Processing Speed ~ How Rapidly & Effectively they Read & React to the rapidly changing LandScape in front'f'm
Power ~ How forcefully they Run the Ball
Acceleration ~ I don't give a Rat's Ass about "40" Time. How Quickly do they Hit The Hole & Turn the Corner?
Fluidity ~ How Serpentine he flows through Traffic.
Ricochet ~ How Explosively they Burst out'f their Breaks when they Change Directions
Security ~ How reliably he holds onto the PigSkin
Pass Blocking ~ Can they stay on the field without endangering their QuarterBack's Life?
Pass Receiving ~ Are they a true Dual Threat ~ what I call a FlexBack?
I think that deploying a Feature Back is a ridiculously stupid way to go: You'll get much better results if your HalfBacks aren't constantly battered and bruised. It's the most punishing Position in the entire Game, as evidenced by the notoriously short Shelf Lives of HalfBacks ~ especially Feature Backs.
As such, it makes no sense to me to have less than 3 reasonably capable HalfBacks to share the Load.
After all: That's about 400-500 Tackles they need to absorb, each Year.
Nobody's asking any "Wide Receivers" to absorb 400 Tackles a Year, last I checked!!
And most of those are at the hands of 200 Pound CornerBacks, not 300 Pound Gorillas!!
And as it's quite obviously best for the Team to split up the Carries, it stands to reason that most HalfBacks simply don't warrant 1st Round Investments...with some few notable exceptions!!
Power ~ Outstanding.
Acceleration ~ Mediocre.
Ricochet ~ Adequate.
Fluidity ~ Decent.
Security ~ Phenomenal.
Pass Blocking ~ Awful.
Pass Receiving ~ God-Awful.
And it's the Runners who Rapidly Read & React to the rapidly developing Play in front'f'm who have the best chance ~ regardless of physical Skill Set ~ of consistently racking up Positive Yardage...and Moving The Chains.
Even so, Ball strikes me as a pretty One Dimensional Back ~ an Hard Yard Masher, albeit one who can move with a decent level of Agility, out there. But he's not much of a Blocker or Receiver, and not a dominant Masher.
Consensus Market Value