Todd Gurley

[El Ramster]

5 minutes ago, RandyMossIsBoss said:

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.

Gurley was 10th.

Giants took a unit of a player in Flowers at 9. 

[tyler735]

1 hour ago, TheVillain112 said:

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...

I agree that QB is incredibly valuable for a team to have a good shot at winning the Super Bowl. If we take the guys that have been considered Elite (Top 5 the past 20 years or so), the majority of Super Bowls have been won by them:

1997/1998- John Elway

1999- Kurt Warner

2001/2003/2004/2015/2016- Tom Brady

2005/2008- Ben Roethlisberger

2006/2016*- Peyton Manning

2009- Drew Brees

2010- Aaron Rodgers

The problem is these types of QB's aren't available in every draft. So if you don't have a franchise caliber QB, your odds of winning a Super Bowl are very low. The chances of landing a guy like this isn't very high either. Winning with guys like Dion Lewis/James White takes a GOAT caliber QB like Tom Brady, and a HOF caliber coach like Belichick. Guys like Alshon Jeffery and Nelson Agholar were 1st/2nd round picks. Football is a team game, essentially after QB, there isn't a huge difference in value between positions, and if you are picking in the top 10 and think a guy can be a key difference maker for your team, you would be foolish to not pick him due to positional value (obviously not including special teams). 

Having a great OL/DL is nice, but just like having a top RB, it doesn't always transfer to championships. The Browns for years had guys like Joe Thomas, Alex Mack, Joel Bitonio, etc. on their OL, and had some really solid overall OL's, but never had much success. The Vikings had some absolutely beastly DL's in the mid/late 00's with guys like Kevin Williams, Pat Wiliams, Jared Allen, and Brian Robison, but never won a championship. 

If the Rams didn't have Gurley last year, they likely don't win as many games, which would completely negate the signings they made this offseason. 

[jrry32]

Ugh. This again.

1 hour ago, RandyMossIsBoss said:

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.

What were Goff's stats in 2016 vs. 2017?

[tyler735]

2 hours ago, RandyMossIsBoss said:

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.

An Offensive Tackle can look very poor if a QB doesn't get rid of the ball quickly. Robert Griffin struggled with this a ton in the NFL. His internal clock just wasn't great, and it led to a ton of unnecessary sacks with the Redskins, which made guys like Trent Williams look bad at times. 

If a Defensive Line doesn't get consistent pressure, then it's obviously going to force CB's to cover longer. The longer they are forced to cover, the worse they are going to look regardless of how talented they are.  

I think RB's is the most glaring one simply due to things like fantasy football as people tend to focus on stats more than other positions like CB/OL, but I think these types of issues with supporting casts play a role in all positions. I'd argue that a versatile RB can overcome some of the issues with the OL with their ability to catch the ball out of the backfield with guys like Bell, Gurley, Kamara, etc.

[Jlowe22]

26 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

Ugh. This again.

What were Goff's stats in 2016 vs. 2017?

I'm not arguing his point for him, but how much of this is rookie Goff vs a Goff with a bit more experience?

[Nabbs4u]

6 hours ago, iknowcool said:

Selecting an All-Pro caliber player in the top ten is always worth it regardless of position, other than kicker/punter.

Exactly. Sick of hearing the excuses about not taking a RB that high. For every top 10 RB bust someone can point out I bet I could double if not triple it on QB's.

Now pairing said Generational RB with an above average QB moving forward is the key for long term success for that team. Otherwise you're just drafting the next Barry Sanders or AP.

Great to have, fun to watch but not getting you to a SB by themselves.

 

[Nzd07]

5 minutes ago, Jlowe22 said:

I'm not arguing his point for him, but how much of this is rookie Goff vs a Goff with a bit more experience?

Fair point, and I'm sure that did have a factor. But I think it's pretty obvious that coaching & supporting cast were the bigger factors in Goff's improvement. 

Typically, rookie QBs don't come in right away and play well. However, a lot of that is due to the fact that rookie quarterbacks are typically starting on bad teams. Russel Wilson & Ben Roethlisberger looked good their rookie years. No coincidence that the 2004 Steelers & 2012 Seahawks were both talented & well-coached squads.

[Jlowe22]

2 minutes ago, Nzd07 said:

Fair point, and I'm sure that did have a factor. But I think it's pretty obvious that coaching & supporting cast were the bigger factors in Goff's improvement. 

Typically, rookie QBs don't come in right away and play well. However, a lot of that is due to the fact that rookie quarterbacks are typically starting on bad teams. Russel Wilson & Ben Roethlisberger looked good their rookie years. No coincidence that the 2004 Steelers & 2012 Seahawks were both talented & well-coached squads.

Oh it definitely makes a difference, there's no doubt.  I'm only saying most people tend to get better at almost anything through practice and experience.(up to a certain point of diminishing returns).  And some rookies are better prepared for the NFL than others.  A bit of experience in processing the game and reading defenses, etc can go a long way.  And it takes time to learn those things.

