This has become one of the greatest debates in many NFL circles, but actually coming to a definitive answer isn’t as easy as one might think.
On the one hand, a fan could argue on stats alone. But stand-alone stats only tell a portion of the story.
In fact, ANY singularity you bring to the table only represents segments of a greater picture; a picture I decided to analyze for you today.
Let’s start with the proverbial statistical argument.
With numbers alone, there is absolutely no separating factor here that can definitively suggest the better back—none.
Chris Johnson, in three years, has rushed for an amazing 4,598 yards and has racked up 34 touchdowns on 925 carries, while averaging 5.0 yards per carry.
Adrian Peterson has rushed for 5,782 yards and 52 touchdowns on 1,198 carries, while averaging 4.8 yards per carry, but has had four years to accomplish this feat.
So, if we simply pro-rate Chris Johnson’s numbers to a four-year average, we find slightly more carries (1,233), slightly more yards (6,131) and almost the same amount of touchdowns as Peterson (45).
The thing is, we can do this all day (pun intended) with the same rudimentary result: The two backs are nearly equal.
If we, however, look at the receiving portion of each back’s game, we find that both backs are again, very similar:
There is a slight edge to Johnson, but we can easily chalk that up to individual coaching strategies over the years.
If we simply fast track some other areas of the debate, we can also say there is little difference in each player’s dependability since both are as dependable as a Chevy truck; we can say each player’s presence in the locker room is equally influential and we can argue that each player even has similar running styles.
Who do you think the better back is?
But what about, real value?
What makes an NFL player valuable to his team, and could this question be utilized in determining who the better back is?
Of course it can, but you may not like the results.
A player’s value isn’t just what he does on the field, but also, whether or not the team can sustain itself WITHOUT the player.
Ryan Grant (for example) is a pretty good running back, but the Packers still won a Super Bowl without him—or even a legitimate ground game. Why? Because the team is built to absorb such a loss.
So here we are, in a dead tie. But is that so bad?
Do we really have to spend hours quantifying just who the better back is? Is it even definitively possible with so many similarities between the two?
The final result—in my opinion, anyway—is each player is of equivalent strength, value and dependability.
In other words, they’re equal.
Time may wind up being the only silent factor here; a potentially deciding dynamic that just cannot be used at the moment.
Time may also wind up keeping this argument moot—who knows?
For now, all we truly have is opinion, which is anything but definitive.
It is, however, still a viewpoint deserving to be expressed, with mine already stated.
So, who do you think the better back is?