Path to the draft....trades, rumors, etc

[Solar7]

I've never said the chances of getting a good RB are as high in the 5th.

My point has always been that high round running backs don't improve a teams chance of winning anywhere near as much as other positions. As the article proves in every way.

And its not just this article. I could show you several similar.

Better run blocking and play calling is far more important.

Except... the stats on 2nd and 3rd round RBs will blow your argument out of the water, as that's where ~80% of the league's starters come from. That's still high round. Other positions be damned, unless you have an MVP candidate at QB, you still need a good run game.

You don't. Most everyone else does.

There's literally a 3 year starter on the roster for a team that's made the playoffs 2 out of the last 4 seasons he was there.

Said team let him walk even though he only made under $2 million and is highly likely to take a 1st round RB, so it's ironic.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

I've never said the chances of getting a good RB are as high in the 5th.

My point has always been that high round running backs don't improve a teams chance of winning anywhere near as much as other positions. As the article proves in every way.

And its not just this article. I could show you several similar.

Better run blocking and play calling is far more important.

Second round is the sweet spot. I hope one is there for us.

 

[Stout]

We already covered these points at length

1. You don't need a knight in shining armor
2. Many, many teams have made or won the SB with worse RB's. Including the 2008 Cardinals.
3. A good RB isn't the key to a good offense. A good offense is key to a good running back.

Right. You just keep repeating the same things as if you're any kind of authority and I should shut up because my opinion has no value. Which is, of course, completely absurd. There's a middle ground between wanting a HOF RB and wanting a starting-quality RB. You can't just plug a crap player in--or a late-round pick in--and automatically be successful. Which, despite many protestations to the contrary, is repeated ad nauseum by so many of the so-called RB experts on this board right now.

Plus, give me Timmy Hightower over what we have any day. We don't have a good RB on the roster. We have, at best, good-adjacent RBs. Or RB, singular. Plus, baloney that you don't need a good RB. Good is the minimum, because bad RBs aren't going to be elevated no matter the OL talent.

 

[QuebecCard]

Right. You just keep repeating the same things as if you're any kind of authority and I should shut up because my opinion has no value. Which is, of course, completely absurd. There's a middle ground between wanting a HOF RB and wanting a starting-quality RB. You can't just plug a crap player in--or a late-round pick in--and automatically be successful. Which, despite many protestations to the contrary, is repeated ad nauseum by so many of the so-called RB experts on this board right now.

Plus, give me Timmy Hightower over what we have any day. We don't have a good RB on the roster. We have, at best, good-adjacent RBs. Or RB, singular. Plus, baloney that you don't need a good RB. Good is the minimum, because bad RBs aren't going to be elevated no matter the OL talent.

Tim Hightower....... 5th. round pick.

 

[Stout]

Tim Hightower....... 5th. round pick.

Like that's some kind of mic drop? Exception meet rule LOL

Please, say it outright--you think ANY late-round pick will do just fine as a starting RB in the NFL. Go ahead. It's what you and others believe. Just admit it lol

 

[QuebecCard]

Like that's some kind of mic drop? Exception meet rule LOL

Please, say it outright--you think ANY late-round pick will do just fine as a starting RB in the NFL. Go ahead. It's what you and others believe. Just admit it lol

It's a mic drop, everybody knows it's a mic drop.... and "everybody" includes YOU!

Q: how many exceptions before a rule is no longer a rule? I can think of a Hall of Fame RB who went undrafted, garnered an MVP and Super Bowl?

(and weak-sauce attempt to drag me in)

 

[Stout]

It's a mic drop, everybody knows it's a mic drop.... and "everybody" includes YOU!

(and weak-sauce attempt to drag me in)

Q: how many exceptions before a rule is no longer a rule? I can think of a Hall of Fame RB who went undrafted, garnered an MVP and Super Bowl?

LOL @ the idea I'm trying to drag you in. If that's not your position, say so. If your position is "I'm okay with our RBs and thus am comfortable waiting until the later rounds to address the position," great! I might disagree, but it's reasonable. Say so. If your position is "Literally any RB picked in the late rounds will plug in and be successful," admit you're a moron now and get it over with

 

[BritCard]

Except... the stats on 2nd and 3rd round RBs will blow your argument out of the water, as that's where ~80% of the league's starters come from. That's still high round. Other positions be damned, unless you have an MVP candidate at QB, you still need a good run game.



Said team let him walk even though he only made under $2 million and is highly likely to take a 1st round RB, so it's ironic.

"Higher round running backs perform better than lower round running backs. Except 2nd and 3rd round running backs who are better than 1st round running backs"

Which is it?

