Jump to content

The Official Combine, AKA "Underwear Olympics" Thread


MWil23

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, buno67 said:

that size and that strength but he can’t be a power runner/down hill runner

 

Can't be/Hasn't shown are two different things. Plus, he wasn't asked to. He may not be able to, but he could be incredible at it. As of right now, that's not his game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, buno67 said:

that size and that strength but he can’t be a power runner/down hill runner

He has the strength/size/measurables for it but it takes more than that. I don't think anyone really expects him to be that kind of runner though. Bounce tackles sometimes I just don't see the mentality or body structure to be a power back. You don't have to be a power back to be an every down back though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dawgpoun8017 said:

I really don’t give a flying F%#&$ If he is a power back what I do know is he is a really good running back and his strength is when he is in space he is damn hard to touch. He is LT 2.0

He's 3 inches bigger and 12 pounds heavier than Tomlinson was at the combine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dawgpoun8017 said:

I really don’t give a flying F%#&$ If he is a power back what I do know is he is a really good running back and his strength is when he is in space he is damn hard to touch. He is LT 2.0

Don’t wanna miss out on the slew of rings than inevitably follow great running backs, amirite!?!??

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Don’t wanna miss out on the slew of rings than inevitably follow great running backs, amirite!?!??

;)

Well had the chargers rode out the Brees train I am sure that LT would have atleast one ring. I’m not saying QB isn’t a need it most assuredly is. I think people are downgrading the fact that Barkley is arguably the top player in this whole draft due to the fact that he is a running back. And the defense and running game blueprint certainly worked pretty good for Jacksonville 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dawgpoun8017 said:

Well had the chargers rode out the Brees train I am sure that LT would have atleast one ring.

Hard to argue against pure speculation.

3 minutes ago, Dawgpoun8017 said:

I’m not saying QB isn’t a need it most assuredly is. I think people are downgrading the fact that Barkley is arguably the top player in this whole draft due to the fact that he is a running back.

What makes him better than Neslon?  Why do people pretend position doesn’t enter into the value equation?

3 minutes ago, Dawgpoun8017 said:

And the defense and running game blueprint certainly worked pretty good for Jacksonville 

Absolutely, but I’d argue the former had a lot more to do with their success than the latter.  They weren’t winning because Fournette was running wild on teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Aztec Hammer said:

If we pass on Barkley for a lesser talent because of subjective ideas of positional value, I'll be pissed.

If we pass on Barkley because we think the other guy we're taking is a better football player... fair enough.

Yep.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: STICK TO YOUR DRAFT BOARD. We got ourselves in trouble with that in the past (DeShaun Watson). Draft your #1 ranked QB at #1 (it had better be Darnold) and then whoever is #1 on your board at #4, unless that player is also a QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A draft board should have that positional value factored in.

I don’t care how good a punter is, they’re never getting drafted in the top 10.

I mean, just follow the money fellas.  Who are the running backs on monster contracts? They’re viewed as an expendable commodity, use them up and discard them, usually well before 30. THAT is what we’re going to spend the 4th pick on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

A draft board should have that positional value factored in.

I don’t care how good a punter is, they’re never getting drafted in the top 10.

And I agree with this, but at the same point, comparing a punter to a RB is a bit of a stretch. Let's be honest here, if he's an elite RB, he's getting 25-30 total touches a game, responsible for a nice chunk of scoring, plus helping out in blocking situations another 10-15 snaps a game. Conservatively, even not factoring in the blocking responsibilities, they're responsible for close to 40% of the offensive scheme. I'd rather draft a RB in the top 10 as opposed to a slot receiver, which is what Corey Coleman will probably end up being (although he was picked in the teens) or what Jarvis "LOL, they are paying that guy $16 million!!!!!" Landry is.

7 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

I mean, just follow the money fellas.  Who are the running backs on monster contracts? They’re viewed as an expendable commodity, use them up and discard them, usually well before 30.

I think that we're looking at a few different things here.

1. The shelf life for RB's is generally shorter than other positions. This is a valid concern.

2. They aren't making top end money BECAUSE of those rookie 4-5 year contracts. If a team believes that RB's don't last as long, you're better off letting them play off their rookie contract for 5 years, then back to back franchise tagging them. See: Pittsburgh with LeVeon Bell.

Correlation often times doesn't mean causation. It's the old chicken vs. the egg argument.

7 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

THAT is what we’re going to spend the 4th pick on?

I'd rather draft a super-stud 21 year old RB with the #4 pick who has an UNBELIEVABLE 6 year career, following by a "pretty good" 2 year career, and then falls off at 29/30 than basically any single player we've ever drafted in the Top 5 since the start of the New Browns era aside from Joe Thomas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...