RB is the one position that is not worth spending a top 10 pick on. As this past off-season has shown top FA RB's are readily available Gurley may be the best RB in the draft but he's coming off injury and there's a decent chance a guy like Gordon could be there when they pick in round 2 (I've seen projections that have Gordon going anywhere from late 1st to mid 2nd round). My gut is they'll take a QB in round 2 but its just a guess. They'll get a RB somewhere but not with #6.
Gordon won't get past Baltimore or dallas. I'd certainly take him as well. Ideally Williams or Cooper are available at 6 and some team would trade up to get him. The. Take Gurley or Gordon a few picks later. With additional picks, the Jets could move back into first if they wanted.
I wouldn't mind Gurley but I wouldn't mind Cooper or White either. For example, let's say Cleveland wants Cooper. They offer us 12 and 19 to move up to 6 to get him. We draft Cooper because we like him as well. But if we see that Gurley is sitting there at Pick 12, we call up Cleveland and offer Cooper for Pick 12 and 19. This way, we're guaranteed to get Gurley if we trade down. But we also protect ourselves by taking Cooper whom we covet as well. This scenario can work with other teams. I'm just using Cleveland as an example.
I really like Todd Gurley, but not at number 6. Too many good RBs out there...there's not alot of value for them. Trade back to mid-round and get Gurley, I would absolutely endorse.
No one could have said it better than Florio does here which is surprising in itself. " Last weekend, the surgically-repaired knee of former Georgia running back Todd Gurley finally was examined by doctors in Indianapolis, as part of the Scouting Combine’s medical re-check. The knee reportedly checked out fine. And then instantly rumors and reports emerged of Gurley shooting into the top 10 of the draft. While he could indeed be one of the best 10 players available this year, the ACL injury entails real risk for whoever takes him. Gurley won’t know whether he can be the guy was before the injury until he’s back on the football field, going full speed against a defense, starting and stopping and cutting and hitting top gear. Any team that scribbles his name on a card will be taking the chance that Gurley ultimately won’t be the same guy. Then there’s the fairly recent trend against using high picks on running backs, fueled by the revolving-door approach used by most teams at the running back position. Apart from the fact that relatively equivalent players can be found in later rounds is the reality that the investment of a top-10 pick on a running back can be justified only by making him into a workhorse. How many teams in the NFL are currently willing to do that? Then there’s the reality that, over the last decade, only one tailback taken in the top 10 has provided full return on the investment: Adrian Peterson in 2007. None of the seven others — Trent Richardson (No. 3) in 2012, C.J. Spiller (No. 9) in 2010, Darren McFadden (No. 4) in 2008, Reggie Bush (No. 2) in 2006, andRonnie Brown (No. 2), Cedric Benson (No. 4), and Cadillac Williams (No. 5) in 2005 — ever performed consistently at the level their draft position suggested they would. So unless Gurley is going to be another Adrian Peterson (the man who ruined the ACL rehab process for pretty much everyone who ever tears an ACL), Gurley shouldn’t be taken in the top 10. And he definitely shouldn’t be taken in the top 10 by a team that isn’t prepared to test that new knee ligament by giving him the ball 25-30 times per game."
I like the concept. Todd McShay was saying that TN may do this in taking Mariota then trade him later during or immediately following the draft. If the Jets did this, I'm not sure I'd want them taking Gurley at #12, however. If La'el Collins was still there at #12, I'd take him, start him at one of the OG spots this year and then have him replace Brick next year. If Gurley was still there at #19, I might take him there.
No RB should be taken that high regardless now due to limited shelf life. There are very few RBs who last a whole lot longer at the top of their game beyond their rookie contract. So to me, you're getting the guy for his rookie contract and hopefully not overpaying him after as he's breaking down.
Yup. The shelf life for a back is maybe 5 years. I can't take a guy at 6 with that likely shelf life. Note: I am not saying all backs only last 5 years or that Gurley will only last 5 years. But it's got to be one of the least-tenured positions in all of football. _
I think it depends upon where one's football team is in terms of its roster development and also its offensive philosophy. For instance, if your team is pretty solid at every position, you have good depth and you've been a playoff team for the previous 2-3 years, that elite RB could be enough to put you over the top and get you to the SB if your own RB isn't that good. In that scenario, 5 years could be more than enough to get you a Lombardi Trophy. Another instance where it might make sense is with a team like Rex wants that has a strong D, a more conservative offensive philosophy, and desires a strong rushing attack, or has a rookie QB who needs a strong rushing attack to take pressure off.
I actually think Melvin Gordon will be a better NFL RB than Gurley. Do I have a lot of evidence or good arguments to support this opinion? No ..... it's mostly based on the fact that Gurley is coming off a significant injury, and his running style is more conducive to getting hurt. Plus I read good things about Gordon, and saw some of him in college (I admittedly didn't watch Gurley at all in college). But even if I did, I would not be qualified to evaluate his Pro Prospects based solely on that. I'm no scout after all. Given everything I've seen about both of them, I wouldn't be shocked if Gurley ended up having a good Pro career, but I think Gordon is the better overall prospect. Plus he reminds me a little bit of Jamaal Charles. Having said that, I don't think either one would be a good pick at #6. They should be drafted in the 15-25 range.
You are not allowed to post a thought like this unless you can cite the experts or what the real scouts are saying. What do you think this is, a message board?
Considering we dont have a QB and we're gonna have to be a running team, I wouldnt hate getting Gordon or Gurley, but at 6 its a bit of a reach unless one of them is gonna be the next AP or Arian Foster
crap the RB better not be the pick at 6. my definition of a playmaker in this draft starts and ends with cooper/white on offense and beasley/fowler on defense. we have 6 picks and 2 of them are in garbage time (7th). not the best draft to burn a high one on a RB.
I feel like the devalued running back narrative has gone so far that people would hate a top 10 pick on one even if they knew he was going to be the second coming of AP. Giovani Bernard, Jeremy Hill, Leveon Bell, Eddie Lacy...not even two years out you can argue they've had first round impact. And everyone just assumes you can play the game of chicken every year and draft these guys later. Until you can't. Not arguing for one at 6, but talent is talent, and the position bias is fairly new and may not last as long as people think. The more teams keep stacking smaller, faster defensive fronts, the more it makes sense to have a pro-bowl level bulldozer in the stable to run them over. The pendulum is already swinging back imo, and the more teams realize that they can‘t all find a dual threat qb to solve both attacks in one guy, the more likely we see the resurgence of the franchise rb when they're on the table.
Agree with this. Considering we have Ivory, Powell, and Vreen, what would adding another runningback really add to this? I'd rather go out and get a lineman to help bolster the run game. Considering wide receiver is a future need in my opinion taking as I don't see Marshall and Decker playing more than 3 years here.
Wisconsin backs have a lot of miles. I wouldnt hate Gurley at 6. Hes not gonna be there in the second round and hes a gamer
The notion that you "can't" take RB in the top 10 just cuz Trent Richardson was a bust is getting tired...I would rather have had Eddy Lacy than freakin the glass house Dee Millner in the top 10 two years ago a hundred times over
The problem with Gurley, obvious as it is, is that nobody knows if he will ever be the back he once was..do you really want to risk a #6 on that?
