For one season, you have a choice between >a running back

>>64707413
Option 2. In the red zone it gets harder to pass(less deep threat, safeties start to cheat up or over). Running becomes more important. So getting to the red zone and having a less effective pass attack becomes crippling. Plus most teams spell backs anyway, so running to get to the 20's isn't impossible.

>>64707413
2nd, and its not even that hard of a choice

>>64707413
2

All you gotta do is make it to the 20 yard line and since most teams anymore are pass happy you can rely on that to get you to that point and it's a gimme once you get there according to the scenario.

>>64707413
2 is statistically better

Plus you can just get a different back for non-redzone situations

>>64707413
What if we change option 2 to 9/10 he scores a touchdown. 1/10 times, he fumbles and the other team recovers.

>>64707413
2, you idiot. Who wouldn't choose a guaranteed TD?

>>64707413
i think a team like the denver broncos would be better off with option A because it guarantees both field goals and field positioning for the defense

>>64708477
That makes it tricky. 10℅ fumble rate is insanely high

>>64708680
Yeah, and we'll say it's not literally every 10th time, but at the end of the year, that's what it ends up being (which does make it easier to predict as the year wears on, but w/e)

>>64707413
So, it seems like with option A = you have about 10-12 redzone attempts to get the ball in the endzone by passing.
And option B, you have a guaranteed TD every redzone try by passing only.
Seems like option A is the obvious choice....

>>64707413
depends what the rest of your team is like

>>64709130
It's obvious you're an idiot.

>>64707413
also can the rb in option 1 run in touchdowns from outside the redzone?

>>64709207
To keep it simple, no. The opponent's 20 is like a forcefield for him.