younger self's Raiders. If anything, these are your newborn's Raiders or your puppy's Raiders. These are the Raiders we've never seen before. Indicative of the freshness of the franchise was their 2016 NFL Draft. No longer slave to a high draft pick and desperate needs, the theme of the draft for the Raiders was upside. It's as if general manager Reggie McKenzie got so used to hitting his draft picks out of the park that he started swinging for the fences. We'll have to wait a couple of years before we know if he struck out or if he'll continue his Ruthian ways. First, McKenzie boldly went with a safety at No. 14 overall. Kyle Joseph is coming off a torn ACL and fills a major need, but safety isn't a premium position. Only a handful of safeties have been drafted in the first 14 picks in the last 15 years and include names like Ea

The Raiders aren't who we thought they were....they're better

The Oakland Raiders are tired of being the team that will be good in a year or two. The team expects to win now and it is winning now. We thought the Raiders needed more talent. We thought that being in the playoff hunt was a year away for this team, but we were wrong. This isn't the team we thought they were, they're better. On Sunday, they moved to 3-3 on Sunday with a 37-29 win over the San Diego Chargers that wasn't close until the final minute. It was also the Raiders second road win of the season. The last time the Raiders had two road wins by their sixth game was 2011. Before that, a five-year streak from 1998-2002. The Raiders went 8-8 in 1998, 1999 and 2011 and narrowly missed the playoffs each year.  They made the playoffs in 2000, 2001 and 2002. They didn't have a losing record in any of those seasons because teams that can win on the road are usually pretty good. As the season matures, there is more and more evidence that some of the "best-case scenario

2012 NFL Strength of Schedule

  Disclaimer Some strength of schedule models calculate strength of schedule based on the opponents the team has faced to date.  My model calculates strength of schedule based on all the opponents on a team's schedule.  The reason for this is because it reduces weekly fluctuations. For example, when a team plays their Week 17 game, in the traditional model their strength of schedule would change by 31 games...their Week 17 opponent's 16 games plus the additional game played by each of their prior 15 opponents.  In my model, when a team plays their Week 17 game their strength of schedule will only change by 15 additional game for each of the opponents on their schedule.