How would YOU use Bell and Blount?

[Ghost]

Per Scott Brown (ESPN.com) in his OTA notes:

[URL="http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/_/id/15825/leveon-bell"]Le'Veon Bell[/URL] and [URL="http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/_/id/13213/legarrette-blount?ex_cid=null"]LeGarrette Blount[/URL] lined up together in the backfield though only for a couple of snaps. Look for the Steelers to try and find ways to get the two on the field together in different packages this season.

[RuthlessBurgher]

Per Scott Brown (ESPN.com) in his OTA notes:

[URL="http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/_/id/15825/leveon-bell"]Le'Veon Bell[/URL] and [URL="http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/_/id/13213/legarrette-blount?ex_cid=null"]LeGarrette Blount[/URL] lined up together in the backfield though only for a couple of snaps. Look for the Steelers to try and find ways to get the two on the field together in different packages this season.

We've heard empty promises of pony backfield formations every offseason for years, but then...poof...nothing.

If you want to go with two RB's, but take FB Will Johnson out, then I would prefer the variety of Bell and Archer or Blount and Archer, as opposed to the similiarities of Bell and Blount together at the same time. I don't see much of a benefit of having two guys with seemingly redundant skill sets both behind Ben. How exactly does this give us a leg up on the defense?

[feltdizz]

It probably is...

the "n't" is broke on your computer?

[Shawn]

We've heard empty promises of pony backfield formations every offseason for years, but then...poof...nothing.

If you want to go with two RB's, but take FB Will Johnson out, then I would prefer the variety of Bell and Archer or Blount and Archer, as opposed to the similiarities of Bell and Blount together at the same time. I don't see much of a benefit of having two guys with seemingly redundant skill sets both behind Ben. How exactly does this give us a leg up on the defense?

I agree...don't see much of a need for it unless you want sets where you can disguise extra blockers. I could see a benefit in a no huddle situation where Ben calls an audible to account for a weak side blitz. If Archer is on the field, he would provide little to get in the way of an OLB.

[Slapstick]

the "n't" is broke on your computer?

Nope. It isn't...

[The Man of Steel]

Bell will probably get hurt again then Blount will be the starter and after he rips off a couple of 100 yard games he will remain the starter for the rest of the season.

[Sugar]

We've heard empty promises of pony backfield formations every offseason for years, but then...poof...nothing.

If you want to go with two RB's, but take FB Will Johnson out, then I would prefer the variety of Bell and Archer or Blount and Archer, as opposed to the similiarities of Bell and Blount together at the same time. I don't see much of a benefit of having two guys with seemingly redundant skill sets both behind Ben. How exactly does this give us a leg up on the defense?

Bell is a much greater receiving threat than Blount. They are both big guys, but their skill sets aren't redundant, IMO.

[Discipline of Steel]

SSSsshhhhhhhh!! I kind of like the idea of two starting RBs ...

[Discipline of Steel]

Bell is a much greater receiving threat than Blount. They are both big guys, but their skill sets aren't redundant, IMO.

I still like Ruthless's assessment of the situation. Their running skill sets are fairly similar. Strictly situational football.

[RobinCole]

Why is Bell more likely to get "hurt again" than any other guy?

[Sugar]

I still like Ruthless's assessment of the situation. Their running skill sets are fairly similar. Strictly situational football.

We'll have to disagree. Bell is a far more upright runner with exceptional patience. Blount is more of a battering ram.

[SteelCrazy]

We've heard empty promises of pony backfield formations every offseason for years, but then...poof...nothing.

If you want to go with two RB's, but take FB Will Johnson out, then I would prefer the variety of Bell and Archer or Blount and Archer, as opposed to the similiarities of Bell and Blount together at the same time. I don't see much of a benefit of having two guys with seemingly redundant skill sets both behind Ben. How exactly does this give us a leg up on the defense?

Bell and Blount lined up next to each other makes the possibilities endless. They are 2 very different backs imo. Blount can make a guy miss in a tight spot and accelerate quickly, good cutback runner. Blount also gets low when running and doesn't give defenders much of a target. He doesn't have that 2nd gear though for those long runs I'd like to see. Not much of a pass catcher. Bell cant make people miss in tight spots but can put his pads into a defender and run over them, however, he likes to run upright. Is a good blocker. Can catch the ball well out of backfield too.

They have similarities for sure, but imo are 2 different backs. I hope they use these 2 together just like I said in my OP.

[hawaiiansteel]

Bell is a much greater receiving threat than Blount. They are both big guys, but their skill sets aren't redundant, IMO.

I find their running styles to be quite different as well...

[SteelCrazy]

We'll have to disagree. Bell is a far more upright runner with exceptional patience. Blount is more of a battering ram.

I like what this dude is seeing.

[ikestops85]

I like the idea of having Archer as one of the backs paired with either Bell or Blount. How does the defense react to that? With Bell Ringer and Blount Force Trauma the defense can stay in its regular set. Throw Archer into the mix and you don't know what he's going to be doing.