Is it the line, or the running back?
 

I just thought since it comes up in every single thread, maybe we could talk about in one continuous conversation.

I think we'd all be in agreement that we need to be more consistent in the running game.

Some of us think the problem is lack of a talented enough RB to be a 'feature back'.

Some of us think that the biggest problem is that our interior offensive line is lousy, and when coupled with losing Fisher for half a season, was the biggest reason we were unable to run the ball.

Personally, I fall mostly in the second camp. I have no illusions that Damien Williams is a top 5 back; but I think with decent line play (such as we got once Fisher was back in the flow and Wisniewski took over LG) he can be effective when healthy. The problem is, he's never made a full season healthy; so I agree with taking a mid-round RB to provide competition and hopefully upgrade.

I think the interior offensive line is #2 on my priority list to upgrade, just after CB where we are dangerously thin. I don't believe that any RB upgrade will pay dividends without upgrading from OG-OG.

It's a chicken-and-the-egg argument really, but where do you come down?

It's more the RB......when Williams finally decided to get healthy and play strong they ran fine, the problem is he isn't capable of carrying that load by himself.

yes

I don’t think it’s an either/or thing. We need to upgrade IOL and RB.

aye.

but which do you feel is MOST pressing, I guess is the question.

but I would argue that Fisher returning and Wiz taking Wylie's spot had more to do with that.

Barry Sanders had a shitty line but he was Barry Sanders, I think to have a GREAT running game you need both to have a functional running game great line/average RB, great RB/average line can be effective also depends on the coach. Since we only really need a functional running game because of our play style I would rather have a great line .

Since pass protection was also an issue on the interior, I have to go with that, but that doesn’t necessarily mean I’m taking an IOL before I take a RB. Still going BPA.

You can make that argument but we are in no position to be using 1st round picks on guards or spending lots of money on them, you can't have elite players everywhere.

OL was worse when Charles was in this offense. Didn’t matter.

OL was roughly the same when Hunt was in this offense. Wasn’t a problem.

There’s your answer

thats also when wis came in though.

I'd agree with this caveat:

If we didn't draft or sign a RB I wouldn't be particularly worried. Williams/Williams/Thompson could be fine. I would prefer we took a RB somewhere in round 3-4 though.

If we didn't draft or sign an upgrade anywhere on the interior of the line, I would be very, very concerned.

But he's just a JAG too...

The way our team is built and the holes we have on D we are gonna have to roll with some JAGS.

1) Charles was one of the best broken play runners I ever saw. That's a VERY unusual ability. Walter Payton, Barry Sanders kind of shit. Very few RB's are great at that.

2) No, Hunt didn't run behind roughly the same line. This is a myth I keep seeing repeated. Morse>Reiter. LDT pre injury>LDT post injury. Wylie is a dumpster fire. So 2/3 of your interior line is different and/or lesser than their former self.

But he was a slightly better more experienced jag than Wylie. The pass game got a little better about the same time. But Mahomes stopped drifting back and started stepping up more around the same time. Id say as constructed IOL makes more sense than RB as the need. We know dwill can be good enough, and this oline was getting mahomes blown up early, part due to Fisher being out but the interior was aids early on.