I completely agree. Never take a RB in the top 10. It's too predicated on the offensive line. Look at Thomas Jones. Crappy line, crappy performance. Good line, leads the AFC in rushing. Runningbacks can be dime-a-dozen if you have the line to protect. Look at what Denver was able to do, or look at some of the other teams that have had success plugging in backs. Plus, there are just so many backs out there nowadays, even the Raiders have three solid backs.
This post went from him agreeing with the thread, to his glory days, to the safety he prefers, lol. Nice.
Here are your NFL rushing leaders. Peterson: top 10 pick Michael Turner: 5th round pick DeAngelo Williams: late 1st Clinton Portis: 2nd rounder Thomas Jones: top 10 pick Steve Slaton: 3rd round pick Matt Forte: 2nd round pick Chris Johnson: late 1st round pick Ryan Grant: undrafted LaDainian Tomlinson: top 10 pick Brandon Jacobs: 4th round pick Steven Jackson: late 1st round pick Marshawn Lynch: mid 1st round pick Frank Gore: 3rd round pick Derrick Ward: 7th round pick Jamal Lewis: top 10 pick Kevin Smith: 3rd round pick Brian Westbrook: 4th round pick Ronnie Brown: top 10 pick Le'Ron McClain: 4th round pick Marion Barber: 4th round pick Willie Parker is another good undrafted back. Every position is primarily first rounders except for this spot. But I think what you find among the top backs is a bigger correlation between offensive line prowess and ability. Sure, first round backs are better than 7th round backs. It's like that with every position. But it's much more important to get a big line, and then plug guys in.
Coaching 101 i try to be an all around player. good at everything. no but seriously you can break down every back you listed and give reasons for their success this year, if not a rookie, their previous success/or lack of in previous summers. the equation is quite simple. You dominate the point of attack, in coaching terms. A necessity is your anchor on the offensive line i.e. Nick Mangold, Kevin Mawae, Jeff Saturday, Chris Snee. Broncos's use a zone blocking scheme which is used to distribute their talent evenly, by keeping the opposing d-line matched against different personnel on the o-line, at times keeping the attack's integrity intact by mixing in a surprise double team, or extra blocker, fullback or tight end. The zone blocking scheme is also the scheme Bill Callahan has notoriously implemented in our line. Only thing is. YOU NEED ATHLETICISM. I can only credit three out of our five linemen for being "athletic". Mangold, Faneca, and Ferguson. The other two lack the feet speed and the athleticism to hold their own in a scheme like the one that potential coaching candidate Mike Shanahan implements. However his Bronco's line, loved to cut block. Hence, Peyton Hillis' 100+ yard game on the #3 running defense in the NFL. A fullback w/ speed + a cut blocked Kris Jenkins = a good day. I could explain the scheme further but it is mildly elaborate. Just know that the basics of the scheme requires intelligence, athleticism, and instinct. And if you have linemen who are not used to a zone blocking scheme they become lost in the intricacies. 2008 Sack Total: Brett Favre = 30 Jay Cutler = 11
I disagree about not taking RBs early. No position has an easier adjustment to the NFL then RB, and no position is more dominated by young players then RB. Whoever you take early will be getting a big salary, with a RB you actually get production in exchange for that salary from day one. Look at Gholston, huge salary and has done crap. Dustin Keller played well, but did he live up to his salary? And for god's sake, Jamarcus Russell is the fourth highest paid player in the entire league, is he earning that money? Draft a RB early and he will be on the field and contributing in the first game of the season. Unless he sucks, but that can happen at any position.
you need a dominant or better than average offensive line to have production out of a back. it doesnt matter if the back is a perennial Heisman candidate. Average line, is going to result in average results. The Giants are the best example. They have a 6'7 freak of a runningback (exaggerated) running the ball, who is impossible to solo tackle, and he compiles a 1000+ season. Sprinkle in two runningbacks with complementing styles, and if you have a dominant running game against an offset defense that cant get into a rhythm.... the results are impeccable.
I can see the logic behind this...rookies are getting dumb amounts of money so you might as well invest it in a position that offers a quick, mostly seamless transition. Iunno why people have this blind hate for Russell...considering he was a 23 year old starting his first full season...for the fucking Raiders of all teams...throwing less INTs than TD's alone is a big deal...and his last 3 games of the year were great. I also have no idea why people seem to be blaming rookies for what they're making. It's the league's fault. I sure as fuck wouldn't be turning down 20+ million in guaranteed money. I wonder how much rookies getting paid...considering this is probably the last draft before a rookie cap...is going to affect this draft. Alot of teams just might be thinking "which of these young guys can give us the most bang for the buck during the life of this contract?"
draftheadquarters.com/index.php/Mock-Draft-NFL-Mock-Draft-NFL-Draft-Shawn-Zobel-Draft-Headquarters/Home/cat_id/34683 has us drafting brown in the 2nd round. disgust.
The same can be said about the QB and the o-line. Or the Recivers and the QB. In fact, we could easily make a "don't tank a QB in round 1" thread staring Ryan Leaf and Alex Smith. What about O-line bums like Robert Gallery or Tony Mandrich? You could easily fine a bust at every position ,given the time, taken in the top ten to point to as an example. You take the Best talent available. You weight need at the position against it, but in the top ten, with the ammount that those contracts end up costing, Talent has to tip the scales some. BPA is the way to go. if its a RB, QB, O-line, any thing but a damn kicker, you take him. Passing Yardage leaders Drew Brees and Kurt Warner tend to disagree with the bolded statement.
He got a point, RBs are just more likely to get injured, than other positions. McFadden, Bush, Ronnie Brown, Cadillac Williams, all of them were recent top 10 RBs, that spent a good amout of their time in the League Injured. But on the other Hand, you could also come out of it with the next LT or AD.
running back is the most overrated position on the field anyway. I'd much prefer to invest my draft picks in the lines.
Those two points I agree with. Though I made a case that there you could take a RB i nthe top ten, I'm not saying you should. I'm a trenches out guy myself and love seeing draft picks spen on both offensive and defensive line. That said, if you can get a talent like a AP or what I belive McFadden could be, you draft him. Bush was vastly overrated comming out of USC. The power of the USC program has a way of misleading people. Bush was never a every down between the tackles prospect. The only people saying that were fans. Most belived him to be a great pass catcher and returner of a back. He would thrive if used like westbrook and he is doing well in that type of role, when not injured.
there are some truly special talents, but even then they will decline after six seasons or so. A ton of RBs are fungible. AD is special, but Chester Taylor has actually been more consistent than AD has been. LDT is good, but Michael Turner and Darren Sproles have had a bunch of success there. The bottom line is that the main thing that determines the success of an RB is team blocking. There are hundreds of examples where the public thought a RB was great because he was having great success, only to see other RBs come in and replace him and do just as well.
I agree blocking has a huge thing to do with the success of a RB, but sometimes there are RBs that deserve a Top 10 pick period because they bring it all to the table and are just supremely talented. Bo Jackson. (didn't work out for Bucs but did for Raiders) LT. Adrian. and the one to truly do it all alone with a line or an offense: Sanders.
Sanders will always be the most famous case of a guy who had success with a bad offensive line. He was able to not just because of his talent, but because of his style.
