Todd Gurley

[FrantikRam]

Saquan Barkely is the best RB I had ever seen in college (too young to have seen Barry).

 

IMO that was absolutely the correct pick by the Giants. I think even now he's proving that he's clearly the best player from that draft thus far.

 

That the Giants are losing doesn't change that in anyway IMO - in fact, if you look at the four teams that are playing rookie QBs, the only one obviously better than the Giants are the Jets - and you could certainly make the argument that because the QB position has more overall impact, that's why the Jets are better.

 

But next season, the new Giants QB will be coming into arguably the best situation around a rookie QB, ever (assuming their OL becomes a league average unit). And I would bet that the Giants will become a contender before the Jets, because Barkley is a generational player.

[.Buzz]

20 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. 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. 

Go ahead and think that. PFF is nice and all, but watch most games last year and it wasn't pretty. Run blocking was definitely better than pass blocking as that fits most of the guys that played last year better, but Omameh (who is a part of that god-awful OL, was playing at LG next to a rookie Cam Robinson and AJ Cann was talked about getting replaced this past offseason at RG. Parnell also battled a lot of injuries and clearly took a step back.

OL was not "good" any way you try to slice it. MIddle of the pack'ish? Maybe.

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

14 minutes ago, iknowcool said:

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?  

RB's have the shortest shelf life would be my guess. Everything depends on your situation, but for example the Giants picking Barkley was stupid because they need a QB, not a RB. And now they've wasted 1, if not more years of Barkley because they're going to have to rebuild with a new QB next year. So by the time the QB is even playing at a decent level, Barkley has had 2-3 valuable years wasted. 

Just now, .Buzz said:

Go ahead and think that. PFF is nice and all, but watch most games last year and it wasn't pretty. Run blocking was definitely better than pass blocking as that fits most of the guys that played last year better, but Omameh (who is a part of that god-awful OL, was playing at LG next to a rookie Cam Robinson and AJ Cann was talked about getting replaced this past offseason at RG. Parnell also battled a lot of injuries and clearly took a step back.

OL was not good.

Why are you arguing with a literal statistic? Yards before contact isn't something to be debated, it's just a fact. This isn't a grade or something subjective. You can argue it all you want, but the fact remains that Jacksonsville's OL was 2nd best in the league in that category, which indicates that, in at least that category they were very good.

[iknowcool]

I think people focus too much on the position rather than the player.  Lets say Barkley or Gurley were 2014 prospects.  Everyone would have been saying, "Jags gotta finally take a QB here."  But who in 2018 is taking Blake Bortles over those two? 

It just doesn't make any sense to me.  If we can all agree that other than QB, no other position is going to be directly responsible for the win/loss column, then what is the problem with picking an All-Pro caliber player?  You can't just blindly take a QB in the first because you need one.  If your GM doesn't think he'll pan out, then that's that.  There is only so far you can go with that reasoning (for example, I can understand the criticism directed @ the Browns for passing on Goff, who was unquestionably a great prospect even if I wasn't as high on him as others), but taking a QB for the sake of leads to teams picking EJ Manuel in the 1st. 

[.Buzz]

3 minutes ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

RB's have the shortest shelf life would be my guess. Everything depends on your situation, but for example the Giants picking Barkley was stupid because they need a QB, not a RB. And now they've wasted 1, if not more years of Barkley because they're going to have to rebuild with a new QB next year. So by the time the QB is even playing at a decent level, Barkley has had 2-3 valuable years wasted. 

Why are you arguing with a literal statistic? Yards before contact isn't something to be debated, it's just a fact. This isn't a grade or something subjective. You can argue it all you want, but the fact remains that Jacksonsville's OL was 2nd best in the league in that category, which indicates that, in at least that category they were very good.

My argument isn't against the statistic, it's against you saying we had a "good run blocking OL".

If you want to assume that one statistic means the group of Cam Robinson, Patrick Omameh, Brandon Linder, AJ Cann, and Jeremy Parnell was "a good run blocking unit" though than I'm going to disagree vehemently every time. That group was not "good".

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

Just now, .Buzz said:

My argument isn't against the statistic, it's against you saying we had a "good run blocking OL", which we didn't.

