Jones working with Byner

[ehb5]

The thing is, we dont have either of those.

None of our backs appears capable of 1200 yards and 10 TDs. Sure combined we might get that between the three. But how long are we going to need to carry 3-5 RBs just so we can say we didnt over pay for one GOOD back?? When do we get past this idea that we can simply get by on third round or later RBs when most of our guys are average at best, and none of them are true 3 down grind it out RBs? I get it you dont value the position so you are fine with throwing any later round pick at it and hoping we will be ok. But the last slightly less fancy 3 down back we had now plays for Dallas. And we kind of got lucky with him.

We have a decent committee. I like Kelley. You could do a lot worse. Hes definitely nothing special, but he gets the job done. Thompson on the other hand is really a very good 3rd down back. Excellent pass catcher and pass protector. You yourself are admitting we might be able to get 1200 yards and 10 TDs out of the group as a whole. And we spent a 5th on Thompson and picked up Kelley as a UDFA.

That last slightly less fancy 3 down back we had was a 6th round pick. We got a couple 1000 yard seasons out of him.

Other RB costs around the league

Matt Forte - 2nd round
Jamaal Charles - 3rd
LeGarrette Blount - UDFA
Jordan Howard - 5th
LeSean McCoy - 2nd
Thomas Rawls - UDFA
Spencer Ware - 6th
Lamar Miller - 4th
Theo Riddick - 6th
Jay Ajayi - 5th
Frank Gore - 3rd
DeMarco Murray - 3rd
CJ Anderson - UDFA
Devonta Freeman - 4th
Tevin Coleman - 3rd
David Johnson - 3rd
LeVeon Bell - 2nd
Dion Lewis - UDFA
Isaiah Crowell - UDFA

Now not all those guys are studs or 3 down backs. But theyre all solid players who at the least have a role to play and do it well. Several of them are 3 down backs. 2 of them are the 2 best RBs in the league. Several others are probably top 5 or 6 backs in the league. 4 of them werent even drafted. And none of them cost a 1st round pick.

 

[ehb5]

3rd Down Conversions 90/199
4th Down Conversions 7/14


These two stats right here are the main reason why we need a better quality of RB on this team

Add to that the fact that no one respects our ground game in the redzone.. and Im sorry but the we can get by with Average just isnt working.

Improving is one thing. Throwing more capital at the problem than you need to is a whole other thing.

 

[Buffalo_Nickel_1]

At first, you will scream and rail.... eventually you will be ok with it though. I agree we need to improve the defense, but wouldnt it be nice to have a 4 point lead with 3 minutes left, and have a ground game that could just gobble up the clock....

I for one miss those days.

IHATE ALL THE DAM NAIL BITTER GAMES AND I BET WE LEAD THE NFL IN NAIL BITTER GAMES

 

[gkekoa]

We were 11 in 2015 with a 59% and a less effective running game.

 

[Sharkinva]

We have a decent committee. I like Kelley. You could do a lot worse. Hes definitely nothing special, but he gets the job done. Thompson on the other hand is really a very good 3rd down back. Excellent pass catcher and pass protector. You yourself are admitting we might be able to get 1200 yards and 10 TDs out of the group as a whole. And we spent a 5th on Thompson and picked up Kelley as a UDFA.

That last slightly less fancy 3 down back we had was a 6th round pick. We got a couple 1000 yard seasons out of him.

Other RB costs around the league

Matt Forte - 2nd round
Jamaal Charles - 3rd
LeGarrette Blount - UDFA
Jordan Howard - 5th
LeSean McCoy - 2nd
Thomas Rawls - UDFA
Spencer Ware - 6th
Lamar Miller - 4th
Theo Riddick - 6th
Jay Ajayi - 5th
Frank Gore - 3rd
DeMarco Murray - 3rd
CJ Anderson - UDFA
Devonta Freeman - 4th
Tevin Coleman - 3rd
David Johnson - 3rd
LeVeon Bell - 2nd
Dion Lewis - UDFA
Isaiah Crowell - UDFA

Now not all those guys are studs or 3 down backs. But theyre all solid players who at the least have a role to play and do it well. Several of them are 3 down backs. 2 of them are the 2 best RBs in the league. Several others are probably top 5 or 6 backs in the league. 4 of them werent even drafted. And none of them cost a 1st round pick.