 

[BritCard]

Second round is the sweet spot. I hope one is there for us.

I'd avoid RB completely this year in 1 or 2. I don't think it's a great class. There's no such thing anymore as a bad RB class, you can get production from most, but there's nobody in round 2 this year that I believe compares to what you would normally find in a good class. There's no Chubbs, Henrys or even Jonathan Taylors I can see this year.

Harris is the best in the class, and as I said before I don't think he's top 3 in some recent years.

 

[Stout]

"Higher round running backs perform better than lower round running backs. Except 2nd and 3rd round running backs who are better than 1st round running backs"

Which is it?

I'm sorry, I'm not hungry right now. No thank you to the words you're trying to put into my mouth.

You don't want to come out and state your actual opinion or stance on the topic? No problem. I'll delineate mine: "I don't think it's smart to wait until the later rounds to draft a RB if you need a starting RB from the draft." I don't have to state "You can't just literally plug anyone it at the position and guarantee success." Spock would sniff and turn his nose up at that.

So, there. That's my clearly stated opinion on the topic at hand. Without prevarication or equivocation, can you honestly post yours?

And, who am I kidding; I'm always hungry

 

[BritCard]

Right. You just keep repeating the same things as if you're any kind of authority and I should shut up because my opinion has no value. Which is, of course, completely absurd. There's a middle ground between wanting a HOF RB and wanting a starting-quality RB. You can't just plug a crap player in--or a late-round pick in--and automatically be successful. Which, despite many protestations to the contrary, is repeated ad nauseum by so many of the so-called RB experts on this board right now.

Plus, give me Timmy Hightower over what we have any day. We don't have a good RB on the roster. We have, at best, good-adjacent RBs. Or RB, singular. Plus, baloney that you don't need a good RB. Good is the minimum, because bad RBs aren't going to be elevated no matter the OL talent.

I'm no authority on it, the history book is the authority. Analytics are the authority on it. I've shown you years and years of history of superbowl finalists and winners with poor to average RB rooms where starting RB's didn;t top 600 yards, never mind 1k. There's far, far more data saying that you don't need anything better than what we have right now. Then there's a whole bunch of articles about how RB has no value anymore, about how drafting one high or paying one mega money is stupid in todays game.

And in the face of all this data you still want a high draft pick or a guy that would command $8-$10m a year. Both things which all analytics say are silly.

I'd still like to add more to the room, I'd like another cheap vet with experience like Gallman. But otherwise I think there's plenty of talent, if our O line and play calling are good.

 

[BritCard]

I'm sorry, I'm not hungry right now. No thank you to the words you're trying to put into my mouth.

You don't want to come out and state your actual opinion or stance on the topic? No problem. I'll delineate mine: "I don't think it's smart to wait until the later rounds to draft a RB if you need a starting RB from the draft." I don't have to state "You can't just literally plug anyone it at the position and guarantee success." Spock would sniff and turn his nose up at that.

So, there. That's my clearly stated opinion on the topic at hand. Without prevarication or equivocation, can you honestly post yours?

And, who am I kidding; I'm always hungry

I was talking to Solar

 

[Stout]

I was talking to Solar

You were talking to the board; I didn't see a quote

Nice dodge, again, btw. I'm thinking you're maybe in the "Spock is looking at you" category?

 

[Solar7]

Second round is the sweet spot. I hope one is there for us.

I don't think we'll take a 2nd round RB even if they're there for us anymore, I think Keim thinks he's the smartest guy in the room.

"Higher round running backs perform better than lower round running backs. Except 2nd and 3rd round running backs who are better than 1st round running backs"

Which is it?

I have clearly stated my position many times here, which none of you seem to, although you at least got closer in saying "I'd avoid RB completely this year in 1 or 2." Your argument is functionally "don't take an RB this year, we are fine," or as Stout is asking people to be clear about, "you can plug just anyone from the 5th round on and they'll be fine," which is an opinion clearly shot out of the air with simple stats, but you're entitled to your stance.

My position is "I would take the risk of taking a 1st round running back this year because I do not believe we will have an opportunity to take a back who will make an impact on our offense in the other picks available to us. I do not feel any of the remaining free agent class provides what is needed either."

I'm no authority on it, the history book is the authority. Analytics are the authority on it. I've shown you years and years of history of superbowl finalists and winners with poor to average RB rooms where starting RB's didn;t top 600 yards, never mind 1k. There's far, far more data saying that you don't need anything better than what we have right now. Then there's a whole bunch of articles about how RB has no value anymore, about how drafting one high or paying one mega money is stupid in todays game.

