TheVillain112 Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 Alright, I'll play devil's advocate. Le'Veon Bell is a generational talent; James Connor was easily able to replace him. If Gurley, Zeke, and Barkley justify using a top 10 pick on a RB does Kamara, Hunt, Connor, Philip Lindsey, Austin Ekeler, etc... disprove that? If the Rams didn't have Gurley, and say they had Mixon, a healthy Dalvin Cook, Hunt, or heck even Chris Carson, are the Rams still undefeated? I would argue yes. The problem with running backs in the top 10, is exactly what's going on in NY right now. The problem isn't necessarily selecting a RB, especially of Gurley's talent in the Top 10. It's thinking that because you selected that player, you have to get him X number of touches a game, and run him in inefficient situations. 2nd and Long? Let's run Barkley for -2 yards. The Rams are using the RB position effectively and when you combine that with a stud OL and Gurley's talent the result is the amazing offense the Rams have. That said, Rams offense probably doesn't suffer much with 15 other RBs in his place... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Ramster Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 5 minutes ago, TheVillain112 said: Alright, I'll play devil's advocate. Le'Veon Bell is a generational talent; James Connor was easily able to replace him. If Gurley, Zeke, and Barkley justify using a top 10 pick on a RB does Kamara, Hunt, Connor, Philip Lindsey, Austin Ekeler, etc... disprove that? If the Rams didn't have Gurley, and say they had Mixon, a healthy Dalvin Cook, Hunt, or heck even Chris Carson, are the Rams still undefeated? I would argue yes. The problem with running backs in the top 10, is exactly what's going on in NY right now. The problem isn't necessarily selecting a RB, especially of Gurley's talent in the Top 10. It's thinking that because you selected that player, you have to get him X number of touches a game, and run him in inefficient situations. 2nd and Long? Let's run Barkley for -2 yards. The Rams are using the RB position effectively and when you combine that with a stud OL and Gurley's talent the result is the amazing offense the Rams have. That said, Rams offense probably doesn't suffer much with 15 other RBs in his place... YOU IS CRAZY. TODD IS A CUT ABOVE THE REST. NEVER MENTION MIXON AGAIN YOU HEAR ME. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwibrown Posted October 25, 2018 Author Share Posted October 25, 2018 @TheVillain112 great post for a Bengals fan. In defense of the Gurley pick it seems like he was genuinely BPA. I agree that if they had a number of lesser back they would probably be in a similar spot. If they got david Johnson in the second they would probably be doing as or nearly as well. I have heard 1 draft theory which is interesting, qb, and olinmen as the only offensive players taken I the 1st round, drafting defensive players high. This is due to the difficulty of playing g defense and you can work players with a limited skill set into offenses more easily than on defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NVRamsFan Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 25 minutes ago, TheVillain112 said: Alright, I'll play devil's advocate. Le'Veon Bell is a generational talent; James Connor was easily able to replace him. If Gurley, Zeke, and Barkley justify using a top 10 pick on a RB does Kamara, Hunt, Connor, Philip Lindsey, Austin Ekeler, etc... disprove that? If the Rams didn't have Gurley, and say they had Mixon, a healthy Dalvin Cook, Hunt, or heck even Chris Carson, are the Rams still undefeated? I would argue yes. The problem with running backs in the top 10, is exactly what's going on in NY right now. The problem isn't necessarily selecting a RB, especially of Gurley's talent in the Top 10. It's thinking that because you selected that player, you have to get him X number of touches a game, and run him in inefficient situations. 2nd and Long? Let's run Barkley for -2 yards. The Rams are using the RB position effectively and when you combine that with a stud OL and Gurley's talent the result is the amazing offense the Rams have. That said, Rams offense probably doesn't suffer much with 15 other RBs in his place... Just to play devils advocate a little as well what are the success rates of running backs taken in the top 10 vs those taken in the later rounds. You mention a handful that are playing well. But every year there are a dozen backs or more taken in the back half of the draft. As many or more udfa. Yet we have what 5 or 6 taken in the top 10? As others have said, the top 10 is about the player more than the position imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iknowcool Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 26 minutes ago, TheVillain112 said: Alright, I'll play devil's advocate. Le'Veon Bell is a generational talent; James Connor was easily able to replace him. If Gurley, Zeke, and Barkley justify using a top 10 pick on a RB does Kamara, Hunt, Connor, Philip Lindsey, Austin Ekeler, etc... disprove that? If the Rams didn't have Gurley, and say they had Mixon, a healthy Dalvin Cook, Hunt, or heck even Chris Carson, are the Rams still undefeated? I would argue yes. The problem with running backs in the top 10, is exactly what's going on in NY right now. The problem isn't necessarily selecting a RB, especially of Gurley's talent in the Top 10. It's thinking that because you selected that player, you have to get him X number of touches a game, and run him in inefficient situations. 