If you want to assume that one statistic means the group of Cam Robinson, Patrick Omameh, Brandon Linder, AJ Cann, and Jeremy Parnell was "a good run blocking unit" though than I'm going to disagree vehemently every time. That group was not "good".

Me: Jacksonville had a good run blocking OL, and here's a supporting statistic that verifies that.

You: No we didn't, because <lists a bunch of opinions>

You can say they weren't good because of their names, but the statistics say otherwise. I'm sorry. I don't create stats.

[iknowcool]

11 minutes ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

RB's have the shortest shelf life would be my guess. Everything depends on your situation, but for example the Giants picking Barkley was stupid because they need a QB, not a RB. And now they've wasted 1, if not more years of Barkley because they're going to have to rebuild with a new QB next year. So by the time the QB is even playing at a decent level, Barkley has had 2-3 valuable years wasted. 

Lets say an elite RB gives you ~7 years.  If you can't build up a championship contender within that time frame, what difference does it make then if they took an elite tackle who might give you 3 extra years?  Management and coaching either aren't good enough or get ousted.  The Rams took a RB before they got their QB and they are just fine.  It's not an impossible task.

We've over the last decade seen plenty of teams with young QBs start to compete within 1-3 seasons of their career.  Panthers went 12-4 3 years after drafting Cam.  Eagles made it to the Super Bowl (and won) 2 years after taking Wentz.  Seahawks won the Super Bowl 2 years after taking Wilson.  Falcons had a ton of immediate success after taking Ryan.  Ravens had a ton of immediate success after taking Flacco.  Rams are killing it.  Chiefs are killing it.  If the QB you take is good, it ain't gonna take that long.  And if the QB you take somehow can't lead your team to some kind of success within the 6 years he plays with elite-Barkley (assuming that is his his max), then that probably isn't the QB your team needs.  And that is far more than just a "you took a RB in the 1st" problem.  It's a "your QB isn't good" problem, and that problem would have existed no matter who the Giants took instead of Barkley.  

To an extent I get why people wouldn't want an RB in the first.  But then I don't get it.  If the player is great, and there isn't a QB on the board your team likes, then I don't see the problem.  It might look bad if you draft Trent Richardson and the team behind you drafts Peyton Manning or something, but it also looks bad if you draft Akili Smith and the team behind you drafts Adrian Peterson.

[.Buzz]

Just now, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

Me: Jacksonville had a good run blocking OL, and here's a supporting statistic that verifies that.

You: No we didn't, because <lists a bunch of opinions>

You can say they weren't good because of their names, but the statistics say otherwise. I'm sorry. I don't create stats.

I watched every single game, sometimes twice over. So yes, I may not have tons upon tons of time on my hands or a PFF subscription to dive deeper into this argument with statistical evidence. Sorry.

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

3 minutes ago, iknowcool said:

Lets say an elite RB gives you ~7 years.  If you can't build up a championship contender within that time frame, what difference does it make then if they took an elite tackle who might give you 3 extra years?  Management and coaching either aren't good enough or get ousted.  The Rams took a RB before they got their QB and they are just fine.  It's not an impossible task.

We've over the last decade seen plenty of teams with young QBs start to compete within 1-3 seasons of their career.  Panthers went 12-4 3 years after drafting Cam.  Eagles made it to the Super Bowl (and won) 2 years after taking Wentz.  Seahawks won the Super Bowl 2 years after taking Wilson.  Falcons had a ton of immediate success after taking Ryan.  Ravens had a ton of immediate success after taking Flacco.  Rams are killing it.  Chiefs are killing it.  If the QB you take is good, it ain't gonna take that long.  And if the QB you take somehow can't lead your team to some kind of success within the 6 years he plays with elite-Barkley (assuming that is his his max), then that probably isn't the QB your team needs.  And that is far more than just a "you took a RB in the 1st" problem.  It's a "your QB isn't good" problem, and that problem would have existed no matter who the Giants took instead of Barkley.  But for some reason people only care because it's a RB. 

Does an elite RB give you 7 years, though? It seems that teams right now either trade good young RB's or don't want to give them their first huge contracts by the time their rookie deals expire. The Rams took their RB before the QB and also revamped their coaching staff and even if you look at Gurley's stats right now, they're not that impressive when you dig deeper. 

