Ray Rice or Chris Johnson: Who's the Best Back in Football?

Every five years there's a new great debate in sports.

Fifteen years ago it was Barry Sanders or Emmitt Smith. Ten years ago it was Mark McGwire or Sammy Sosa. Five years ago it was Tom Brady or Peyton Manning. For the last few years it's been Kobe Bryant or LeBron James.

Now we are ready for the next great debate: Ray Rice or Chris Johnson.

In every case there has been reason to include the two names, and in this debate there is no exception. In Johnson and Rice we have the two best backs in the NFL (all due apologies to Adrian Peterson, but when you stop fumbling, Mr. Peterson, you're welcome to enter back into the debate).

In many ways this debate mirrors Smith vs. Sanders. In fact I very nearly titled this Smith vs. Sanders: Redux. In Rice we have a back who is similar in size and style to Smith, and in Johnson we have a back similar in size and style to Sanders.

Smith and Rice are both straight-ahead runners who hit holes hard and burrow out yards, punishing linemen and linebackers and occasionally bursting through for big gains. Johnson and Sanders are both end-around runners with lightning-quick speed and knee-breaking moves who leave tacklers with handfuls of air as they bolt their way towards the end zone.

Let me be clear: In no way am I putting down either back. They are both amazing runners with incredibly bright futures, and both have frequently been compared to their respective predecessors. That's why they can be debated. 

Having said that, when asking the question "Who's better?" we have to consider what the qualifications are that we are looking for. Are we merely looking for the best running back, or are we looking for the best halfback? The position involves more than running, though running is the preeminent part of the position.

Both Johnson and Rice are excellent receivers, while neither has established himself as a preeminent pass blocker. So if we establish those two things as a draw, the debate becomes, who is a better runner?

So what defines the best runner: the one who gains the most yards, or the one who gives you the best chance to win? If you want to define it as the best fantasy back—the guy who is going to give you the best stats and give your fantasy team a better chance to win—then I'll give it to Johnson.

However, if you're talking about the best halfback—the guy who is going to give your real team the best chance to win—then I'll take Ray Rice almost every time. There is a caveat to that, which I'll address at the end. 

Before getting into why, I'd like to preface my argument with some brief history. Look at the top rushers of all time. I have to admit, to a point I have to use my judgment here, but I want to put them in two camps: those who got a large portion of their yards in the slot (i.e. Rice-style runners) and those who got the majority of their yards either around the ends or cutting back (i.e. Johnson-style runners).

I want to focus only on those backs who are in the top 20 all-time and who have Super Bowl rings or NFL championships. In the "slot" category we have Smith (three rings), Walter Payton (1), Jerome Bettis (1), Jim Brown (1), Franco Harris (4), and John Riggins (1). In the speed category, at most we have Tony Dorsett (1), Marshall Faulk (1) and Marcus Allen (1).

So, even if you count Faulk and Allen in the burner category, you have 11 championships to three for the bruisers over the burners. Some would say Payton was fast also, which I don't deny, but the majority of his yards came in the slot, and he was more of a straight-ahead runner.

In short, one style of running has, over history, been more effective in producing winners than another style. So while Rice and Johnson are both the best at their styles of running, Rice's style of running is more conducive to winning than Johnson's. 

It's not just coincidental either. There's a clear logic as to why. Perhaps one of the most misleading stats in sports is yards per carry. The reason is that there are such different ways of arriving at the same number.

For example, let's use an extreme argument. Hypothetically let's say two players carry the ball 20 times for 100 yards and one touchdown. One player gains five yards on each of 20 carries. The other player gains 99 yards on his first carry, and on the remaining 19 he gains only one.

Which team has the better chance of winning? Which team has the better time of possession? Which team has more sustained drives? In all likelihood it's the first. It's why I think that while it's not a stat that's kept, median yards per carry would be a far more telling stat than average yards per carry. Average yards per carry doesn't tell you nearly as accurately how the back controls the pace of the game. 

A running back that is going to help you win is a back who helps you control the pace of the game. It's not just about time of possession either; it's about plays per possession. It's about what the opposing defense is facing on second or third down. A back that doesn't make it around the end trying to break for a big run and leaves his team in a 2nd-and-11 leaves his offense with limited options—pass, screen, or draw.

On the other hand, a player who settles for the more mundane four-yard gain on 1st-and-10 and leaves his team in a 2nd-and-6 situation does far more to help his team than the five-yard difference would indicate. A 2nd-and-6 is a far different down. It leaves the defense having to think run or pass. Linemen can't cheat against the pass. That fraction of a second can be the difference between a completion and a sack.

Of course, this is just one example, but it ripples through the game. It can be the difference between a three-and-out and a touchdown. Even if it doesn't involve a score, it can still mean a difference of a first down and not a first down. That means the back's own defense has more time to make adjustments and more time to rest.

It also means the opposing team's defense is spending more time on the field and more time getting pounded by the linemen, and more time means getting more worn down. That extra first down or two in the first half can mean the defense being worn down in the fourth quarter.

Neither of these assessments is inconsistent with reality. On first downs Rice averages 5.4 yards per carry to Johnson's 4.8. Rice also does slightly better in the last seven minutes of the fourth quarter, averaging 4.5 yards to Johnson's 4.4.

I apologize, but the stats that would provide a basis rather than a consistency with my postulates simply do not exist. However, I do believe it's true. A consistent running game serves better than a flamboyant one. 

There is one caveat to this argument, though, and that's if there is an offense with a marginal to subpar passing game, the "lightning" back can be more valuable the "thunder." With a power back and no passing game, there is not much disincentive to stacking the box for the defense. There is little danger of receivers making the defense pay for doing so.

However, with a back like Johnson, there needs to be players kept back for when he gets past that first layer of defenders; otherwise you pay dearly. I think he pretty much made a huge case for that last year.

Don't be offended, Titans fans, but last year Tennessee wasn't scaring anyone with their passing game, and unless there are moves I'm unaware of, they haven't done anything to bolster it this year. In such cases a speed back can help compensate for the lack of a passing game.

In Tennessee's case, they probably have the better back to fit their needs. However, in a perfect situation with a passing game (which Baltimore should have this year with the addition of Anquan Boldin), I'll take the straight-ahead runner to win games.

Rice's moving the ball forward will be an asset to the Ravens' passing game this year. The Ravens will be a team vying for Super Bowl contention in 2010, largely because they have the best running back in the NFL.