A terrible example of the current wisdom of most GMs and a terrible example of a trend that can be ignored but not denied by recent contract numbers and draft positions. IMO.
I believe the earth is flat. There are other opinions.
1 Like
Yep. I’m fine with drafting a RB in the late first/ early second. But you don’t hand him 15 plus million ever. You reload in year 4, let someone else pay 15M, get your comp pick and pay high second round money to a guy who’s just as good with less mileage on a high wear position. For me Jacobs was a bit of an exception, because he has shown exceptional durability and production in the passing and running game and he’s big enough to to take the hits. If Bijan is there at 18, I am absolutely fine with taking him there. Especially if we’re able to trade down from 6 and give ourselves an extra starting bean elsewhere. He’s a special talent and 4 years of that then reloading is absolutely fine by me.
5 Likes
Ramsey has been a better player for longer than Zeke. If the Cowboys drafted him maybe he spends his whole career there, you don’t know.
Did you watch the video? Just watch the video, that’s the point. If you disagree with them, fine. Say that. Don’t call the thread stupid.
No, I’m saying in today’s NFL, virtually no RB is worth a 1st round pick. Watch the video above for part of the reason I believe it. I used Barry’s numbers as an example of what a prospect would have to get close to for me to even consider taking them in the 1st today. Which is obviously not happening, which is sorta my point.
Not for the team that drafted him. Isn’t this about where to draft players?
Maybe if another team draft drafted Zeke he would have won 4 Super Bowls. Remember what I said about reality vs the land of make believe?
The thread is a backfire. The example is bad. The only way to make it make sense is to live in Rainbow Land.
1 Like
Then why ask me to look at the other players drafted around him in the first place? The point being the other guys they could have had weren’t better? Isn’t that the land of make believe as well?
To look at the results of what happened with each player for the team that drafted them.
I will take it a step further. If you recall, I like to say that taking a CB early in the 1st round is a bad investment. Why? Because CB is one of the most available positions in football. The number of times you can grab a top corner in their prime via free agency or trade far exceeds most other positions. So I think its smarter to NOT draft a CB super high. Just wait to see if the kid turns out to be good. Then you can either grab him as a free agent or flip a trade for him.
As of right now there are only 5 players in the entire 1st round that are still with the team that drafted them. Zeke was #6 until he got released. That’s Joey Bosa, Ronnie Stanley, Taylor Decker, Ryan Kelly and Kenny Clark. Which goes back to something else I have said. I don’t like over investing in the offensive line because I believe there are diminishing returns once you have reached a certain level of competence. But I can’t deny how loyal lineman are and if you don’t draft a good one, chances are you won’t see him again until he’s used up and not worth the price tag anymore.
This I agree with. I think ideally you want your line to have 2-3 guys on rookie contracts to go with 2-3 guys getting paid. Like the Eagles. You have to make a lot of tough decisions that way but they’re constantly adding mid-late round OL so they already know whether they have the guy on the roster to replace him or not. That’s sound roster construction.
I don’t disagree completely with this, though I also think you can substitute RB and make the same argument. But I digress, I know you don’t believe 2nd contract RBs are good value. I think the CB market overall is hurt by supply, there’s just so many guys out there because teams need so many DBs. Then when some of the cheaper ones hit and become more expensive for the team that drafted/obtained them - like Sutton and Mosley - they get priced out and those guys hit the market.
I also think this is a trend that might change as more and more teams roll out much more talent at receiver. I think you’ll see most teams believe they need at least 3 good ones and sometimes 4. They’re finally realizing just how much the passing game contributes to winning. It stands to reason that holding onto CBs will be a counter to that.
I can’t remember which analyst said it last year after the Tyreek Hill and AJ Brown trades, but I agree with him. There is a growing divide in the NFL when it comes to how teams view WR. For simplicity think of half of the league valuing them extremely high, with the other half valuing them significantly lower and thinking its relatively easy to go back into the draft pool and get another one. What that is leading to is a bunch of buyers who will always have sellers, and vice versa. So every WR who isn’t getting paid, will get paid. Because teams that don’t value WR are open for business.