The problem with RB's also being taken in the top 10 is that you can find RB talent in every single round of the draft. You can't do that for many other positions, at least consistently. So why, if you can get the same production, would you spend a top 10 pick on a RB when you can get that same production in the 3rd or 4th round?

2 minutes ago, .Buzz said:

I watched every single game, sometimes twice over. So yes, I may not have tons upon tons of time on my hands or a PFF subscription to dive deeper into this argument with statistical evidence. Sorry.

I don't have a PFF subscription, either. But I mean if all you have is "I watched every game" vs. actual statistics, I don't think you're going to fare very well.

[tyler735]

1 hour ago, TheVillain112 said:

Alright, I'll play devil's advocate.

1. Le'Veon Bell is a generational talent; James Connor was easily able to replace him.
2. 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?
3. 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...

The problem I have with this is that this logic can be used to other positions as well.

WR:

Antonio Brown- 6th round

Michael Thomas- 2nd round

Adam Thielen- Undrafted

Tyreek Hill- 5th round

Emmanuel Sanders- 3rd round

 

CB:

AJ Bouye- Undrafted

Richard Sherman- 5th round

Casey Hayward- 2nd round

Chris Harris- 6th round

Josh Norman- 5th round

 

I think all it comes down to is if you think a guy can be a great player regardless of position, they are worth the top 10 draft spot. 

 

[footbull3196]

3 hours ago, ET80 said:

Fournette is the one exception I think of in this recent run of superbacks, and it has to do more with his injuries vs his talent. People are dogging him now, but he evicerated a few teams last season, was the centerpiece of that Jags offense that was top 10 in scoring last season.

This isn't a T-Rich situation here, Fournette was a machine for that offense.

Exactly my thoughts.  Fournette missed 3 games last season and still rushed for over 1000 yards.  Mostly everyone expected him to be the guy carrying their offense this year and understandably so

[iknowcool]

20 minutes ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

Does an elite RB give you 7 years, though?

It depends on who you consider elite, I suppose.  Elite is a strong word so just going with RBs who were legitimately good to great and only considering the years where they were still playing at a high level:

McCoy had 2010-2017 (8 seasons), and he could have given 9 if he wasn't limited as a rookie.  LDT 2001-2008 (8 seasons), and still managed 1200 YFS in 2010.  Steven Jackson 2005-2012 (8 seasons).  Frank Gore 2006-2014 (9 seasons).  Adrian Peterson 2007-2015 (8 seasons; not 9 because he missed 2014).  Curtis Martin 1995-2004 (10 seasons).  Marshawn Lynch 2007-2014, although was still playing well this season (6 seasons; 7 depending on how you feel about 2010 while injuries cost him 2009).  Even Chris Johnson, who was legitimately elite but flamed out faster than most, had 5 productive seasons although inflated by some boom games.

And that is without getting into some even better RBs.  So I'd say about 7 is a good estimate.

As far as getting the same production from a mid-round back, maybe for one season but I disagree that it's relatively easy to find someone giving you that kind of production on a consistent year-to-year basis.  But even if I did agree, you are then essentially suggesting you should pass on a player like Barkley on the oft-chance you get someone as good in the 4th (unlikely; people point out Hunt/Kamara but it's not like you're seeing guys like them come out every year).  And I just can't get behind that.  It's never wrong to take an All-Pro caliber player in the first.  

If someone cared enough to do the research, I actually wonder what the ratio is for "successful" RBs vs failed RBs taken in the 3rd and beyond.  I'd reckon WR and RB are the two most picked positions after the 1st/2nd, so naturally you see more success stories.  Doesn't necessarily mean your chances of being a good RB in the 4th are that much better than picking a good guard or defensive tackle.

[TheVillain112]

19 minutes ago, tyler735 said:

The problem I have with this is that this logic can be used to other positions as well.

WR:

Antonio Brown- 6th round

Michael Thomas- 2nd round

Adam Thielen- Undrafted

Tyreek Hill- 5th round

Emmanuel Sanders- 3rd round

 

CB:

AJ Bouye- Undrafted

Richard Sherman- 5th round

Casey Hayward- 2nd round

Chris Harris- 6th round

Josh Norman- 5th round

 

I think all it comes down to is if you think a guy can be a great player regardless of position, they are worth the top 10 draft spot. 

