Can Slaton be a Feature Back?

[dadmg]

I started this post as a reply to Bob in the Grading thread, but its so far off the track of the thread that I decided to post it here on its own.

Originally Posted by HPF Bob

Slaton is a good choice if he isn't overworked and he learns not to fumble. He needs to be part of a RB-by-committee, not the feature back.

I kind of agree with the this and kind of don't.

I do believe Slaton can be a featured back, just not one with a Larry Johnson/Willie Parker caliber load. Then again, no back should shoulder that big of a load if you want them to last more than a few years. I think every team should try to have a backup that's decent enough to get at least 1/3 of the team's carries. That said, I think Slaton has a frame that can stand stand a reasonable feature load.

This thought process of mine is based on a posting I read over at Pro Reference Football's blog by Chase Stuart awhile back. Its interesting reading. The posting examined the BMI of some of the most successful backs as opposed to strictly weight (the initial section examines the top 50 rushers, then moves on to current younger RBs, then to rookies). This takes into account some backs that were/are considered "small" by the media who are actually well-built such as Barry Sanders and Maurice Jones-Drew, each of whom had compact bodies but well-muscled thighs. Here are some BMI's for a sampling of young RBs that haven't hit 5000 yards yet, from the post (first column: yards; second: height in inches; third: weight in pounds; fourth: BMI)

Maurice Jones-Drew 1709 68 205 31.2
Willis McGahee 4572 72 228 30.9
Brian Westbrook 4785 68 200 30.4
Larry Johnson 4764 73 228 30.1
Willie Parker 4198 70 209 30.0
Joseph Addai 2153 71 210 29.3
Adrian Peterson 1341 73 217 28.6
Reggie Bush 1146 72 200 27.1

Based on his combine numbers (5'9", 197 lbs, which is also what the Texans' site lists him at), Slaton's BMI comes in right around Addai level (29.1) (or if you wish, Edgerrin James who's a 29.0) and a bit below their average for the top 50 rushers of all-time (29.6). If he packs on 3-4 pounds of muscle on an NFL weight training regimen, he's at that 29.6 level and 5-6 lbs would put him in their ideal 30 range.

Slaton may not be built like a Jonathan Stewart, but I think his shortness misleads as to his size. The focus of the post, Darren McFadden, comes in at only around 27 (27.6 by the rumored 215 weight, although he checked in at the combine at 210). Slaton's 29.1 comes in just barely below Mendenhall's 29.3, and I don't see many people suggesting Mendenhall will likely need to be a part-time back. He's already better built than Tiki Barber/Clinton Portis, who are in the 28.6/28.7 range, not to mention the last feature back in an Alex Gibbs system, Warrick Dunn and his tiny 26.6. Actually, now that I notice it many of the RBs that have run in this system have had lower BMIs than Slaton (Selvin Young: 28.9, Terrell Davis: 28.7, Portis: 28.6, Norwood 27.8, Dunn 26.6). Only Mike Anderson and Olandis Gary came in at 30 or higher. Tatum Bell came out at 5'11, 190 (26.5) and now clocks in at 213 (29.7) according to his NFL.com profile, although I don't know what size he was in Denver.

Slaton won't be a workhorse but I believe he at least has the frame to be considered for a featured load, especially with what that now constitutes. Most teams are going away from putting all of the carries on one back: the carries leader this year was the lowest in a non-strike year since 1976 - which was before the 16 game schedule - although rookie coach Tomlin had Parker on a career-killing pace before he broke his leg. The top two RBs in carries this year (Portis, James) had BMIs of 28.6, 29.0, although the next few came in at 30+. Slaton shouldn't have much problem keeping up with a feature back role if he's good enough, especially if we use some of our RB depth to spell him properly.