because running back is the worst place you can invest high assets and high dollars. If you want to invest in the running game you do it in the offensive line. paying big money or high draft picks for runningbacks is a horrible plan. you can do just as well if not better going with 2 or 3 guys who specialize as opposed to one workhorse. you also reduce the risk at a position that is one of the most likely to deteriorate early or suffer injury. With the rule changes its a passing league now. teams pass so much mroe on first down and the advanced analytics show in most scenarios throwing short on first down to supplement the run is much more effective. Do get all uppity because you are stuck in the past. this isnt the 80s where you hand it off 30 times a game. those days are long gone. It is akin to when advance analytics become commonplace in baseball and people found out that using 3 speciality relievers in your bullpen is more effective then having your closer throw 3 innings. it increased productivity and reduced wear on your players. The same is true at runningback. you are better off with 2 or three guys all with roles, paying low salary/draft picks at the position, and rolling those savings/picks into your offensive line and other areas. you can just as easily end up with a top 5-10 running game while strengthening your team and rushing attack overall, and basically eliminate injury risk as you can plug guys in at a low cost. For example lets compare the jets and the cowboys rushing attacks last season: Cowboys - 147.1 YPG on 4.6 YPC - 2nd in the NFL Jets - 142.5 YPB on 4.5 YPC - 3rd in the NFL jets had a 3 headed monster of Ivory, Powell, Johnson Cowboys had the NFL's best rusher, Demarco Murray I dont see the need to invest in a top back or use high draft picks on one when you can have an elite rushing attack with a trio of scrap heap guys. and several teams do this. the ravens and pats for isntance constantly turn over that position while having succesful rushing attacks as both choose to invest in their offensive lines instead.
I understand what you're saying about the RB position, but imo you make a much bigger mistake in wanting to expend high draft picks and pay big contracts to OL. RBs are playmakers and can make a huge difference in one's offense. Very good OLs can be built with a high draft pick on one's LT position, and mid, low-round and UDFAs. High draft picks and big contracts should be used on play makers, not OL grunts. That is the WORST scenario. Just because one isolated example of the Jets compared with the Cowboys seems to back up your idea, doesn't make it so. You seem to have forgotten just a few short years ago when the Jets had a TON of money tied up in their OL in Brick, Mangold, Damien Woody, Faneca and Moore, and had zero playmakers on offense or defense. Thank God that Mac doesn't adhere to your philosophy.
its far from one isolated incident. look at the top 10 rushing attacks every season. its pretty split between teams with top 3 runningbacks and teams with 2/3 headed attacks or teams that have constant turnover at runningback(ie.e every back they plug in does well). Runningback is the least important position offense, and is so by a pretty decent margin. saying you can get very good olineman later in the draft seems irrelevant as the same can be said of runningbacks. I'd say getting nick mangold or logan mankins in the first round is much better then getting someone like adrian peterson in round 1. they are going to make less and impact your running game more. and as a bonus they also benefit your pass protection and allow you to allocate thayt funding elsewhere if anything the fact that you can invest in your oline without first rounders is bonus, allowing those picks for REAL impact players (pass rushers, wideouts, quarterbacks) i lvoed when we had a great offensive line we invested alot in. we were making championship games, protecting our quarterback, and were much better offensively how have we looked since then? pretty awful
If you can find an elite level talent at the RB position, you take that player if he's on top of your draft board. Yes, I would take a RB in the first 3 rounds - I would take one in the first round also. Your philsophy is close-minded and extremely flawed. Lets look at some of the higher drafted RBs and their impact on their team [rd1-rd3] AP Lynch Charles Le'Veon Bell Forte Ray Rice in his prime Some of these guys carried their teams to relevance w/out them you see the results of the Steelers in their WC game this season. Having 2 or 3 guys is great, but when you got a special talent that can take it to the house. That gets outweighed . You just want to utilize the running game to gain marginal carries, I am looking at the RB position and I see some that are 3 down backs that can impact the game - blocking, running it to the house, catching one and going to the house. Curtis Martin was one of the bigger reasons today I am a Jet fan and he was a big reason why the Jets became relevant in the league. You look at our RB depth, do you think any back we have is capable of that? That vision? ability to break tackles? All in one play? That was a season altering play for the Ravens. We know what the results were. If I can draft a guy in the first 3 rounds, and he comes in and plays well, he's well worth the 4 year gamble under that rookie contract if you want to win the SB. A team will figure out what to do with him down the road. You want to compare the Jets and Cowboys running games? Are you that stupid? Last year Murray was an MVP candidate and was able to take the pressure off a choking Romo to lead the Cowboys to a division title and a bullshit play away from being in the NFCCG. The Cowboys line is awesome now, but they don't have a back that will take 30 touches and mass over 180 yards on the field. Now you got Romo in December having to take on all of the pressure. A running back like Murray gets better as the game goes on, so does a Peterson and a Lynch. Game-changers. Ravens haven't been the same since the Ray Rice incident. Pierce is good, but he's no Ray Rice. Then again, what do you know about the RB position, you said you wouldn't take one if guaranteed 15 straight 1000 yd seasons. BTW, not many of those RBs play w/ good offensive lines cept Murray and maybe Peterson.
