Maybe it is more of what he was allowed to do. He did have authority to call plays and audible back then. He can't throw TDs when all he is allowed to do is third and draws.
Not to mention he was severely injured. I remember a few months after that game where he said he wasn't sure if he would have been able to play the next week if they had managed to pull it out since his arm was hurting that much. People keep complaining about what he did in 2004, and then just pass off the rotator cuff as not being a big deal. He should not have been playing at all, but our genius coach kept him in there because he had no one else. Chad gutted it out because our coach was a moron for keeping him in there, but people still expected him to produce miracles with his arm in the shape it was in. If Chad was healthy in 2004 I could see the complaints, but come on, he was trying to play with a busted wing. Again, he should not have even been in there.
I don't care about his track record as a scout, his argument holds water... ask any coach in the NFL.
Name the CB's in the Pats SB wins. Here's a hint... One of the starters was a 3rd string WR. As for the Bucs, Barber was way overrated. That game was literally won by the Bucs DL.
Yeah and sooner or later a kicker will have to make a FG with 1 secodn left to pull out a win...does this make a kicker as important as a QB? Dilfer went through an entire season and they won a SB....what was it, about 1000 offensive plays? Well they still won it, so Dilfer was clearly good enough, unless kirwan thinks it was a fluke. I don't think there is a problem with aking a RB high if you think he is the right guy....but here Pat uses the example of Adrian peterson to prove his point, which is extremely general considering that there have been a ton of NFL Drafts and a ton of RBs drafted in varying rounds. His logic here is brutal, so this is a bad point. CBs are not entirely susceptible to the pass rush, but it clearly does affect tham and anyone who thinks otherwise is a boob. I don't care if it is Ty Law or Champ Bailey in their primes....the guy will not constantly shut down a WR who belongs in the NFL if a QB consistenly has all day to throw if the person calling the plays knows what they're doing.
The Vikings went 8-8 last season Of the 6 teams that passed on Peterson 3 of them had better records and 1 other was tie with the Vikings The Vikings offensive line is the main reason for Peterson's success.
The offensive line is the reason for every RBs success minus barry sanders, he never had a great O Line.
no i agree. The only time you do take a RB in the 1st round is when there is a RB like Peterson, Emmit Smith, LT, etc... The Broncos use UFAs and they have damn good results. Devils Advocate says that a bad o-line with an amazing RB can still get it done- but it has to be a once in a generation RB...
There are maybe 5 backs in NFL history worthy of a top 5 pick and Sanders tops the list. Since the merger: OJ, Walter Payton, Eric Dickerson, Emmitt Smith and Sanders. Everybody else was either a product of their line and scheme or broke down too quickly to make the pick worthwhile. I expect Adrian Peterson to be retired in 3 years.
You wouldn't think Curtis Martin was worthy of a top five pick? He wasn't ever much of a threat to break a big run, but he certainly was consistent and consistent for a long period of time. LaDanian Thomlinson wouldn't be worth a top five pick? Sean Alexander? (I could see where you might fit him into the "broke down too quickly" category, but he had quite a few successful years in there). I'll agree with the five you listed as "Franchise" running backs and they're definitely a step (or a step and a half?) above the ones I happened to pick out of my head, but I think there's been more than five top-five RBs in NFL history that were worthy of the pick. Just my opinion.
Earl Campbell was DEFINITELY worth a top 5 pick. He completely dominated the league for several years, and that was back when every defense keyed on him.
These are the RBs since the AFL-NFL merger who I think were/would have been worth a top 5 selection- LaDainian Tomlinson O.J. Simpson Walter Payton Earl Campbell Eric Dickerson Barry Sanders Emmitt Smith Curtis Martin Marshall Faulk Tony Dorsett *Curt Warner Adrian Peterson *He maybe doesn't seem to belong on this list. Well, he belongs. He led the AFC in rushing as a rookie in 1983 with 1449 yards. He suffered a severe knee injury in Week 1 of his 2nd season. He bounced back to have three additional 1000 yard rushing seasons and had 985 yards in the strike-shortened 1987 season (he only played 12 games). Warner was a phenomenal cutback runner. He was very similar to Curtis Martin right down to the same jersey number.