And in the face of all this data you still want a high draft pick or a guy that would command $8-$10m a year. Both things which all analytics say are silly.

I'd still like to add more to the room, I'd like another cheap vet with experience like Gallman. But otherwise I think there's plenty of talent, if our O line and play calling are good.

Your Super Bowl numbers were already debunked in this very thread. Unless you have the greatest of all time QB, which we don't, you still need a good RB to help you get there unless there's a complete anomaly.

Using the Eagles as an indicator of how to get to the Super Bowl is basically ridiculous, we all know how unlikely it was for them to get hot and make it. But if we're going to use their run as success, then we don't need Kyler, Colt McCoy is obviously our path to the Super Bowl, since you "can" win it all with a backup QB.

Long story short: You are making an argument about what this team should do if all things were considered equal with the assets of past teams. Of course other teams are seeing success with 3rd round picks and such. We don't have that luxury.

 

[BritCard]

You were talking to the board; I didn't see a quote

Nice dodge, again, btw. I'm thinking you're maybe in the "Spock is looking at you" category?

Solar's quote was right there in my message you replied to. I wasn't putting words in your mouth.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Right. You just keep repeating the same things as if you're any kind of authority and I should shut up because my opinion has no value. Which is, of course, completely absurd. There's a middle ground between wanting a HOF RB and wanting a starting-quality RB. You can't just plug a crap player in--or a late-round pick in--and automatically be successful. Which, despite many protestations to the contrary, is repeated ad nauseum by so many of the so-called RB experts on this board right now.

Plus, give me Timmy Hightower over what we have any day. We don't have a good RB on the roster. We have, at best, good-adjacent RBs. Or RB, singular. Plus, baloney that you don't need a good RB. Good is the minimum, because bad RBs aren't going to be elevated no matter the OL talent.

If you'd rather have Tim Hightower than James Conner...I don't know what else to say.

Conner has been to a Pro Bowl.

 

[Krangodnzr]

I don't think we'll take a 2nd round RB even if they're there for us anymore, I think Keim thinks he's the smartest guy in the room.


I have clearly stated my position many times here, which none of you seem to, although you at least got closer in saying "I'd avoid RB completely this year in 1 or 2." Your argument is functionally "don't take an RB this year, we are fine," or as Stout is asking people to be clear about, "you can plug just anyone from the 5th round on and they'll be fine," which is an opinion clearly shot out of the air with simple stats, but you're entitled to your stance.

My position is "I would take the risk of taking a 1st round running back this year because I do not believe we will have an opportunity to take a back who will make an impact on our offense in the other picks available to us. I do not feel any of the remaining free agent class provides what is needed either."


Your Super Bowl numbers were already debunked in this very thread. Unless you have the greatest of all time QB, which we don't, you still need a good RB to help you get there unless there's a complete anomaly.

Using the Eagles as an indicator of how to get to the Super Bowl is basically ridiculous, we all know how unlikely it was for them to get hot and make it. But if we're going to use their run as success, then we don't need Kyler, Colt McCoy is obviously our path to the Super Bowl, since you "can" win it all with a backup QB.

Long story short: You are making an argument about what this team should do if all things were considered equal with the assets of past teams. Of course other teams are seeing success with 3rd round picks and such. We don't have that luxury.

Nick Foles is the greatest QB of all time?

It's not ridiculous to use the Eagles, because it has been done. And it's been done with multiple teams. Teams with top RBs don't really win Super Bowls anymore. QB success is what all of this points to.

 

[Stout]

If you'd rather have Tim Hightower than James Conner...I don't know what else to say.

Conner has been to a Pro Bowl.

Haha Because we all know THAT'S a true barometer of talent.

 

[Stout]

Solar's quote was right there in my message you replied to. I wasn't putting words in your mouth.

I...did not notice that. My bad.

 

[BritCard]

Your Super Bowl numbers were already debunked in this very thread. Unless you have the greatest of all time QB, which we don't, you still need a good RB to help you get there unless there's a complete anomaly.

Using the Eagles as an indicator of how to get to the Super Bowl is basically ridiculous, we all know how unlikely it was for them to get hot and make it. But if we're going to use their run as success, then we don't need Kyler, Colt McCoy is obviously our path to the Super Bowl, since you "can" win it all with a backup QB.

Long story short: You are making an argument about what this team should do if all things were considered equal with the assets of past teams. Of course other teams are seeing success with 3rd round picks and such. We don't have that luxury.

No Solar. This was already debunked in this thread.