Again dude, I will say. I dont just want an OK 1000 yard back. I want a guy who teams have to respect. We dont have that, we kinda had it with Morris. We dont have a back capable of just grinding out the game. And I cant be the only one tired of seeing 3rd and two and we are passing the ball because the defense has zero respect for our ground game, and we have zero faith in it.

 

[ehb5]

Again dude, I will say. I dont just want an OK 1000 yard back. I want a guy who teams have to respect. We dont have that, we kinda had it with Morris. We dont have a back capable of just grinding out the game. And I cant be the only one tired of seeing 3rd and two and we are passing the ball because the defense has zero respect for our ground game, and we have zero faith in it.

I would argue you that a back like that is much more of a luxury than a need but I get where you're coming from. It'd be nice to have for sure.

But look at that list again. Gore, Charles, Howard, Murray, Bell, DJ, McCoy, Freeman, and Forte all fit what you want. And maybe a few others even. When it's that common you don't need to spend a 1st on the same thing.

 

[Stymietee]

Improving is one thing. Throwing more capital at the problem than you need to is a whole other thing.

Let me ask this, In your assessment will NOT having Cousins or an equally capable QB raise the value of a stud RB?

 

[Skin'EmAll]

Is Cook a stud RB? If he is and he is there at 17, shouldn't this be a no-brainer?
I'm not pulling for him, in fact I'd take Barnett over him on impulse.
BUT...let's say his combine results, except for the 40-yard dash...were better....wouldn't the critics suggest JAX take him at 4? For those that can vouch for this dude, if he is a gamechanger when we are in the wildcard round trying to waste the clock...he should be considered.

 

[ehb5]

Let me ask this, In your assessment will NOT having Cousins or an equally capable QB raise the value of a stud RB?

Nope. It would lower the value of a stud RB. No QB = No chance of winning. No chance of winning = no point in wasting any resources on a position that becomes over paid after the rookie contract and has the shortest shelf life in the league.

 

[ehb5]

Is Cook a stud RB? If he is and he is there at 17, shouldn't this be a no-brainer?
I'm not pulling for him, in fact I'd take Barnett over him on impulse.
BUT...let's say his combine results, except for the 40-yard dash...were better....wouldn't the critics suggest JAX take him at 4? For those that can vouch for this dude, if he is a gamechanger when we are in the wildcard round trying to waste the clock...he should be considered.

Is he a stud? Maybe. He has the tape of one. But the combine and off field concerns of a bust. Who knows what will happen. But even if those arent problems I dont think its worth it to take him.

 

[Stymietee]

Nope. It would lower the value of a stud RB. No QB = No chance of winning. No chance of winning = no point in wasting any resources on a position that becomes over paid after the rookie contract and has the shortest shelf life in the league.

Fair enough......and no counter from me except that I believe we're in an age where we wayyyyyyy over-value QB's.

 

[ehb5]

Fair enough......and no counter from me except that I believe we're in an age where we wayyyyyyy over-value QB's.

I'd be interested to hear why you think that but I have a hard time believing it. I think the only way the might be undervalued is that we have had 4 of the best qbs ever playing over the past 10 or so years that are all retired (peyton), about to retire (brady, Brees), or getting older (rodgers). Plus older borderline HOFers like Eli, Rivers, and Ben who are all getting up there too. When they retire where does that leave the league? But I still think even considering that QBs are far and away the most important position.

 

[Stymietee]

I'd be interested to hear why you think that but I have a hard time believing it. I think the only way the might be undervalued is that we have had 4 of the best qbs ever playing over the past 10 or so years that are all retired (peyton), about to retire (brady, Brees), or getting older (rodgers). Plus older borderline HOFers like Eli, Rivers, and Ben who are all getting up there too. When they retire where does that leave the league? But I still think even considering that QBs are far and away the most important position.

Well for starters the team that QB's are drafted or traded to plays a big role in how well they fare in the league. It's been proven time and again that a poor fit into an offensive scheme won't work. Even then the impatience of owners, coaches and fan bases won't allow a talented but lacking player time to relearn his craft. Then there's the concerted effort to build a playoff caliber team around that guy or lack therein. It should go without saying that putting up great numbers pales in comparison with winning playoff games. (Notice I didn't refer to regular season games) Playoff games which to me are the truest measure of a top level QB. It irks me that when others list top level QB, they lump Brady in with others. He is the one current QB that qualifies as 1st ballot HOF. (I especially don't include that dumb fuck whining Peyton either, see the following for my reasoning)

There have been rule changes that have watered down the game to the point where for me it's almost unwatchable. Peyton (crying bitch) is solely responsible for one of the biggest rule changes. So let me ask you, how would you play real hard nosed defense in today's game? Think about it for a second, most of what's called good defense is dependent on offensive mistakes. There doesn't exist a venue where defenses force those errors as they did when the game was more offensively and defensively balanced. I look at today's QB's through that prism and I honestly believe that records set by them are not complete without an asterisk or some marker signifying current era.