[iknowcool]

Just wanted to see how much there was to whether there being more successful mid round RBs had to do with it being easier vs there simply being more taken.  I suggest some of you look at the RBs drafted in the 4th and beyond.  More often than not, they sucked and were out the league in 2-3 years.  Looking at some of the names, it reminded me of how hard it is for stud college RBs to transition to the NFL sometimes.  Bishop Sankey and Lache Seastrunk were names I totally forgot about.

Looking at 2013-2015 (2016, 2017, and 2018 are too soon), beginning 7 years back which is about how long you would expect all these successful mid-to-late round backs that supposedly give you production near or equal to the top backs to last:

2015 NFL Draft: There were 18 RBs drafted.  12 out of the 18 are still in the league.  There were 24 OTs drafted.  17 out of the 24 are still in the league.

2014 NFL Draft:  There were 20 RBs drafted.  7 out of the 20 are still in the league.  There were 20 OTs drafted.  15 out of the 20 are still in the league.

2013 NFL Draft: There were 24 RBs drafted.  8 out of the 24 are still in the league.  There were 19 OTs drafted.  11 out of the 19 are still in the league.

2012 NFL Draft: There were 19 RBs drafted.  4 out of the 19 are still in the league.  There were 19 OTs drafted.  7 out of the 19 are still in the league.

This is an imperfect formula obviously, but what it does show me is there isn't some massive hit rate on RBs like some would have you here believe.  You are much more likely to draft one of those big name college RBs who "magically" fell than you are someone who is actually good.  There wasn't a single year where there was a higher % of RBs lasting than higher % of OTs lasting.

The idea that its stupid easy to find RBs who can give you 1st-round production in the 3rd and beyond rounds seems bogus to me.  Where's the proof?  If anything, its just a matter of it being easier for fans to point out said players because of the numbers they put up, whereas a late-round offensive lineman might be good but the casual fan isn't going to notice it.  Not that anyone on this site is a casual fan, but none of us are likely paying attention to every teams offensive line.  For example, the Panthers have had FAR more success with 3rd round + offensive lineman (Turner, Norwell, Williams) than late-round RBs, who have always sucked for us.  So are the Panthers the one team who finds it easier to draft late offensive lineman, or even UDFAs, than RBs?  I doubt it.

But then you get guys like Kamara and Hunt tearing it up (RB is also a position that can excel sooner than lineman, so that helps play into the misconception) and everyone starts to act like that is the norm or something.  They are exceptions for a reason.  Heck lets look at the 2016 draft, where Zeke went #2.  Here were the RBs taken after the 2nd round:

Kenyan Drake, CJ Prosise, Tyler Ervin, Kenneth Dixon, Devontae Booker, DeAndre Washington, Paul Perkins, Jordan Howard, Wendell Smallwood, Jonathan Williams, Alex Collins, Kelvin Taylor, Darius Jackson, Dwayne Washington, Daniel Lasco, Keith Marshall, Zac Brooks

Which of those RBs am I supposed to believe are giving you easy 1st round production other than Howard?   Maybeeee Kenyan Drake??  The rules people put on not taking a RB high would have them passing on Ezekiel Elliot on the unlikely chance you end up being the team that picked Jordan Howard (1 out of 32 teams, 1 out of 17 post-2nd round RBs).  How is that easy?

[jrry32]

43 minutes ago, Jlowe22 said:

I'm not arguing his point for him, but how much of this is rookie Goff vs a Goff with a bit more experience?

I don't know. Point is that the entire Rams offense made a massive leap at the same time. All of our young offensive players miraculously improved significantly.

[RandyMossIsBoss]

2 hours ago, tyler735 said:

An Offensive Tackle can look very poor if a QB doesn't get rid of the ball quickly. Robert Griffin struggled with this a ton in the NFL. His internal clock just wasn't great, and it led to a ton of unnecessary sacks with the Redskins, which made guys like Trent Williams look bad at times. 

If a Defensive Line doesn't get consistent pressure, then it's obviously going to force CB's to cover longer. The longer they are forced to cover, the worse they are going to look regardless of how talented they are.  

I think RB's is the most glaring one simply due to things like fantasy football as people tend to focus on stats more than other positions like CB/OL, but I think these types of issues with supporting casts play a role in all positions. I'd argue that a versatile RB can overcome some of the issues with the OL with their ability to catch the ball out of the backfield with guys like Bell, Gurley, Kamara, etc.