The only person in that list that I might make an exception for would be LaDainian Tomlinson. Faulk was an excellent back, but like Edgerrin James he relied heavily on his QB and on the system he played in to reach that level. When he (Faulk) was with the Colts he was very good but not great. He is the next closest though. Curtis Martin was never worth a top 5 pick, with his best seasons approaching the average seasons of people like Payton and Smith and never approaching Barry Sanders or Dickerson. Earl Campbell got hurt. So did Terrell Davis. So did Curt Warner. People who get hurt after a few seasons are definitely not worth top 5 picks, especially if they are at a position where durability is one of the measures of greatness. I thought Earl Campbell was a great back and I also recognize that the Oilers burned the tread off of his tires. In retrospect a team taking Earl Campbell in the top 5 (as the Oilers did) should be expecting to start drafting every year in the top 10 after his few seasons were done, and that's what the Oilers did. Dominating for a few years is not the sign of a great top 5 pick. Dominating for a decade is where you want to be to justify that kind of pick. The Lions, BTW, picked a true top of the draft talent in Barry Sanders and they still plateaued at a non-dominant level before they collapsed into the sodden heap of waste that they have been for most of the last decade. Runningbacks just don't justify a top 5 pick very often, even when they perform at that level. There are a lot of things that go into winning in the NFL and the ability to carry a football well is way down the list.
By your rationale, I'm not sure there would be many players at any position who would have justified a top 5 selection. I only listed 12 RBs from the past 38 drafts and you still think I went way overboard.
Give me the name of the top 5 WR worth a top 5 pick, LG, RG, RT, ML, OL, DT, SS, FS, CB, DE. Outside of the QB and maybe a LT who wasn't a product of something. Special players change games in big moments. The league is no longer about grinding out the most wins in the regular season, it's match up football 3 games against good opponents in an elimination tournement. The way to win match up football is to own as many of those match ups that you can. If you have an opportunity to get a game changing RB that can create a mismatch that might well be better than getting a solid 10 year inside linebacker. Denver won 2 SB because they had a talent that created an outright mismatch from the running back position. If MN gets to the playoffs even as a wild card they have a player that creates a mismatch for them that gives them a shot at the title. I look at the history of the Jets and we had 3 guys like that Namath, Toon and McNeal, all three injured but all three had a huge impact on the team and gave us our best shot at a title. In 98 we got the best season out of a player with mismatch talent and it carried us almost all the way, Vinny T. Yes there were a lot of good players around them but those mismatches create championships. You get a chance to pick a special talent you better have a real good reason to pass on it. We passed on Marino, big mistake. Nothing is guaranteed and football is certainly a team game but great teams usually have a couple of special players who create and win games. Running backs can be that player as much as an outside linebacker or DE or WR or even a TE. Grade them out take the guy who's special and if it's the running back don't pass on it.
Top of the draft runningbacks just don't change a team's standing very often, even in the relatively limited period of time that the position tends to be effective before physical decline sets in. Look at who has actually been drafted at RB in the top 5 and then make your case for those teams dramatically improving themselves as a result. I don't see very many backs who have had that effect.
The most recent back to make that quick impact was tomlinson, he was 5th overall. Peterson is on his way to improving that team. their QB blows, and the defense is good, but is that offense. His playmaking ability is what gets him by. Most RBs dont run like him when they get into the 2nd level. He runs pissed off, as if you personally did something to him and his family and now its time for him to get revenge- that is rarely seen in a back... its only seen in the great ones. He may be retired in 3 years if he catches the injury bug with the way he runs, but if he's healthy- he might crack 2000 yds and have an insane career.