Eli Manning didn't have a great running back. 2015 Peyton didn't have a great running back. Nick Foles didn't have a great running back. Jimmy G didn't have a great running back. Matt Ryan didn't have a great running back, he had Freeman that just about eeked out 1000 yards, and actually I forgot the other day when you mentioned this but Jared Goff didn't have a good running back when it mattered most. Gurley was injured late in the season and played sparingly in the playoffs and SB and had something like 47 yards in the post season, although granted he helped get them to the playoffs. Cam Newton didn't have a great running back, he had 979 yards and 6 TD's from Jonathan Stewart at 4.1 YPC.

Go back a little further. The 2009 Saints didn't have a RB over 800 yards and I don't believe at that time Brees was considered a "great".

Far, far more teams have made the SB with a running back committee than a star RB. That's just a fact. And it's not even remotely close.

Edmonds, Conner and another would be enough if the rest of the offense is good enough, and if it's not it wouldn't matter anyway because never in history as a team rode a running back anywhere. Not even the best of all time, Barry Sanders.

 

[BritCard]

Haha Because we all know THAT'S a true barometer of talent.

Come on man. Hightower had 4 YPC career average and never had more than 736 yards. That's just silly.

 

[Solar7]

Nick Foles is the greatest QB of all time?

It's not ridiculous to use the Eagles, because it has been done. And it's been done with multiple teams. Teams with top RBs don't really win Super Bowls anymore. QB success is what all of this points to.

No, my point is that the Eagles are an anomaly. The 2009 Cardinals were an anomaly. One-off teams who weren't built for sustained success and had a run of particularly good games (or in the Eagles case, a run of running into teams who completely poo the bed compared to the rest of their year).

No team enters the year going "we're going to trade for our starting RB in late October, lose our starting MVP candidate QB in December, and expect to win the Super Bowl."

The conversation is about what's more likely to happen, of course we can talk about Any Given Sunday scenarios. Every team in our division could come down in the Covid protocols for weeks on end in the fall besides us and we could win the division by default, but let's not pretend it should be our strategy.

 

[Stout]

Come on man. Hightower had 4 YPC career average and never had more than 736 yards. That's just silly.

Have you read anything about what I think about Conner? It's not silly in comparison, taking that into consideration.

 

[QuebecCard]

LOL @ the idea I'm trying to drag you in. If that's not your position, say so. If your position is "I'm okay with our RBs and thus am comfortable waiting until the later rounds to address the position," great! I might disagree, but it's reasonable. Say so. If your position is "Literally any RB picked in the late rounds will plug in and be successful," admit you're a moron now and get it over with

I'm not a moron!

Wait, give me a moment, I'll check with the wife.

Ok... on this stuff she says I'm not.

 

[Solar7]

No Solar. This was already debunked in this thread.

Eli Manning didn't have a great running back. 2015 Peyton didn't have a great running back. Nick Foles didn't have a great running back. Jimmy G didn't have a great running back. Matt Ryan didn't have a great running back, he had Freeman that just about eeked out 1000 yards, and actually I forgot the other day when you mentioned this but Jared Goff didn't have a good running back when it mattered most. Gurley was injured late in the season and played sparingly in the playoffs and SB and had something like 47 yards in the post season, although granted he helped get them to the playoffs. Cam Newton didn't have a great running back, he had 979 yards and 6 TD's from Jonathan Stewart at 4.1 YPC.

Go back a little further. The 2009 Saints didn't have a RB over 800 yards and I don't believe at that time Brees was considered a "great".

Far, far more teams have made the SB with a running back committee than a star RB. That's just a fact. And it's not even remotely close.

Edmonds, Conner and another would be enough if the rest of the offense is good enough, and if it's not it wouldn't matter anyway because never in history as a team rode a running back anywhere. Not even the best of all time, Barry Sanders.

Eli Manning had the postseason's leading rusher, a guy who had bracketed 1,000 yard seasons but missed part of the season due to health. Matt Ryan had a pro-bowl RB who provided an additional 54 receptions and 462 yards in the air. Remember, the position isn't just what happens on the ground. Jimmy G had a great running system that we don't have, Goff wouldn't have gotten to the Super Bowl or the playoffs without having the RB in the first place, so it's plainly ridiculous to dismiss that. Cam Newton had a Pro Bowl RB in Stewart, whether you like it or not.

You're grasping at straws trying to point out how useless an RB is.

Drew Brees had been a 3 time Pro-Bowler up to his run with the Saints, and threw for 5,000 yards just the year prior. Yes, he was absolutely considered great and was well on the way to being considered legendary. It's not like he won that Super Bowl like 2nd year Tom Brady.

The only reason "committee" backfields have made it to the Super Bowl more in recent history is because of Tom Brady and now Patrick Mahomes.