You're arguing how players are perceived, I'm arguing how players actually perform. Behind a poor OL and/or against loaded boxes due to no passing threat, a RB literally cannot perform their job, it's like they do not even get a chance. For an OT, you're saying the QB holds onto the ball too long, so the OT did his job but the QB didn't. For a CB, you're saying the QB had all day to throw and connected with a CB's man on a broken route or something of that nature, so the CB did his job. Nobody ever stopped considering Joe Thomas great  despite probably a slew of QBs who held onto the ball too long.  Nobody stops considering PP great because he no longer gets INTs due to QBs not throwing his way often. 

Again, as I said, it does effect every position. I'm just saying it by far seems to effect RBs the most. How else do we explain Gurley having an all time statistically bad 2016, and then an amazing 2017? Hard to say "he improved as a player" when before 2016 he had a great year. You expect down years when in poor situations, but disappearing acts? I mean we're seeing it now with David Johnson. 

[RandyMossIsBoss]

56 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

I don't know. Point is that the entire Rams offense made a massive leap at the same time. All of our young offensive players miraculously improved significantly.

but Gurley already had 2015. Goff was a rookie, so in his case we can theorize he actually improved as a player, as is often the case for most players outside of RB (who generally come into the league hot).

"Entire Rams offense made a leap"... The entire WR corp in 2017 wasn't even on the roster in 2016. Quick look and it appears the OL started 3 new faces. So only Gurley, Goff, Saffold and Havenstein remained as far as I can tell. Not sure if either of those guys were considered trash in 2016 and then good in 2017, but I know in Havenstein's case he was a young player, so again, can reasonably be expected to improve.

[jrry32]

11 minutes ago, RandyMossIsBoss said:

You're arguing how players are perceived, I'm arguing how players actually perform. Behind a poor OL and/or against loaded boxes due to no passing threat, a RB literally cannot perform their job, it's like they do not even get a chance. For an OT, you're saying the QB holds onto the ball too long, so the OT did his job but the QB didn't. For a CB, you're saying the QB had all day to throw and connected with a CB's man on a broken route or something of that nature, so the CB did his job.  

Again, as I said, it does effect every position. I'm just saying it by far seems to effect RBs the most. How else do we explain Gurley having an all time statistically bad 2016, and then an amazing 2017? Hard to say "he improved as a player" when before 2016 he had a great year. You expect down years when in poor situations, but disappearing acts? I mean we're seeing it now with David Johnson. 

Dude, what you're saying isn't true. Jason Peters led the NFL in sacks allowed the season right before he was traded to y'all. If you have a bad overall OL, a bad scheme, and/or a bad QB, you can make an individual on that OL look bad. The same is true for any other position. With HBs, it just so happens to be easier to quantify due to all the statistical measures. Football is a team sport. After QBs, nobody touches the ball on offense more than the HB. To claim that the position doesn't have a major impact or that they're more reliant on supporting cast than other non-QB positions is just nuts. I always see silly opinions like that in these debates. The nice part of the HB resurgence is that we're seeing some people reevaluate their "HBs aren't valuable" stance (that was only viable because the NFL lacked talent at the position during that time period).

[jrry32]

4 minutes ago, RandyMossIsBoss said:

but Gurley already had 2015. Goff was a rookie, so in his case we can theorize he actually improved as a player, as is often the case for most players outside of RB (who generally come into the league hot).

"Entire Rams offense made a leap"... The entire WR corp in 2017 wasn't even on the roster in 2016. Quick look and it appears the OL started 3 new faces. So only Gurley, Goff, Saffold and Havenstein remained as far as I can tell. Not sure if either of those guys were considered trash in 2016 and then good in 2017, but I know in Havenstein's case he was a young player, so again, can reasonably be expected to improve.

Gurley having 2015 undermines your argument. He put up great numbers in 2015 on a terrible offense. Your theory only seems plausible if you ignore everything else that happened at the time. Here are the starters in 2017:

QB: Goff (terrible in 2016 and great in 2017)

HB: Gurley (terrible in 2016 and great in 2017)

WR: Watkins (no real change)

WR: Woods (broke out unexpectedly after we were panned for signing him in FA)

WR: Kupp (rookie)

TE: Higbee (improved)

LT: Whitworth (no real change)

LG: Saffold (average in 2016 and All Pro in 2017)

C: Sullivan (washed up in 2016 and good in 2017)

RG: Brown (so terrible he was benched for other terrible players in 2016 and average in 2017)

RT: Havenstein (well below average in 2016 and one of the best RTs in 2017)

Every single player from the 2016 Rams who remained a starter (6 out of 11) improved. 5 out of 11 improved significantly. Both Gurley and Havenstein went from great rookie years in 2015 to struggling in 2016 back to great in 2017. Simply put, trying to isolate Gurley as the only guy who benefited immensely from better coaching, a better scheme, and a better supporting cast is quite out of touch with what actually happened.

[candyman93]

8 hours ago, iknowcool said:

Selecting an All-Pro caliber player in the top ten is always worth it regardless of position, other than kicker/punter.

With how bad field goal kicking has been, I wouldn’t rule out a kicker.