I agree with that too. If the supply out of college is only gonna increase - and before this year that’s what we’d been seeing - then it stands to reason the demand would eventually fall in line. Some teams will operate as if this is true, like the Chiefs, Packers and Titans did last year with their stud receivers.
However I think it’s much easier to go that route with a superstar at QB. The Chiefs and Packers proved that, one won the Super Bowl and the other, well they weren’t appreciably worse than the year before. They were a little worse, but I knew that 13 win team from 2021 was a paper tiger all along.
But the Titans fell apart and most would point to trading Brown as the decision that cost their GM his job.
So I think there’s a lot of calculus involved in the decision, at least with superstars. Good wide receivers have a profound impact on the passing game and the passing game has a profound impact on winning. So even though the supply is increasing, willingly opting to allow such an important piece to leave is a very difficult decision.
The 2 reasons NFL teams aren’t drafting RBs as early anymore are the fact that there are fewer elite RB prospects. The way the college game has shifted, so many colleges focus on the pass game and more space, etc… so there are fewer every down type of backs that really are developed with their vision / footwork. The other reason is the team building aspect… RBs are riskier since the careers are shorter and injuries are high. When you do get a shot at an elite prospect who has proven to take care of their bodies… they are still worth a high pick. Elliot gave 7 years, with a 4.4 average and 80 tds. He was a big time weapon for 5-6 years, and solid the last couple. A guy like Gurley was a great example too. Absolutely worth the pick. He had a short career that fell off a cliff… but he took the rams offense to a whole other level. In a 3 year stretch he had like 1800 all purpose yards a year with like 55 tds. Worth the pick and every penny. So not every year are rbs worth a 1st rounder… or a high one. But some of these guys still are.
2 Likes
Another factor is I think a lot of the best athletes are choosing to play other positions in college now because RB’s are paid so poorly in comparison and have short careers. If you are a 5’11 - 205 pounds stud running back in high school, switching to WR in college makes a lot of sense if you are hoping to make the nfl. Teams carry 5-6 WR’s on their active roster. Most teams only carry 3 RB’s and you get paid more to play WR.
2 Likes
another note… RBs are also one of the easiest positions to scout. So much of their skills translate to the pros. Usually if you can truck people or make people miss, that is something that translates. So if you are seeing an awesome looking elite talent at RB… (Bijon, Saquon, Elliot, Gurley, etc) the bust rate is pretty darn low compared to other positions
That’s true after the first round as well. RB is easy to scout.
1 Like
They won 13 games 3 straight years. Then dropped down to 8 wins without Adams. I would definitely call that “appreciably worse.” But the problem with the Packers wasn’t losing Adams as much as the fact that they artificially relied on Adams too much and didn’t spend enough resources to replace him or have in the wings to take over. The Vikings traded Diggs, but they already had Thielen and immediately spent a 1st round pick on Justin Jefferson. The Packers didn’t have anyone but Adams and still tried to play moneyball with the position even after losing Adams. London, Wilson and Olave were all capable of filling the void immediately had the Packers taken the situation more seriously.
CJ2K said that if he could do it all over again, he would have followed his coaches advice to switch to CB.
2 Likes
Corner makes sense too, since most teams carry 5 or 6 of them. Positions that allow you to play longer and take less hits makes a lot of sense, especially because they keep extending the seasons. 14 games became 16, now 17, soon to be 18.
I mean, they did trade quite a bit of capital to trade up to the cusp of the 1st round to take Watson. I wouldn’t call that a moneyball approach necessarily, though I would call it stupid. But of course since their the ■■■■■■■ packers it looks like it’s gonna work out.
They gave up a 2nd to move up for Watson. They had the ability to move up and grab one of the guys I mentioned who have proven to be immediately replacements. They didn’t do that and rolled the dice. That dice roll helped lead to 8 wins. The Lions and the Saints gave up more than the receiver needy Packers did.
Sure, they could have spent more. But that doesn’t mean they didn’t still spend quite a bit.
I do think scheme is also a factor. We’re not a pass happy throw it all over the field offense. Our offense is predicated off the run game. So while some college type spread offense might not value the run as much, id say we do value the run game quite a bit more.
Therefore RB and run blocking we will value higher than most.