What does it tell you that QB's are considered "most important" vs a defensive "most important" player? Hell, based on current trends, Running Backs, once considered "best in the game" play a diminished role in this watered down game. So, please forgive @Shark, Sty and others who still believe that there's greater value in having a 3 or 4 down beast at running back, it's the grey hairs man!

 

[Sharkinva]

I would argue you that a back like that is much more of a luxury than a need but I get where you're coming from. It'd be nice to have for sure.

But look at that list again. Gore, Charles, Howard, Murray, Bell, DJ, McCoy, Freeman, and Forte all fit what you want. And maybe a few others even. When it's that common you don't need to spend a 1st on the same thing.

If IM going to spend prime resources, I want a little luxury in the package. Yes we NEED defense. Badly in fact. BUt is that not by definition why we are much more likely to reach for or force a defensive pick even if it turns out the best player available when we pick is not in fact a defensive player?? I know you value RB about as much as disposable under ware, and think we can get a good RB in the third round or later. And maybe we can. And like @Stymietee says, maybe its the gray hair... but I will always take a true stud all around back over a a three down D-lineman or a DE we are planning to switch to LB. Because in the 4th quarter when we need to simply run down the clock, I would be ecstatic if we had one of those. I will worry about if we might not be able to keep him in five years. As for the cost, at 17 the rookie deal will come in right around $12M for four years, or $3M a year, the 5th year option would be right around $8M

So $4m a year for a real 3 down back over five years would be a steal.... and with a back like that one would hope we could spare the defense a bit in the 4th quarter and avoid those pesky games like Detroit and Dallas game one and Cincy from last year... where we had a lead, the offense couldnt run out the clock, and the defense couldnt stop my grandmother from scoring in under 60 seconds.

 

[skinsdad62]

If we take an RB a 17 I will support it as long as it's a great player . Just don't puss down my back and tell me it's raining

 

[ehb5]

Well for starters the team that QB's are drafted or traded to plays a big role in how well they fare in the league. It's been proven time and again that a poor fit into an offensive scheme won't work. Even then the impatience of owners, coaches and fan bases won't allow a talented but lacking player time to relearn his craft. Then there's the concerted effort to build a playoff caliber team around that guy or lack therein. It should go without saying that putting up great numbers pales in comparison with winning playoff games. (Notice I didn't refer to regular season games) Playoff games which to me are the truest measure of a top level QB. It irks me that when others list top level QB, they lump Brady in with others. He is the one current QB that qualifies as 1st ballot HOF. (I especially don't include that dumb fuck whining Peyton either, see the following for my reasoning)

Alright ya started out ok then I think you go way off track. I think fit can matter but it depends. RG3 wouldnt have been a success if he went to the Colts while Luck would still be great if he were here. Some guys fit certain schemes better than others and you should coach to your players. Guys like Kaep and Taylor can run an offense well enough if the offense is set up the right way. But you cant find an offense to make Brock Osweiler look good. Similarly, you could put Aaron Rodgers on any team with any offense in the league and it will immediately become a SB contender. Great QBs can transcend their system and a system cant make a bad QB.

As for wins over stats - completely disagree. Stats have their flaws in football but theyre way better than wins. This is just a case of process vs results. What matters more? Technically results, but it wont be predictive or provide you with as much information about a player. Your main measurement of a QB shouldnt be his record in at most a 4 game sample size a year. There are soooo many ways that could go wrong.

There have been rule changes that have watered down the game to the point where for me it's almost unwatchable. Peyton (crying bitch) is solely responsible for one of the biggest rule changes. So let me ask you, how would you play real hard nosed defense in today's game? Think about it for a second, most of what's called good defense is dependent on offensive mistakes. There doesn't exist a venue where defenses force those errors as they did when the game was more offensively and defensively balanced. I look at today's QB's through that prism and I honestly believe that records set by them are not complete without an asterisk or some marker signifying current era.

