Giants had Plaxico Steelers had "fast" Willie Parker Yes Defense win championships, but you need one guy who needs to be gameplanned for on offense. And all it takes is one. I'm not saying McFadden, maybe another offensive player in this draft, but we do need one guy you gameplan for.
You certainly need a FOUNDATION of solid trenchmen and defensive talent in order to go on a super bowl type run. But that doesnt mean adding an explosive player when you have the opportunity is a BAD thing..not by any stretch. Want an example? Look at the 04 Jets. We had a top 3 O-line, a top 5 D-line, a workman like running game, and an opportunistic defensive secondary. You can point to Doug brien all you want. But what helld that team back was conservative playcalling and even more so a lack of a consistent explosive playmaker. If we had had a guy like Steve Smith in the second half of that steeler game..there's no doubt we move the ball much more effectively and are packing our bags for a dog fight in Foxboro.
We did... we couldn't get them the ball, or refused to.. pick what you want to say... to use Duh Herms Jets to illustrate this point, IMO, doesn't help you because of that... Conservative is an understatement for the offense we ran under him...
I defenitely agree, very well said. The most glaring consistency between all the teams who are good year in and year out is that they all great in the trenches.
i think i said this in another thread, but i'll say it again here... realistically, we won't have all the components this season to make a true SB run. but by next year ('09/'10), we probably will. therefore, while still progressing towards that point and acquiring the necessary players needed for that run, we can get a threat, a gamebreaker - such as McFadden - and already have that weapon as we continue to build a championship team this year and beyond. i feel like people don't want McFadden because they have this win-now mentality and that's not really going to happen; by win-now, i mean serious SB contention. if we draft McFadden and only win 8 games this year, but then win 12 games next year and have that superstar RB in DMC, it'll be worth it.
It's really scary how people always think they found that one single key to winning...I have no idea when having elite talent at all positions hurt a franchise.
If the Jets had a good line he C-Mart would have had many more yards. That may sound strange seeing as he is the 4th all time leading rusher but his yard per cary average with the jets was what maybe 3. He got his yards because he got a whole lot of carries. Last explosive player... John Abraham...
well, Deion Branch got it done. Terry Glenn could also be in consideration, if he was healthy. Thanks for the all caps, made it easier to read. The do have Tom Brady, who is explosive in his own right. You need to at least try to gameplan for him. Giants got it done finally, yet he had Moss and Welker to help out this year. They do have the best system coach to ever walk a sideline. He beats Walsh (that hurts me to say) because Walsh had Rice. Their dynasty is a slight exception, but Branch still got it done. How about the explosive offensive players on the other 39 SB teams outside of the Pats? Even with Branch, who was not a TNT explosion, but still had a great impact on the offensive side of the ball.
Does anyone think the way Merrill Hodge interacts is kinda weird? Like he's really aggressive or something.
Who exactly has gotten rewarded for taking a top 10 runningback? I just don't see teams out there that have gotten the bang for their buck at that position in the draft recently. The closest is the Chargers and they added sequential QB's, a game-breaking TE and massively upgraded their defense before the runningback became a major factor. Put another way: Which runningbacks taken in the top 10 in the last decade have turned into elite players and who did they play for? 1998 - Curtis Enis (Chicago) - Bust and team does not improve 1998 - Fred Taylor (Jacksonville) - Star but often injured and team does not improve. 1999 - Edgerrin James (Indianapolis) - Star but Peyton is why the Colts became great. They finally win a Super Bowl after James is gone. 1999 - Ricky Williams (New Orleans) - Star and team does not improve. 2000 - Jamal Lewis (Baltimore) - Star and team wins Super Bowl however it was the defense that did that. Team declines immediately thereafter even as Lewis is rushing for 2000+ yards in a season. 2000 - Thomas Jones (Arizona) - Bust for them and team does not improve. 2001 - LaDainian Tomlinson (San Diego) - Star and team does not improve until they add a QB, a TE and revamp the defense. Leads the NFL in yards from scrimmage with 2370 as SD is going 4-12. 2002-2004 - No top 10 runningbacks are selected for 3 years in a row as the NFL absorbs the lessons of 1998 to 2001. 2005 - Ronnie Brown (Miami) - Star but team collapses almost immediately. 2005 - Cadillac Williams (Tampa Bay) - Headed for bust due to injuries at this point. 2005 - Cedric Benson (Chicago) - Average player who has little or no impact on his team's ability to win games. 2006 - Adrian Peterson (Minnesota) - Game-breaking player goes to a team with a solid defense and they go 8-8. Because runningbacks just aren't that impactful regardless of how good they are. Now if Minnesota adds a very good QB things will improve dramatically, but if they had added the QB and skipped Peterson that would have been true also. Barry Sanders is the greatest runningback in NFL history. He never got to a Super Bowl because it is not in the hands of a runningback to make that happen.
