NFL Thread

Raoul said:
1. Kicker and Punter aren't anywhere as pivotal as RB. There is no shortage of good kickers who make a majority of their kicks.

2. The Pats success is an outlier in all of this. A vast majority of teams still rely on effective running backs to control the line of scrimmage. Look at the Jags, Rams, Cowboys, and even the Eagles with their two backs.
Click to expand...

Or course they aren't, you missed the point entirely which is that being the only starter at a position means feck all.

The saints had great offenses for a decade with Drew Brees. The packers had success with a rotating crew of late round picks and Aaron Rodgers. Peyton Manning had success with Donald Brown. Matt Ryan won an MVP with a backfield committee of third and fourth round picks. Stafford put up tons of points with nobodies in the backfield. The eagles just won a super bowl with 2 UDFAs and a 5th round pick in the backfield.
 
Raoul said:
1. Kicker and Punter aren't anywhere as pivotal as RB. There is no shortage of good kickers who make a majority of their kicks.

2. The Pats success is an outlier in all of this. A vast majority of teams still rely on effective running backs to control the line of scrimmage. Look at the Jags, Rams, Cowboys, and even the Eagles with their two backs.
Click to expand...

Seahawks lost 2 games last year, because of their kicker.
 
Raoul said:
Never mind the team. He is a 10,000 yard rusher who contributed to multiple super bowl appearances.
Click to expand...

How can you say never mind the team? The whole point of this discussion is that teams shouldnt take running backs high in the draft because they dont return enough value.

We arent arguing whether marshawyn lynch is good or bad.
 
Eboue said:
Or course they aren't, you missed the point entirely which is that being the only starter at a position means feck all.

The saints had great offenses for a decade with Drew Brees. The packers had success with a rotating crew of late round picks and Aaron Rodgers. Peyton Manning had success with Donald Brown. Matt Ryan won an MVP with a backfield committee of third and fourth round picks. Stafford put up tons of points with nobodies in the backfield. The eagles just won a super bowl with 2 UDFAs and a 5th round pick in the backfield.
Click to expand...

Comparing a RB with a punter doesn't exactly make for a compelling point. Some teams also utilize nose guards. Care to compare them to RBs as well ?

The Eagles won the Super Bowl despite Tom Brady passing for 505 yards. They happened to have outrushed the Pats by a good margin.
 
Eboue said:
How can you say never mind the team? The whole point of this discussion is that teams shouldnt take running backs high in the draft because they dont return enough value.

We arent arguing whether marshawyn lynch is good or bad.
Click to expand...

In Lynch's case, he was taken high and delivered a 10k career. He averaged over 1,000 yards his first two years in Buffalo, then proceeded to rack up many more 1k years and a couple of super bowl appearances in Seattle - so that doesn't exactly speak to why he shouldn't have been taken at #12 in the first round.
 
Raoul said:
Comparing a RB with a punter doesn't exactly make for a compelling point. Some teams also utilize nose guards. Care to compare them to RBs as well ?

The Eagles won the Super Bowl despite Tom Brady passing for 505 yards. They happened to have outrushed the Pats by a good margin.
Click to expand...

Jesus christ do you really not get this? I'm not saying that running backs equal punter. I was responding to your assertion that running backs are valuable because they are the only starters at their position by using the punter example to show that being the only starter does not mean they are valuable. Because punters are also the only starters at their position but they are not valuable.


The second part just proves my point that it is easy to find contributors to good offenses beyond the first round.
 
Eboue said:
Jesus christ do you really not get this? I'm not saying that running backs equal punter. I was responding to your assertion that running backs are valuable because they are the only starters at their position by using the punter example to show that being the only starter does not mean they are valuable. Because punters are also the only starters at their position but they are not valuable.


The second part just proves my point that it is easy to find contributors to good offenses beyond the first round.
Click to expand...

I understood you point the first time - it was just a bad example because of the value a great RB bring in comparison to a punter or kicker. Just because they are the lone person at their position doesn't mean their value is on par with a RB or QB.

