That's completely ridiculous. Listing an example of a fast running back who sucks doesn't result in the conclusion that speed "doesn't really mean shit". It means quite a bit.
A big guy has more body to hit. Look at Emmitt Smith or Barry Sanders, when they get low, they were literally 4 foot off the ground. You had shoulders and ankles to hit. Big guys can't get that low. Also, a guy like Peterson or Gurley never gets squared up on and hit. Guys pile on and drag him down. That's a lot more hits and a lot better chances to get hurt.
Smaller shifter running backs in open field and space, instead of a hammer running in between the tackles 25 times a game.
It's not ridiculous. I can go through a ton of rbs with average to low 40 times that work out just fine and a lot of blazers that don't do shit. Smith had a shitty 40 time. Foster is slower than mud. Terrel Davis wasn't running past anybody. Hardesty is a 4.5 guy. Ingram was a 4.5 guy. Eddie Lacy was a 4.5 guy. Those are all average RB times. Quickness and change of direction means a lot more than speed.
And Hurd is a one-cut downhill runner. He absolutely HAS to be fast. He's no Marcus Dupree, but that's his running style, and Marcus Dupree was only Marcus Dupree because Marcus Dupree was absurdly fast.
I agree. But we've already established (I thought) that Hurd is not a shifty back. And because he's not, he better be fast.
Arian Foster led the NFL in rushing and ran in the 4.6/4.7 range. He is a one cut downhill runner in a zone blocking scheme. Hurd can fly, which is great. Even if he was only average speed wise, he'd be a badass rb.
Have you seen him play? He's pretty damn "shifty". My point in this is, he's not been a running back his whole life simply because he was the best athlete on the field. He has intangibles (vision, patience at the line, un Godly balance) that aren't necessarily coachable that great rbs have. He's a rb because he's got those traits on top of being the best athlete on the field. Are his chances of a prolonged NFL career better at TE or safety? Yes. He could probably be a Julius Peppers type DE too.
Foster actually has great lateral movement. He's elusive. And he better be because he sure as hell ain't running away from anybody.
This discussion all started from me saying that a suggestion that he might be better at TE wasn't absurd. Which is not a particularly bold statement. To be clear, I want the guy to be a stud RB as much you and everybody else.
I was pretty sure he would not be a RB in college and then his junior year happened. He's an actual rb that happens to be tall, not an athlete they just stuck back there if that makes any sense.
Judging all running backs based on one characteristic like height is problematic at best. It's not totally unlike trying to judge by the race rather than the individual. I've had RBs of all body types that excelled due to various attributes. I've had the smaller one-cut burners that you had to catch, one that was 160 lbs wringing wet but could carry a pile 15 yards then bust out the other side, one that was slow as molasses yet constantly broke runs due to the best field vision I've ever seen & one that would flat truck you. I understand there are general guidelnes, but there's always exceptions to those. I've seen very tall RBs that have such great body control that no one ever gets a solid shot on them. Let the kid play a bit, then we can see whether or not his height matters.
