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

[Stout]

One running back might go in the 1st round wowzers. And even that's not set in stone.

You do like to attempt to misdirect; you try with every post. It's not the number of RBs in the round. Riddle me this: Why would a top organization like the Stillers do such an "obviously stupid thing that should never, ever be done?"

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

Thank God I've already decided I'm going to start drinking again on draft night, haha.

Airplane! _ Wrong Week To Quit Drinking - YouTube

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

Why? What's better to use than data from the ultimate prize? What else matters?

That's like me saying "90% of people that make it to the top of Everest use an experienced Sherpa" and you saying "Yeah but what about those that make it to base camp?"

What a terrible analogy.

 

[QuebecCard]

I feel like this is your answer to most everything, which is fine if you're just a "sit back and watch" kind of fan, which I get. I'm that way with the Sun Devils, and the Suns to an extent (more in that I don't know as much about basketball as I do football).

But most opinionated watchers of the NFL, given the direction we went with head coach and QB just years ago, would probably paint us as an offensive-based team, closer to success there.

I'm not short on opinions but the positives and negatives on both sides of the ball last season leave me perplexed.

I could of course, like you, bloviate on everything with the basic premise that "life's a bitch and then you die" but prefer not to.

 

[BritCard]

You do like to attempt to misdirect; you try with every post. It's not the number of RBs in the round. Riddle me this: Why would a top organization like the Stillers do such an "obviously stupid thing that should never, ever be done?"

Who said it should never ever be done? I said that it was a luxury pick and unlikely to add value according to analytics.

The Steelers have very good WR's, a QB under contract and no chance of finding a replacement at #24 and a good defense. They could do with a CB but again there may not be any there at #24.

So they have the luxury of having very few holes and RB happens to be a big one for them. And I still think it's more likely they go OL or CB and take a RB in round 2.

 

[BritCard]

What a terrible analogy.

Why? Are you seriously trying to tell me that teams making the SB with RB by committee is somehow a misrepresentation of the league as a whole?

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

Why? Are you seriously trying to tell me that teams making the SB with RB by committee is somehow a misrepresentation of the league as a whole?

Yes. There's been teams that have won it a with workhorse back too. There's been teams that have won it with a backup QB. There's been teams that have won it with a great defense and crap offense.

Point being, there a numerous variables to winning the SB. Not just what's at RB.

Did all the experienced sherpas use the exact same path and do the exact same thing to make it to the top of Everest? I highly doubt it.

 

[Dr. Jones]

I think zaven Collins would be a close second to a RB selection in causing head combustion for many on ASFN.

We draft Zaven Collins with the 1st pick man I might just drown myself in alcohol

Yep.

One of.... the three CB's, Smith or Chase, Parsons, or Slater will be there. My hail mary over Collins would be Paye or Waddle.

 

[BritCard]

Yes. There's been teams that have won it a with workhorse back too. There's been teams that have won it with a backup QB. There's been teams that have won it with a great defense and crap offense.

Point being, there a numerous variables to winning the SB. Not just what's at RB.

Did all the experienced sherpas use the exact same path and do the exact same thing to make it to the top of Everest? I highly doubt it.

Really? You think I meant that no other factors are involved? You think I meant have a RB by committee and you win the SB? Sheesh.

There only one thing I meant and thats this, just to be clear.

Running back by committee gives you higher odds of success than a bellcow RB, and that is unequivocally born out by the data. There's no guarantee involved, but statistically committee performs better than a bellcow.

 

[QuebecCard]

Yes. There's been teams that have won it a with workhorse back too. There's been teams that have won it with a backup QB. There's been teams that have won it with a great defense and crap offense.

Point being, there a numerous variables to winning the SB. Not just what's at RB.

Did all the experienced sherpas use the exact same path and do the exact same thing to make it to the top of Everest? I highly doubt it.

Actually, if you saw the lineup of climbers and sherpas you'd conclude that they are doing the exact same thing.

