Which is better for a RB?

Have to be a good o-line. Ask Emmit Smith what it is like having a good o-line

 

(Is this Texans related?)

Its about whats good for a RB, not necessarily whats good for a TEAM.

I'd say good O-line/bad passing. There have been lots of pass heavy offenses with a mediocre running game (Example: Packers with Aaron Rodgers). Then just because the O-line is good doesnt mean the QB is good at passing.

Sometimes focus on pass protection gets the O-line away from a "smashmouth" mindset needed for run blocking. I'd say good passing helping the run game is as much about good coaching and playcalling. (Ex: Patriots w/Belichick)

 

But they also had Aikman, Michael Irvin, Alvin Harper, and Jay Novacek...so basically Smith had the benefit of a good OLine and a capable passing attack.

And dont forget the Moose...paving the way for Smith.

 

"good" is so subjective. Are you looking for excellent pocket protection? Creative run-blocking schemes?

 

Bad o-line means sacks and tackles for loses which means bad field position.

 

You can still run effective screens.

 

Mac Brown would agree with this. Lackluster QB = Blitz, Blitz, Blitz

 

A good example was Cadillac Williams in Tampa Bay before and after Keyshawn Johnson. He ran well without him.

 

(Probably still a better Football forum topic, just my opinion)

An old NFL mantra was a strong running game is a "Qb's best friend". A good running game with adequate protection can help a Qb's defiencies.

Todays football is Qb reliant, have to pass to win. But if a team wants to go "traditional" with focus on the ground game and having a 1200 yard rusher, they can. Its just more than likely that they wont win games just that without a threat at QB.

San Francisco with Alex Smith comes to mind. Smith wasnt very good but Frank Gore was when healthy. Yes a bad qb does no favors for his RB. But a weak O-line it doesnt much whos back there, the box is vulnerable to penetration.
(yes, "thats what she said")