2nd and Long? Let's run Barkley for -2 yards. The Rams are using the RB position effectively and when you combine that with a stud OL and Gurley's talent the result is the amazing offense the Rams have. That said, Rams offense probably doesn't suffer much with 15 other RBs in his place... I don’t agree that they wouldn’t suffer without Gurley but even so, the Rams offense probably doesn’t suffer much with ~15 other guards or wide receivers in substitute for one of theirs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVillain112 Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 Here is an article that articulates my points much better: https://www.numberfire.com/nfl/news/19933/saquon-barkley-may-be-a-generational-talent-but-he-ll-still-be-overdrafted Just a couple of snippets from it: Over the last five seasons, the average quarterback attempt has resulted in 7.15 yards gained. The average running back carry has yielded 4.10 yards per rush. That's a pretty significant difference. To think of this in a super basic way, consider Le'Veon Bell. He's had four seasons now with 50 or more targets in the Steelers' offense. Despite being considered the best receiving back in the NFL, he's hit the 0.25 Target NEP per target mark in just two of those four campaigns. In other words, from strictly a production standpoint, Ben Roethlisberger would've been better off throwing the ball to an average wide receiver versus Bell in two of the last four seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Buzz Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 42 minutes ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said: RB's taken in the top 10 over the last 5 years: Saquon, Leonard Fournette, Christian McCaffrey, Ezekiel Elliott, Todd Gurley (at #10) What do all of these guys (sans Saquon) have in common? A good offensive line. If you're picking in the top 10 with an established QB and an offensive line, then sure take the best RB you can find. Otherwise, you're better off going elsewhere. The best RB's per rush this year are: Matt Breida, Kerryon Johnson, Philip Lindsay, Austin Ekeler, Isaiah Crowell, Melvin Gordon, Saquon Barkley. Kenyan Drake, Christian McCaffrey This tells me that your team doesn't need to pick top 10 RB's to have success. You need an OL and a scheme to get RB's the ball in space. That's about it. So ultimately I think it's very situational. If the Ravens had a top 10 pick next year I wouldn't be opposed to using it on a RB if the right one was there, considering we have Flacco and an offensive line and a defense. Otherwise, I wouldn't want to waste a RB pick until the 2nd or 3rd round, where the actual value picks are found. Jaguars offensive line is/was good? Hmm...not sure about that. Had a journeyman at LG, a struggling RG, and a RT who battled injuries along with a rookie LT that had his ups and downs in Cam Robinson. Definitely wasn't a "strong" unit. It performed better than expected given what I said above, but "good"? I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
showtime Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 I don't get why people make the argument "I would only take a RB if I had a good team already around them".... You could say that for almost any position, though. Most quarterbacks need an offensive line and quality targets to throw the football to or they suffer. If you sack Matt Ryan 80 times in a season and don't protect him, he's going to be useless. If he has a decent offensive line, he'll be good. Everyone in football is dependent on other positions and their teammates. Look at Jared Goff. His rookie year the team was bad and they suffered from very poor coaching - so he and everyone on the team struggled. Once his coaching improved, they went out and got some talent (Whitworth, Woods, Kupp, Watkins, etc) then he started to play well. Every position in the league is dependent on others to do their job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom cody Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 I think it does. There is still talent at that position. For my money Gurley's among the best in the game right now at any position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soko Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 I don’t have an issue with it, even without taking Gurley specifically into account. As others have said, strict BPA isn’t the best strategy. It’s how the Jets end up with Sheldon Richardson, Mo Wilkerson, and Leonard Williams in 3/4 years, all playing the same position. If I’m the Falcons picking top 15, I’m not taking a WR if he’s the BPA. If I’m the Chiefs, I’m not taking a QB if he’s BPA. You need to take need and value into account. So with that in mind, sure, running backs in a vacuum are devalued compared to most other positions. But if they’re the clear BPA, the team needs a running back, and there’s not another player available to fill another big hole on the team? Then go for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iknowcool Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 35 minutes ago, TheVillain112 said: Here is an article that articulates my points much better: https://www.numberfire.com/nfl/news/19933/saquon-barkley-may-be-a-generational-talent-but-he-ll-still-be-overdrafted Just a couple of snippets from it: Quarterbacks have always averaged more per pass than a RB per carry; the QB and/or passing game would have to downright pathetic for that not to be the case. I don't even think he'd have to restrict it to the last 5 seasons for it to hold true. For example, Barry Sanders in his 2K season still averaged less than Scott Mitchell, but would anyone argue that Mitchell > Sanders when it came to the success of that offense? If it was as cut/dry as QBs > RBs in regards to average yards per attempt, no NFL teams would bother running the ball until the 4th quarter. There are so many positives to not only running to football but having an elite RB. You're not guaranteed to complete the pass every time you throw it. You are guaranteed to, at the very least (barring penalty or fumble), keep the clock going when you run the ball. Having a RB who can consistently get you ~4 yards on first down is important. It's why the Panthers have managed to be successful; we've never had an elite passing game sans 2015, but we are almost always able to control the clock. There's of course downsides to not being able to pass the ball well, and of course I'd rather have an offense that can pass well and efficiently, but it doesn't devalue the importance of running or having a quality back. And his point about Ben being better off just throwing to a wide receiver is illogical. There is no guarantee a single WR is open every play. And it's not like throwing to AB, for example, is an