 

[Ronin]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[RON_IN_OC]

What do we think of Rashad Weaver? I did a search for his name in this thread, but nothing came up.

Saw an interview with him on PFT this morning. Simms thinks he's a top 5 edge rusher...Would that out him in 2nd round? Weaver said he watches a lot of film on Chandler Jones (due to similar body and traits) and JJ Watt. Maybe he'd be a good kid to bring in to groom to take over in 2 years.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

Really? You think I meant that no other factors are involved? You think I meant have a RB by committee and you win the SB? Sheesh.

There only one thing I meant and thats this, just to be clear.

Running back by committee gives you higher odds of success than a bellcow RB, and that is unequivocally born out by the data. There's no guarantee involved, but statistically committee performs better than a bellcow.

Unequivocally??? I'd like to see that proof.
Just going off the the top of my head:
Marshall Faulk, Emmitt Smith, Franco Harris, Roger Craig, Marshawn Lynch, Terrell Davis, Walter Payton, John Riggins, Ray Rice, Tony Dorsett, Ricky Watters.....

 

[Stout]

Who said it should never ever be done? I said that it was a luxury pick and unlikely to add value according to analytics.

The Steelers have very good WR's, a QB under contract and no chance of finding a replacement at #24 and a good defense. They could do with a CB but again there may not be any there at #24.

So they have the luxury of having very few holes and RB happens to be a big one for them. And I still think it's more likely they go OL or CB and take a RB in round 2.

Fair enough! Only drafting a 1st-round RB when you have the luxury to do so isn't necessarily something I'd stick to--I'd still take an Adrian Peterson at the top-end, when he's the best talent available--but your point is solid.

 

[Ronin]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[Proximo]

i was the guy who noted a Front Office type and a Cardinal media person both talked inside linebacker yesterday....

that being said, Pauline goes on to say that they view Collins as someone to step in if Golden and/or CJ arent back after this season

the problem with that is Collins is a Jordan Hicks type ILB, not a pass rushing 3/4 OLB. that killed Pauline's credibility on this "information"

did it really?

have you already forgotten the Hassan reddick debacle?

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Why? What's better to use than data from the ultimate prize? What else matters?

That's like me saying "90% of people that make it to the top of Everest use an experienced Sherpa" and you saying "Yeah but what about those that make it to base camp?"

Well I guess it’s like that if you want to use stupid ridiculous hyperbole to prop up your bad argument.

it’s called data set significance. First you want to limit examining success of a league with 31 teams to only two. You also want to limit the discussion to only the modern era (you haven’t defined that - but you’ve stated this isn’t the 1990s). So let’s say we even take since 2000. In that span there have been over 250 playoff teams (most would consider making the playoffs a “successful season”). But you want to narrow the game to just 42 playoff teams. On top of that, with repeat teams during that span the examination is often relatively redundant (either same/similar personnel or they reach the super bowl for the same reason - so counting them twice sort of waters down the analysis). I mean, why not just look at super bowl winners if it’s about the ultimate prize? Or if we are looking for a the best of the best why not just examine the patriots as they’ve had multiple Super Bowls? The reason - and I believe you know it - is that both would p’shawed as insignificant data sets. I think the same is easily said of just the two teams that reach the super bowl. Not significant enough data to be persuasive.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Actually, if you saw the lineup of climbers and sherpas you'd conclude that they are doing the exact same thing.

Same boots, same jackets, same pick axes, same food, same strategy, same goggles? Don’t think so.

this is just one of the worst analogies I’ve ever seen on this board.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

166lbs. Yeesh.

 

[football karma]

166lbs. Yeesh.

if he is there at #16 and you are the GM -- what do you do? (and if he is there, it implies the big 3 CBs are gone)


I take him without hesitation

 

[GatorAZ]

166lbs. Yeesh.

John Brown was 179 coming out... The fact he’ll be 23 as a rookie and still rail thin makes you think his frame can’t hold weight.

