Part of article/mailbag I'm referring to: "Q: Can we say that a top running back is no longer needed to win a Super Bowl? Here are the last 10 Super Bowl winners and their running backs: 2001- Pats (Antowain Smith); 2002- Bucs (Michael Pittman); 2003- Pats (Kevin Faulk); 2004- Pats (Corey Dillon); 2005- Steelers (Willie Parker); 2006- Colts (Joseph Addai); 2007- Giants (Brandon Jacobs); 2008- Steelers (Willie Parker); 2009- Saints (Pierre Thomas); 2010- Packers (Brandon Jackson). Do any of those guys strike fear into your heart? Corey Dillon would be the closest (although he was past his prime when he joined the Pats). Also, the Colts, Giants, Saints, and Packers all won the Super Bowl AFTER losing Edgerrin James, Tiki Barber, Deuce McAllister, and Ryan Grant. Does this make the case that having a top running back, if you are a contender for the Super Bowl, actually hurts your chances? — Brian R, Dubai SG: In the Salary Cap/Touch Football era, I would say yes — you're better off having multiple cost-effective backs who can do different things (like how New Orleans uses Chris Ivory, Pierre Thomas and Darren Sproles) over one expensive back (say, Chris Johnson or Adrian Peterson). Our three best 2011 offenses (New Orleans, Green Bay and New England) certainly embraced that philosophy.1 For a 20-game season (including playoffs), would you rather have a quality running back by committee (say, Thomas, Sproles, Ivory and Mark Ingram) or a super-back like Ray Rice for twice the price? For one game, you might take Rice — he can do everything that committee can do. But for five solid months with the injury factor included? You might take the committee, right?"