 

Just talking about in the context of this thread.  No one is saying "Hey, Julio Jones is a great WR so it's fine to take WRs in the Top 10".  If that thread gets created, I'll make similar arguments against that.

The point, I'm defending is that QB, Coaching/Scheme, OL, DL, and CBs are what teams should prioritize.  It doesn't mean ignoring everything else, but we've seen time and time again combinations of Dion Lewis/James White at RB, and Alshon Jeffery/Nelson Agholar at WR winning Championships.  It's nice to have someone as talented as Gurley on the roster, but he's 6th/7th on the list of priorities of what makes a championship team.  Rams got bounced out of the playoffs last year, and decided this offseason to prioritize getting Suh, and some quality corner backs.  If they do advance further than last season, that will be a big reason why...

[Nzd07]

I think taking an elite RB at 10 is fine. If you are spending a top 5 pick, however, on a RB... he better be generational. And that includes being an elite pass protector (which Barkley isn't).

Giants and Jaguars are wishing they had their picks back, imo. Considering how horrible their QBs are.

[RandyMossIsBoss]

Overall, I'm still going to say no, it is not wise to draft RBs high. "High" is a spectrum though, and as you reach the lower end of it, it becomes less of a bad pick. Gurley being such a success at #9 does not justify taking an RB at #2 (Barkley), if that's what you're getting at. The difference between those picks is enormous, in fact the #2 pick is nearly twice as valuable as the #9 pick, per the trade value chart. Not an exact science, but a good indicator. Of course in certain drafts that #2 pick is worth 5x as much than the #9 pick (like 2012), in others, it's not even worth 1.5x as much (like 2013).

There is no such thing as a "guarantee." Who thought Trent Richardson would be a bust? Probably about as few people who thought Barkley would be. Now Barkley was definitely considered a better prospect, make no mistake about that, but Trent was considered special in his own right and pretty can't miss. Not exactly easy to project how an RB's vision will translate.

 

RB is simply the least valuable position to me, that is why I will say it is generally not smart to take one high. First off, lack of shelf life. Goes without saying, RBs do not last long. I don't think anyone will debate this, you can expect a good RB to play at a high level for a much shorter period of time than you can with a player at any other position. Secondly, abundance of talent. This is arguable, and you'll have to do a very thorough breakdown to really prove/disprove the notion, but it would appear far easier to find gems at the RB position past round 1 than anywhere else. In other words, at a position where there are only 32 starting spots, I believe you rattle off as many "good" players at it than you can at a position with 64 starting spots (like DE, OT or CB). Again, this is just what I tend to believe based off what I can recall, but admittedly don't have hard evidence for. Lastly, it's a passing league, and has been for quite some time. Adrian Peterson, an all-time great running back, only sniffed 1 SB, and it just so happened to be the season he had a HOF QB who had one of the best years of his career. Of course as RBs are staples of the pass game now, this applies less and less as a reason why RBs have less value to me.

 

RBs have the potential to be one of the most impactful players on your team, no doubt, but what surrounds them can make the difference between 76 YPG, 3.2 Y/C and 139 YPG, 4.7 Y/C (as we saw with Gurley from 2016 to 2017). Obviously supporting casts effect every position, but I don't think it's this drastic anywhere else. An offensive tackle can still block his man, a cornerback can still shutdown a WR, a defensive end can still get pressure, etc., if they are in equally poor circumstances relative to their position, as Gurley was in 2016.

 

 

Ultimately though, as it usually tends to, it comes down to circumstances for me. Special talent falls to you at #9 because of an injury that doesn't scare you? Go ahead (Gurley). 1 year removed from a 15-1 season, much of core still intact, picking top 10 because of a season you believe was a bit flukey and can possibly be attributed to a single missing piece, playmaking RB? Go ahead (CMac). 1 year removed from 12-4 season off the back of a dominant run game, now picking #4 due to your QB going down and in need of a RB to run behind an OL you heavily invested in? Go ahead (Zeke). In these cases, I think the gamble on the RB in the top 10 was worth it.