I don't have a problem with the idea that you can't find good talent outside the first round (the likes of Hunt an Howard are examples in recent years), but that doesn't mean you can't take a top RB early either, especially when you look at the other non-QB players touted in the first round - a Guard, a Safety, D-lineman etc. There's no way a good RB is less important than any of these.
 
Raoul said:
I understood you point the first time - it was just a bad example because of the value a great RB bring in comparison to a punter or kicker. Just because they are the lone person at their position doesn't mean their value is on par with a RB or QB.

I don't have a problem with the idea that you can't find good talent outside the first round (the likes of Hunt an Howard are examples in recent years), but that doesn't mean you can't take a top RB early either, especially when you look at the other non-QB players touted in the first round - a Guard, a Safety, D-lineman etc. There's no way a good RB is less important than any of these.
Click to expand...


Nope you dont understand. I'll drop it since this is not going anywhere.

A good running back is absolutely less important that a good d lineman and a good safety. Guard is debatable but it's easier to find good running backs late than it is to find good guards so I would lean towards picking a guard too.
 
Phil said:
I do get it but I don't agree 100%, Chris Carson looked handy before his injury.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I completely understand that people think differently on this, considering how you can control the clock with it and how much success we've had with Lynch. I just hope that the Hawks don't take a RB first considering the depth at the position in this year's draft and drafting an offensive linemen with their first pick would help far more with what I've read about this year's draft and our roster.
 
Eboue said:
Nope you dont understand. I'll drop it since this is not going anywhere.

A good running back is absolutely less important that a good d lineman and a good safety. Guard is debatable but it's easier to find good running backs late than it is to find good guards so I would lean towards picking a guard too.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the teams who have repeatedly benefitted off 1k seasons from having drafted 1st round RBs the past few years. Defensive players are much more compartmentalized in their influence on the overall defense compared to the guy who actually carries the ball to advance the offense down the field. QBs and RB are unique in this regard.
 
JPRouve said:
I will post this again.

https://www.sbnation.com/2018/4/17/...ections-saquon-barkley-running-backs-sleepers
Click to expand...

Many of these numbers are correct, but the trouble is they don't speak to the individual ability of a particular player - like Barkley, which at the end of the day is a subjective assessment based on the scouts, coaches, and executives at particular teams who are in need of a RB. So while, pie charts and scatterplots seem to have devolved into quantitative swinging dick contests among internet punters - at the end of the day teams are interested in whether said player can help them win football games by filling a critical role that they are currently in need of filling.
 
Raoul said:
Many of these numbers are correct, but the trouble is they don't speak to the individual ability of a particular player - like Barkley, which at the end of the day is a subjective assessment based on the scouts, coaches, and executives at particular teams who are in need of a RB. So while, pie charts and scatterplots seem to have devolved into quantitative swinging dick contests among internet punters - at the end of the day teams are interested in whether said player can help them win football games by filling a critical role that they are currently in need of filling.
Click to expand...


Every team thinks they are picking a great player in the first round. If they didn't they would pick someone else. The data shows that many of them dont turn out to be great players. Across every organization and every year, no NFL franchise has been shown to consistently nail their picks. Which is why it's important to minimize risk and look at better ways to spend scarce resources.
 
Raoul said:
Much of these numbers are correct, but the trouble is they don't speak to the individual ability of a particular player - like Barkley, which at the end of the day is a subjective assessment based on the scouts, coaches, and executives at particular teams who are in need of a RB. So while, pie charts and scatterplots seem to have devolved into quantitative swinging dick contests among internet punters - at the end of the day teams are interested in whether said player can help them win football games by filling a critical role that they are currently in need of filling.
Click to expand...

I agree but that wasn't your or @Eboue's points. When you consider them as a group RBs are not only not valuable but they are extremely volatile, so it's a good rule to not take them high in the draft. But like every rules you have exceptions and the reason Barkley, Peterson or even Bell make sense in the first round is because they are proper freaks despite the fact that they are RBs.
 
