Top Corner or Star Back: Bailey Makes It Clear

[JoeRedskin]

I think you can't just compare it positionally cb v. rb.

The league is filled with average running backs who can be quality starters and get the job done. In such cases, the RB's team can still be successful if other parts make up for the lack of a premier (top 5) back (New England anyone??). On the other hand, if your best cornerback is only average, he will be toasted fairly regularly. In such cases, the lack of a GOOD (say top 25%) corner can really set a team back.

BUT, if we are talking a top 5 player at each position, I think it is a no-brainer take the running back EVERY time. If you have a game breaker (like Portis) at RB, the defense is going to have to crowd down and put the ENTIRE secondary in one-on-one's. In those cases, your entire secondary better be well above average because, if not, the weak link will be exploited and won't get help. So your "shut down" corner takes out my number one receiver every play - fine, I got three other guys on every play to throw to and NONE of them are defended by a shut-down cover guy. Almost by definition, someone will be open and that premier corner will be chasing some other defenders' man into the endzone. The ONLY drawback is, as Champ pointed out, CB's generally last much longer than RB's (but, if the back is TRULY special, e.g. Emmitt, Walter, Riggins, etc. you will get 8-10 quality years).

With players of Champ's and Clinton's quality, Clinton is by far the bigger difference maker.

Prisco is a nimwit who loves to bring the hate for Danny Boy.