automatic 14 yards or whatever he averages. Its an average boosted by those big plays that wide receivers are more prone to get in the passing game than RBs, but those throws are also typically less efficient. A RB who can get open underneath consistently works just as well, if not more so, as hitting a WR for 20 yards every 5-10 throws. Bell hovers around ~80 catch% (outside of his outlier 92% season) according to PFR; Brown is about ~68%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFlaccoSeagulls Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 32 minutes ago, .Buzz said: Jaguars offensive line is/was good? Hmm...not sure about that. Had a journeyman at LG, a struggling RG, and a RT who battled injuries along with a rookie LT that had his ups and downs in Cam Robinson. Definitely wasn't a "strong" unit. It performed better than expected given what I said above, but "good"? I don't think so. Per PFF: Quote Jacksonville’s offensive line had a lot of success in run-blocking as the 1.95 yards Jaguars running backs averaged before contact ranked second in the NFL last season. Yeah I'd say they certainly helped the runningbacks a lot. 23 minutes ago, showtime said: I don't get why people make the argument "I would only take a RB if I had a good team already around them".... You could say that for almost any position, though. Most quarterbacks need an offensive line and quality targets to throw the football to or they suffer. If you sack Matt Ryan 80 times in a season and don't protect him, he's going to be useless. If he has a decent offensive line, he'll be good. Everyone in football is dependent on other positions and their teammates. Look at Jared Goff. His rookie year the team was bad and they suffered from very poor coaching - so he and everyone on the team struggled. Once his coaching improved, they went out and got some talent (Whitworth, Woods, Kupp, Watkins, etc) then he started to play well. Every position in the league is dependent on others to do their job. I say take a RB when you have a surrounding unit because taking a RB without that surrounding help leads you to absolutely zero wins. Look at how good the Rams were with Gurley his first year. Look at how good the Giants are with Barkley right now. Your RB can be amazing, but without help around him it doesn't matter at all. The only position that's not talent dependent is QB, but for the large part, you cannot win games with just a talented RB, even if he's a generational talent like Barkley appears to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stl4life07 Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 17 minutes ago, showtime said: I don't get why people make the argument "I would only take a RB if I had a good team already around them".... You could say that for almost any position, though. Most quarterbacks need an offensive line and quality targets to throw the football to or they suffer. If you sack Matt Ryan 80 times in a season and don't protect him, he's going to be useless. If he has a decent offensive line, he'll be good. Everyone in football is dependent on other positions and their teammates. Look at Jared Goff. His rookie year the team was bad and they suffered from very poor coaching - so he and everyone on the team struggled. Once his coaching improved, they went out and got some talent (Whitworth, Woods, Kupp, Watkins, etc) then he started to play well. Every position in the league is dependent on others to do their job. Funny you mentioned Goff rookie season. Do you realize Gurley rookie season in 2015 had the same coaching staff AND the same oline and won OROY? Also Gurley did something that no other back has ever done and thats rush for at least 125yds in 4 straight starts to start a career. Like Gurley was a treasure amongst trash in 2015 and 2016. What happened was when the Rams brass decided to get rid of all the trash on the Rams and bring in legit coaches and legit players, Gurley is now even better. Thats like saying "what if Shaq in his prime became a great free throw shooter and developed a three point shot?" Like you do realize Shaq was already unstoppable. If he was a great free throw shooter and made three pointers that he could go Wilt and average 50 every season. Gurley with McVay is going to be the Aaron Donald of the offense. Every year Donald is recognized as the best bet for DPOY. Gurley from last season on is going to be recognized as the best bet for OPOY from now on because there is no way to stop him with a creative mind like McVay calling the shots. Barring injury, Gurley is going to be unstoppable. Teams just have to be content with slowing him down. As for the topic, if a player is great then the pick is justifiable. People was scared to take guards in the top 10. Nelson was selected by the Colts. Scherff was selected by the Redskins. If Martin was selected in the top 10 I wouldnt have a problem with that either. All those players are great. So no longer will taking a guard in the top 10 be frowned upon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CP3MVP Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 Their offense sucked for his first two seasons until Goff became an actual Qb. 2016 they were all time bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iknowcool Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 2 minutes ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said: Per PFF: Yeah I'd say they certainly helped the runningbacks a lot. I say take a RB when you have a surrounding unit because taking a RB without that surrounding help leads you to absolutely zero wins. How does taking a tackle with no surrounding talent help lead a team to wins? Or a wide receiver? The Lions went 0-16 with Calvin Johnson. Browns went 1-15 with Joe Thomas. Pass Rusher? Browns went 0-16 the season they drafted Myles Garrett. Cardinals went 5-11 after drafting Patrick Peterson. And those are some of the best prospects at their position in the last 10+ years. I mean this logic that a RB can't help a bad team to more wins literally applies to every position outside of QB. Why do we only hold it against RB? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.