CMart was exceptional with the Jets, even leading the league in rushing after the age of 30. He wasn't 4.3 explosive, but he was explosive. Similar in many ways to Emmit Smith, but less record oriented IMO. Abraham was one of the biggest embarrassments we've ever had. Guy had no heart, no motor, and literally disappeared (as in did not step on field) for the big games when it counted. His skills when he did play were ok, but were not what most would consider explosive. Does not even belong in a conversation with CMart.
but wouldn't you say some of those players helped teams eventually? for example, the Chargers are perennial contenders, and i'm not so sure they would be without LT, even with their revamped D, Rivers, etc. Thomas Jones helped Chicago get to the SB, and his impact was evident because Benson and their running game suffered after he left to come here. i remember Reggie Bush taking one to the house against the Bears in the NFC Championship (a game the Jets haven't been to since '98, that being a Conference Championship). yeah, they didn't win, but he impacted the game and helped give the Saints a chance to advance to the Superbowl. i'm not saying McFadden will bring us a SB. but McFadden AND the other necessary components will give us a good chance.
The problem is, you can make this argument about really ANY position drafted in the top 10. I don't think anyone on here is a fringe fan who just shoots out "We need a QB/RB/WR" W/ every single draft pick we make. Nobody wants DMAC b/c he's flashy. All many of us are maintaining is that taking the best player available at every spot in the draft(excluding kickers and punters in round 1 and multiple QB's) is the way you build a winner long term. Excluding specific positions,drafting solely on need, and gimmicks like "it all starts up front" and/or "Defense wins championships", don't work in the draft. Use it all ya want in free agency, core values and the day to day operations...but on draft day....taking the best player available on the board, regardless of posiition is the way to go. This is how you build depth,competition, and an overall roster. The running back position is no exception.
Runningbacks have shorter careers on average than virtually any other position. They are more dependent on having the table set for them by a strong offensive line. Their effect on the game is more random in terms of personal success leading to victory and personal failure leading to defeat. Look at Adrian Peterson's lines last year and you can see this in bright glaring contrast. He had two extremely good games, which the Vikings won. Those two games represented more than a third of his yardage and half of his TD's for the year. He had four other 100+ yard games, which the VIkings split 2-2. He missed two games due to injury and the VIkings won both of those. He came back from the injury and the Vikings went 3-2 including his 14 carry for 3 yards performance against San Francisco which the Vikings dominated 27-7. Peterson obviously is not as talented as Barry Sanders was but those lines above could easily have represented the Lions when Sanders was playing for them.
You're kidding, right? That is an extremely selective list you have there. Start with OJ Simpson and go from there. Walter Payton, Tony Dorsett, Earl Campbell, Otis Anderson, Marcus Allen, Eric Dickerson, Bo Jackson...the list goes on and on forever. All top 10 picks. Next question? Never mind..I just saw where you said "last decade". Great backs don't come along every year so you try and get one when they do.
None of this demeans the notion of taking a best player available approach though. Yes, there are certain positions that carry more risk than others in terms of long term success. But that doesnt mean you take a lesser player just b/c he projects as having a longer career. Would you rather have a solid but unspectacular middle linebacker for 10 years, or an all pro borderline hall of fame running back for 8 years? That logic just doesnt make alot of sense to me. Not to mention I can make an arguement that ALOT of positions need help around them to yield success. Football is a TEAM game w/ many different facets. An MLB needs a NT to protect him from linemen, A qb needs pass protectors to allow him to stand upright, a running game to disrupt timing and recievers who can get open, Pass protectors need a QB who can get rid of the ball in a proper time frame/release and an RB who can read the gaps, DB's need a pass rush to give them a chance to make plays on the ball, wide recievers need pass protection a QB who can get them the ball and a solid running game. It's an ongoing cycle. And the only way to build ALL of these aspects..is by staying true to your big board. You pay your scouts alot of money to watch games year round, you spend alot of time/money from feb through april watching film,doing interviews,deliberating in meetings to build a proper big board. Why would you completely defy your evaluation system based on position and a few bad apples from the past? Doesn't that like..defeat the purpose of the entire process?
Hey, no one's saying that a solid pro that lasts 15 years is any better than a hall-of-famer who lasts 8. If McFadden were a sure hall-of-famer, we should trade our entire draft to get him. Fact is, though, that RB's drafted high more often than not don't work out in the salary cap era and McFadden is not a sure hall-of-famer. Couple that with the fact that RB is one of the deepest positions in this draft and that a pass-rusher is one of the hardest things to find and you see our dilemma. Bill Parcells once said that he focuses his teams on defense first because that's something that you can rely on. Explosive offenses may be great once in a while, but too often, they sputter when you need them the most. The way to a championship is a great defense and I'd rather have that than a guy that might break for a 60-yd run but who may get shut down during the playoffs. That was the problem with Barry Sanders and a host of other RB's who never won the super bowl. Thomas Jones, at this point, is well-suited for our scheme. We don't need to upgrade that position (though I'm not even convinced that's an upgrade). What we need is a dominant defense and right now the holes are these: ILB opposite David Harris pass rushing OLB CB opposite Revis S opposite Rhodes After we've filled those needs should we talk about upgrading any other position.