Im not sure what Peyton did to change the rules (or to piss you off lol) but hes without a doubt one of the greatest to ever play. For sure defense has been made harder - but it is still doable. The Broncos won a SB just a year ago on the back of an excellent defense that forced mistakes not relied on the offense screwing up on its own. Is that rare? Yes, but its also an extreme example. You can have a really good defense that isnt as good as they were. They can still force stops. Are stats different today? Yes. But you can use era adjusted stats. Theres no doubt in my mind that Brady, Peyton, and Rodgers are 3 of the top 5 QBs ever.

What does it tell you that QB's are considered "most important" vs a defensive "most important" player? Hell, based on current trends, Running Backs, once considered "best in the game" play a diminished role in this watered down game. So, please forgive @Shark, Sty and others who still believe that there's greater value in having a 3 or 4 down beast at running back, it's the grey hairs man!

Im pretty unconvinced QBs arent the most valuable position. An elite one like Rodgers can drag a thin depleted roster to SB contention as he did this year. And good luck winning a SB without a good one. Sure it happens but it pretty much requires an all time great defense, a good amount of luck, or both.

 

[ehb5]

If IM going to spend prime resources, I want a little luxury in the package. Yes we NEED defense. Badly in fact. BUt is that not by definition why we are much more likely to reach for or force a defensive pick even if it turns out the best player available when we pick is not in fact a defensive player?? I know you value RB about as much as disposable under ware, and think we can get a good RB in the third round or later. And maybe we can. And like @Stymietee says, maybe its the gray hair... but I will always take a true stud all around back over a a three down D-lineman or a DE we are planning to switch to LB. Because in the 4th quarter when we need to simply run down the clock, I would be ecstatic if we had one of those. I will worry about if we might not be able to keep him in five years. As for the cost, at 17 the rookie deal will come in right around $12M for four years, or $3M a year, the 5th year option would be right around $8M

So $4m a year for a real 3 down back over five years would be a steal.... and with a back like that one would hope we could spare the defense a bit in the 4th quarter and avoid those pesky games like Detroit and Dallas game one and Cincy from last year... where we had a lead, the offense couldnt run out the clock, and the defense couldnt stop my grandmother from scoring in under 60 seconds.

Thats the thing about luxuries though. You dont get them when you still have needs.

As for taking a stud RB over a stud 3 down lineman or LB? Look at what those positions get paid. The NFL knows which one is more valuable. And while its nice to paint a picture of us running out the clock with Dalvin Cook its just as easy and pleasing to paint one where we need a late 4th quarter stop and Malik McDowell comes flying through the middle to take down the QB. Those Dallas, Detroit, and Cincy games sure couldve used a late game stop.

 

[Sharkinva]

Thats the thing about luxuries though. You dont get them when you still have needs.

As for taking a stud RB over a stud 3 down lineman or LB? Look at what those positions get paid. The NFL knows which one is more valuable. And while its nice to paint a picture of us running out the clock with Dalvin Cook its just as easy and pleasing to paint one where we need a late 4th quarter stop and Malik McDowell comes flying through the middle to take down the QB. Those Dallas, Detroit, and Cincy games sure couldve used a late game stop.

I agree. If there is a STUD D-lineman at 17, or a stud ILB by all means make the need pick. Because lets be real people are saying even if a stud RB is there we should take the Defensive player because it is a greater need. But if we are really going BPA, and Cook is there... he might just be the best player available who by the way also fills a need. Dont get me wrong, I like McDowell.... I do however think Cook is more talented.

And IM sorry but if we could have run out the clock when we had a lead in those games, we wouldnt have needed a late game stop. Add in the Detroit game as well.

 

[ehb5]

I agree. If there is a STUD D-lineman at 17, or a stud ILB by all means make the need pick. Because lets be real people are saying even if a stud RB is there we should take the Defensive player because it is a greater need. But if we are really going BPA, and Cook is there... he might just be the best player available who by the way also fills a need. Dont get me wrong, I like McDowell.... I do however think Cook is more talented.

And IM sorry but if we could have run out the clock when we had a lead in those games, we wouldnt have needed a late game stop. Add in the Detroit game as well.

If we could've gotten a stop we wouldn't have needed there rb. Goes both ways.

I'm not convinced cook is that far ahead of other players we can get at 17. He's got off field concerns and an awful combine. I like him but he's not a can't miss prospect by any stretch. Plenty of other players with a lot of upside at 17.