Eboue said:
Every team thinks they are picking a great player in the first round. If they didn't they would pick someone else. The data shows that many of them dont turn out to be great players. Across every organization and every year, no NFL franchise has been shown to consistently nail their picks. Which is why it's important to minimize risk and look at better ways to spend scarce resources.
Click to expand...

Can't disagree with any of that. The question then becomes how to choose the right player to fill the right role with minimal risk.
 
JPRouve said:
I agree but that wasn't your or @Eboue's points. When you consider them as a group RBs are not only not valuable but they are extremely volatile, so it's a good rule to not take them high in the draft. But like every rules you have exceptions and the reason Barkley, Peterson or even Bell make sense in the first round is because they are proper freaks despite the fact that they are RBs.
Click to expand...

Bell is a testament to the deficiencies of scouting. He was a second round pick. I watched almost every one of his college games and I didn't imagine him being this good. David Johnson was a 5th round pick!
 
JPRouve said:
I agree but that wasn't your or @Eboue's points. When you consider them as a group RBs are not only not valuable but they are extremely volatile, so it's a good rule to not take them high in the draft. But like every rules you have exceptions and the reason Barkley, Peterson or even Bell make sense in the first round is because they are proper freaks despite the fact that they are RBs.
Click to expand...

The have a much shorter shelf life in the NFL, which is a good point, but let's face it - I doubt teams look it in those terms. They need tools for the team toolbox and if they see the right one to fill a lingering void that has been holding their progress back, then they are going to pull the trigger.
 
Eboue said:
Bell is a testament to the deficiencies of scouting. He was a second round pick. I watched almost every one of his college games and I didn't imagine him being this good. David Johnson was a 5th round pick!
Click to expand...

And was only taken because the guy they wanted there had gone.
 
Raoul said:
The have a much shorter shelf life in the NFL, which is a good point, but let's face it - I doubt teams look it in those terms. They need tools for the team toolbox and if they see the right one to fill a lingering void that has been holding their progress back, then they are going to pull the trigger.
Click to expand...

But that's only a good idea if RB is the only position you need to fill, which is almost never the case, you will most likely have to replace one of the very expensive players like CBs and DEs with a rookie contract. In the case of Cleveland they need a better pass rush, they could do with a great LB and they need someone to replace Thomas or strengthen the interior of the OL. They can take a very solid RB in the second or third round.
 
JPRouve said:
But that's only a good idea if RB is the only position you need to fill, which is almost never the case, you will most likely have to replace one of the very expensive players like CBs and DEs with a rookie contract. In the case of Cleveland they need a better pass rush, they could do with a great LB and they need someone to replace Thomas or strengthen the interior of the OL. They can take a very solid RB in the second or third round.
Click to expand...

True.

In the case of the Browns for example, that would more or less be correct. They have already drafted for most positions by way of their many draft picks from their poor finishes over the last few years. They have upgraded at QB, will be drafting another QB at 1, and just signed a pro-bowl WR. The only missing piece is a top RB, and since they haven't had a 1000 yard rusher in 8 years, drafting Barkley makes complete sense (assuming he's available at 4).

If however, Barkley is no longer on the board at 4 then they could take anyone from Chubb, Fitzpatrick, or the like at 4 and then almost certainly select from Michel, Jones, Chubb, or Grice at the 33 or 35 positions. If Barkley is available however, I can't see Cleveland (or most other top 5 teams) passing him up.
 
Last edited:
bucky said:
Yeah, I completely understand that people think differently on this, considering how you can control the clock with it and how much success we've had with Lynch. I just hope that the Hawks don't take a RB first considering the depth at the position in this year's draft and drafting an offensive linemen with their first pick would help far more with what I've read about this year's draft and our roster.
Click to expand...

I do agree for us.

I think we trade down of course, we then go DL, OL, CB, RB. My mind has drawn a blank after that.
 
