I have been reading some articles about Adrian Peterson and Pierre Thomas wanting to "bulk up" before next season so that they can punish their defenders.  While this idea is not a new concept by any means, I was really curious about the effects that running backs have endured by adding extra weight to their "natural playing weight". 

Looking back at some examples of players who have done this such as Deuce McAlister and Clinton Portis, you can see that there are mixed results.  Deuce McAlister fully regrets doing it after suffering two torn ACLs, and even Clinton Portis has admitted that he lost breakaway speed when doing this.

So should they even try?  I say no. There are already so many factors that go into runningback injuries, why would they want to risk it?  Let's examine some of these factors.

1. Length of the season - The regular season is now much longer than it was 30 years ago.  We have 4 preseason games, 16 regular season games, and if they continue to play, then they can have up to 4 more playoff games.  If you're a workhorse running back, that means you're probably expected to play all 20 or more games.  That's ALOT of punishment for your joints.

2. Length of the OFFseason - To add fuel to the fire, as soon as the season is over, it now seems like backs are asked to begin training (or in a lot of cases, rehabbing) after a month or two of downtime, so their joints and muscles never get the rest that they need.

3. Number of carries received - We all know that this has a huge impact on the success and the durability of running backs.  There is a loooooong list or running backs that never reach the success that they had after rushing more than 350-400 carries in a season.  Jamaal Anderson and Larry Johnson are two good examples.  Jamaal Anderson had an injury that ended his career the following season, and LJ hasn't played in more than 12 games the past two seasons since rushing 416 times.

4. Number of hits - This is something that really intrigued me when I started thinking about this.  Let's take an average amount of carries of 300.  Now think about the fact that a running back is usually tackled about 70-80% of the time at the end of the play.  That's about 240 hits.  And we expect RBs to endure this and still be successful?  All it would take is probably 2 or 3 tackles by NFL players before I was ready to throw in the towel, maybe only 1 if it was by Bob Sanders or Ray Lewis.   Not to mention how many times they are bone-crushing hits, not just your average wrapup tackles.  It seems foolish for us to expect them to play all 16 regular season games and all the postseason.

It's because of these reasons that I believe more and more teams are going to runningback by committees to help the backs stay fresh and reduce the amount of carries that they have to do to run out the clock if winning.  Lest we forget, that the Commish is now talking about extending the season two more regular season games.  If this happens and I was a GM, there's no way in hell I would want a "workhorse" back.   I'd need at least 3 backs that are capable of carrying 100-200 times a season, in case one goes down.

So back to my original topic, does 10 or 15 pounds really make that much of difference in terms of strength and power that they would want to compromise speed and agility?  I say no.  Yes you want a running back who can move the pile and get your goalline carries, but if it means he may injure himself trying to increase his weight, it just doesn't seem worth the risk.  If they wanted a big runningback, they would've drafted a big runningback.

If I was a coach, I would tell the runningbacks "you're out of your mind".  I would want all of my players playing at their "natural" weight, because theres a reason why their body stays at that weight.  

And just to put this into perspective, here is a picture of Adrian Peterson at his current playing weight.   Anyone still think he needs to bulk up? 

via www.laddymcfaddy.com