 

[SECTION 11]

Aaannnndddd I’m still taking Harris.

 

[BritCard]

Unequivocally??? I'd like to see that proof.
Just going off the the top of my head:
Marshall Faulk, Emmitt Smith, Franco Harris, Roger Craig, Marshawn Lynch, Terrell Davis, Walter Payton, John Riggins, Ray Rice, Tony Dorsett, Ricky Watters.....

If I have to explain how committees giving you better odds of success doesn't mean that great running backs don't exist then I'm wasting my time.

Have we gone back to 1982? Running backs simply don't carry the same importance anymore. As I've explained, it's a position that's highly reliable on the offensive line and scheme. Get those things right and your running game is good whether you have CMC or Kenyan Drake in the backfield. Get them wrong and the same applies.

The Barry Sanders and Adrian Petersons of the world that can make lemon out of lemonade are few and far between. And there's certainly none in this draft.

 

[BritCard]

Fair enough! Only drafting a 1st-round RB when you have the luxury to do so isn't necessarily something I'd stick to--I'd still take an Adrian Peterson at the top-end, when he's the best talent available--but your point is solid.

AD probably wouldn't go top 10 today because of his receiving. I know that's crazy, but that's where the game is now.

Look, I like you and Solar, don't take this rather robust discussion personally. I just think the game has moved on and with it RB has lost it's value. I'd revise slightly what I said before, I don't think no RB is worth a 1st round pick, but I don't think they are worth high picks anymore. And I don't think the NFL does either judging by the last couple of years. Mid 20's onwards seems right and even then only if the board doesn't fall kindly. Unless they are also a massive receiving threat like CMC of course.

 

[BritCard]

Well I guess it’s like that if you want to use stupid ridiculous hyperbole to prop up your bad argument.

it’s called data set significance. First you want to limit examining success of a league with 31 teams to only two. You also want to limit the discussion to only the modern era (you haven’t defined that - but you’ve stated this isn’t the 1990s). So let’s say we even take since 2000. In that span there have been over 250 playoff teams (most would consider making the playoffs a “successful season”). But you want to narrow the game to just 42 playoff teams. On top of that, with repeat teams during that span the examination is often relatively redundant (either same/similar personnel or they reach the super bowl for the same reason - so counting them twice sort of waters down the analysis). I mean, why not just look at super bowl winners if it’s about the ultimate prize? Or if we are looking for a the best of the best why not just examine the patriots as they’ve had multiple Super Bowls? The reason - and I believe you know it - is that both would p’shawed as insignificant data sets. I think the same is easily said of just the two teams that reach the super bowl. Not significant enough data to be persuasive.

Making the playoffs isn't a successful season. Making the NFCCG or AFCCG could be considered a success. Anything else, not really.

But let's play your game and look at last year.

Chiefs - 803, 254, 169, 123, 97
Bills - 687, 481, 70, 63
Steelers - 721, 368, 113, 65
Titans - 2027, 204, 95
Ravens - 805, 723, 299, 70
Browns - 1067, 841, 166
Colts - 1169, 380, 308

Packers - 1104, 505, 242
Saints - 932, 656, 101
Seahawks - 681, 356, 108, 88
WFT - 795, 365, 258
Bucs - 978, 367, 109
Rams - 625, 624, 419
Bears - 1070, 232, 74

So. Of 14 teams only 5 have what you would call a feature back or bellcow. I think you might try to argue RoJo was that guy for the Bucs but he wasn't. He got a bunch of those yards early in the season, lost a lot of carries to Fournette later. I had him in FF so the sadness still lingers.

Carson probably would have had more yards if not for missing some games but would have been 908 at the same rate. And the point is, they still made the playoffs spreading the load around.

If you want to do other years feel free but in todays game, a feature back just isn't crucial.

I'd still like a solid 3rd back before I'm happy with the RB room though.