Anyone know how/where I might be able to watch the 1st round of the draft in full Friday evening? Not gonna be about tomorrow night to do so and obviously the time has a big impact on getting up for work the next day.
 
DannyCAFC said:
Anyone know how/where I might be able to watch the 1st round of the draft in full Friday evening? Not gonna be about tomorrow night to do so and obviously the time has a big impact on getting up for work the next day.
Click to expand...

Record it on Sky?
 
In fact Sky will probably have a highlights version available to download on Friday which cuts all the crap and adverts out.
 
DannyCAFC said:
Anyone know how/where I might be able to watch the 1st round of the draft in full Friday evening? Not gonna be about tomorrow night to do so and obviously the time has a big impact on getting up for work the next day.
Click to expand...

Dazn. Sign up for a trial month and then just cancel the subscription.
 
I partly agree with Eboue on this one to be honest.

It’s not as black and white as saying you should never pick a running back in the top 10 - I disagree with that sentiment. But certainly the comments about value and that you can get productivity at the position with mid rounders is true.

Basically I see it like this:
- If you’ve a team which is almost there and very strong across the rest of the positions and weak at RB and can therefore justify sacrificing the value you lose by picking a RB due to the broader impact on your team (e.g a team like the Jags, who knew elevating the running game would have a huge impact) then taking a RB in the top 10 is justified despite the comments about value etc.
- If you’ve got holes in other areas, taking a RB is not a worthwhile use of a high draft pick (for example the Giants should not be picking Barkley this year).
 
bucky said:
Which is down to the o-line. Which was my point with Collins.
Click to expand...

O-line is part of the equation. On the flip side, Brady still managed to throw for over 500 yards with the same blocking that allowed pressure (yes, there are technique and scheme differences between pass and run blocking, yet still the same set of players). Elite RBs can often break those long runs with great cuts, better acceleration, reading the field/lanes, etc. It's something I notice with Elliott is his vision and the cuts he makes.

It can be argued the Patriots would have won more SBs with a back forcing the defense to play the run with more caution, and thus opening up more passing lanes. Brady has never played alongside an elite RB, a type that could grind out yards and clock late in games, or break a long run at any time.

I'm 50/50 on both arguments on the RB "value" in today's game. I'd wager had NE had a top 5 pick in 2016 and Elliott was there that BB may have drafted him, or he may have coveted Ramsey which seems more of a BB pick. I preferred Ramsey and wanted Dallas to find a RB in the mid rounds, which is where Chicago found Howard in the same draft. Reason being that elite CBs are more rare than elite RBs, Dallas needed defensive studs more so than offensive, and that with Dallas' O-line they could get by using 2-3 solid RBs splitting carries and Romo's play (he later suffered a season ending injury in preseason); they had McFadden and had signed Morris, plenty to carry the rushing game alongside a likely mid-round draft pick. Also, Ramsey will likely end up in the HoF, Elliott most likely will not.

I guess my take would be draft a RB in the top half of the first round if said team has that position as it's top need and a best player on the board is there (not a reach selection), and say they were maybe a year removed from the playoffs and had a slip up, or traded up to get a potential elite RB. Like per say if the Rams scored a top five pick and Barkley fell to them - take him as he's likely the final piece on paper.

Edit: Rams have Gurley, disregard that. Find another club almost there, like say the Vikings with Cook's injury in play.
 
rpitroda said:
I partly agree with Eboue on this one to be honest.

It’s not as black and white as saying you should never pick a running back in the top 10 - I disagree with that sentiment. But certainly the comments about value and that you can get productivity at the position with mid rounders is true.

Basically I see it like this:
- If you’ve a team which is almost there and very strong across the rest of the positions and weak at RB and can therefore justify sacrificing the value you lose by picking a RB due to the broader impact on your team (e.g a team like the Jags, who knew elevating the running game would have a huge impact) then taking a RB in the top 10 is justified despite the comments about value etc.
- If you’ve got holes in other areas, taking a RB is not a worthwhile use of a high draft pick (for example the Giants should not be picking Barkley this year).
Click to expand...