AP - How many times have the vikings gone to the playoffs/down anything with adrian peterson on the roster? what exactly has he carried them to? he has made the playoffs 3 times in his career winning a game just 1 of those seasons(when favre was there) Lynch - what exactly where the seahawks winning with him before russell stepped in? what exactly where the bills winning with him? Charles - made the playoffs 2 of 8 seasons, losing both playoff games Bell - steelers made the playoffs 2 of the 3 years before his arrival including a superbowl win. over the past decade they ahve consistently been in the playoffs and won 2 superbowls. they have had a carousel at RB but kept on winning. steelers lost to baltimore cause their defense allowed 30 points mroe then anything Forte - the bears have made the playoffs once during matt forte's career. they have a losing record during his tenure with the team. what exactly has he led them to? Ray Rice - ravens have done well with him. they also have done well before him and did well last season. I notive you omitted Demarco murray and Leshon mccoy, whose teams have done little ot nothing with i find this as a case against investing high in an elite back, not one for it I dont care of our runningbacks can do all those things. just give me 3 guys that combined can do most of those things. i dont need my RB to be a 3 down back because I can just have my 3rd down back come in on 3rd downs and do those things. Like i showed prior, the jets matched the cowboys rushing output and performance with 3 scrap heap guys. and thats with no passing game to take pressure off and a pretty average offensive line. think of the benefits of signing 2 cast away free agent running backs and another UDFA, and then using that pick in the first 3 rounds on another need? Yet despite all that, the cowboys run game was really no better then the jets running game. WHICH IS EXACTLY MY POINT. right, instead they will have 2-3 guys who combeing for the same output they would have gotten from murray you make it sound like the ravens have been without rice for 5 years and sucked during the entire time. they spent 1 season without him, and despite going through all of that hoopolas they made it just as far as they did the prior season with rice
We went 4-12, that is all you need to know about our rushing attack or any other area of our team. A dual threat all pro running back who can catch 40+ balls out of the backfield in addition rushing for over 1,000 yards would clearly be an improvement over the players we have now.
If you really think the Jets running game was as good as the Cowboys running game last season, you need to get your head checked. I didn't mention Murray or McCoy because they were drafted in the 4th round and below. I only mentioned RBs drafted in the first 3 rounds. Mentioning them, makes my argument even stronger.
By your Logic Adrian Peterson wouldnt be any better because the vikings where 5-10-1 when he last played. This is such a terrible response. So if you go 4-12 that means all areas of your team are no good? I guess our defensive line wasnt any good then either? cause we went 4-12? Think about what you are saying. you are basically saying that production is irrelevant and all 53 guys on your team and all positional units are measured only by W-L record. Is peterson better then the guys we have? yes. does it matter? not really in my opinion. its all about total output of your running game. as i showed, last year we were 3rd in the league right on par with the cowboys who had murrary. We do i need an everydown back who can catch 40 balls and rush for 1000+ yards when i can pay 2 guys to carry it for that same 1000+ yards and then a third guy to catch 40 balls as a third down back..... all while paying them less money and investing lower draft pick wise in them? I just see way too many benefits to going the scrap heap route with little risk 1) You save on assets and money. RB is simply not one of the 4 or 5 most important positions (QB, pass rusher, OL, CB, WR). the pick/money you dont spend on a top RB goes towards strengthening those areas. 2) You limit your injury risk. If you invest heavily in a guy like peterson and he is say i dont know, suspended for the year then you are kind of screwed. if you have 3 scrap heap guys, you just plug in the next guy I just dont see any justification for putting a high asset and that kind of money into an elite runningback. ESPECIALLY here, where we have proven we can run it as good as anyteam in football with a bunch of scrap heap type guys.
It is a statistical fact that the jets running game was on par with the cowboys running game last year. it has nothing to do with what I think, that is the reality of what happened.
Statistics aren't everything, you have to look at game situation and impact on the field. This isn't fucking baseball - apparently you don't watch football games.
I remember hearing Goff has been putting on weight, don't remember where but wondering if anyone has some more info on the possibility. I love his production but the guy is the definition of a beanpole.
http://draftbreakdown.com/2016-nfl-draft-quick-look-quarterbacks/ Underclassmen will have to come out in order for the us to really have a chance at a QB.
I don't know about Kessler ... Cook, Hackenberg, Giel, and Goff are on my radar this year. Hopefully underclassmen come out.
Kessler's from my hometown. Went to the next high school over and was also the best player on that school's basketball team. Irrelevant but rather funny: the other high school in our neighborhood was opened after my freshman year, so it had expansion team type performance. The best basketball player on their varsity team was a 5'6-7" freshman that got expelled from my high school (his brother was a beast of a point guard for us, but also fairly short).
Hogan is a top QB, but gets no love on this board. With 66% completion and playing in a pro style offense he should be at least a top five. Good feet, strong arm, NFL body, plays in pro offense and can read defenses. Did I mention he is more accurate than anyone on your list. Out of the five you have listed I only like Cook. He should be the first off the board in 2016, but he only completed 58 percent of his passes in 2014 which is troubling.
Connor Cook sounds like a big pussy. http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsport...or-cook-on-not-being-named-captain-it-stinks/ If you have to keep saying how much of a leader you are…well, you know what that means. The fact that he even brought up the 12 person leadership council is sad.