Ultimately no one selects based on value, they select whether a player is a missing piece of the puzzle for what the coach and franchise need to win immediately. At the end of the day, all the pie chart jiujitsu you see from online pundits takes a backseat to winning. If that doesn't happen then coaches get fired and the process begins again.
 
Last edited:
MrMarcello said:
O-line is part of the equation. On the flip side, Brady still managed to throw for over 500 yards with the same blocking that allowed pressure (yes, there are technique and scheme differences between pass and run blocking, yet still the same set of players). Elite RBs can often break those long runs with great cuts, better acceleration, reading the field/lanes, etc. It's something I notice with Elliott is his vision and the cuts he makes.

It can be argued the Patriots would have won more SBs with a back forcing the defense to play the run with more caution, and thus opening up more passing lanes. Brady has never played alongside an elite RB, a type that could grind out yards and clock late in games, or break a long run at any time.

I'm 50/50 on both arguments on the RB "value" in today's game. I'd wager had NE had a top 5 pick in 2016 and Elliott was there that BB may have drafted him, or he may have coveted Ramsey which seems more of a BB pick. I preferred Ramsey and wanted Dallas to find a RB in the mid rounds, which is where Chicago found Howard in the same draft. Reason being that elite CBs are more rare than elite RBs, Dallas needed defensive studs more so than offensive, and that with Dallas' O-line they could get by using 2-3 solid RBs splitting carries and Romo's play (he later suffered a season ending injury in preseason); they had McFadden and had signed Morris, plenty to carry the rushing game alongside a likely mid-round draft pick. Also, Ramsey will likely end up in the HoF, Elliott most likely will not.

I guess my take would be draft a RB in the top half of the first round if said team has that position as it's top need and a best player on the board is there (not a reach selection), and say they were maybe a year removed from the playoffs and had a slip up, or traded up to get a potential elite RB. Like per say if the Rams scored a top five pick and Barkley fell to them - take him as he's likely the final piece on paper.

Edit: Rams have Gurley, disregard that. Find another club almost there, like say the Vikings with Cook's injury in play.
Click to expand...

As per the last bit, most teams would pounce on Barkley if he was available - the only ones that would overlook him are the ones who already have existing, reliably perennial 1,000 yard rushers on board. So basically 10 of the 32 teams would be incentivize to not take him.
 
I believe it's been shown that clubs drafting a QB in the top 10 are wrong more than any other position, and so much is put into that selection that it can set clubs back years, and even more so before the rookie salary structure came about. Cleveland is a great example of horrid draft evaluation.

Course it may be that QB is the glamour position and it just seems this way. So much goes into a QB's success, or lack thereof.
 
Problem with QBs is there are always desperate teams and and QBs are always drafted top of the board.

This means that they are compared relative to the group in that years draft rather than on their true merits as a QB.
 
altodevil86 said:
Just seen that - mental.
Click to expand...

Jax fans will be rightfully absolutely fecking livid.

Teams relocating is such bullshit at the best of times but moving to another country is ridiculous.

If they want a London team they should create a new franchise.
 
Rado_N said:
Jax fans will be rightfully absolutely fecking livid.

Teams relocating is such bullshit at the best of times but moving to another country is ridiculous.

If they want a London team they should create a new franchise.
Click to expand...
I agree - besides Jags attendance percentage is better than the Vikings and the Rams. Would be unfair for the city to finally have a competent team only for it to feck off as far away as possible. Jags luck though I suppose :lol:
 
Rado_N said:
Jax fans will be rightfully absolutely fecking livid.

Teams relocating is such bullshit at the best of times but moving to another country is ridiculous.

If they want a London team they should create a new franchise.
Click to expand...
Will the NFL approve it? I mean surely the other teams will oppose the move due to all the travelling for the games right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.