yes we certainly have needs. I'm not disputing that. Nor am i disputing that if DMAC and Gholston/either of the Long's are both there at 6, that i will understand if we pass on DMAC for the greater need. Why? B/c the value is close enough to make that transaction. But at the same time....there are worse things in the world than being at 6..being unable to trade down, and having DMAC there for us. Again, he adds depth, competition, and another element to our offense...while being the best player on the board. I'm not debating need, the history of drafting RB's, or any of the other position based gimmicks people are throwing out there. I'm stating that taking the best plkayer available in the draft is the proper method to use. Currently, DMAC may very well be the best player available at # 6.
but it's not that simple. what if McFadden is there at #6 and none of the players at the positions you listed are worth that pick? do you trade down, take McFadden, or reach for a need?
McFadden = Reggie Bush 1.2 I won't be pissed if we draft the guy. Who knows, he maybe the next Gale Sayers.. But I don't see him as an every down, carry the load, move the pile, kind of back. to me he's just a taller Reggie Bush. Which i guess isn't a horrible thing. if we can't trade, get Longs or Gholston, i have no problem with adding him to the already crowded backfield. Who's the next great TE in this years draft? Maybe we'll select the 2nd best after him.
Great runningbacks do come along every year. Just not all of them in the top 10 picks. I do not think there has been a year in the last 15 in which a great runningback did not suddenly emerge from the muck to become at least a great 2 year back. My definition of great back in this case would be back-to-back 1,000 yard seasons . Teams that emphasize the run get great production out of their runningbacks, with spikes when a great one comes along. Teams that cannot find a runningback for their life, despite the fact that 1 to 5 new guys emerge every year to be good or great get lousy production out of their backs. True story: Curtis Martin was about the 50th most talented runningback in NFL history. But he was one of the top 5 for toughness, and that's where the hall of fame career came from.
if you have watched them both play, Bush and McFadden are not really similar RB's at all. they're running styles are completely different: McFadden is stronger and is a better North/South runner (and does it more frequently) than Bush. that's why you don't see Bush doing what he did in college; that running style doesn't translate well against the speed of NFL D's. while McFadden bounces outside, he hits the hole better which is necessary in the NFL.
The only thing I disagree with in this post is that any player is obviously a HOFer...which is actually a pretty big mistake because McFadden is clearly one of the top talents that can reach us...he's arguably *the* top talent that is significant...
This is a great post. Great teams are not made by great running backs and the early first round of drafts, for more than a decade, are littered with running back busts. The position does not translate well from college to the NFL.
i don't know, i feel like the numbers are factual, but the other half of the argument is subjective. Jamal Lewis rushed for 103 yards in the Superbowl, which was only the 2nd time a rookie ran for over a buck in a SB. sure, their D willed them to that SB; but that year Lewis rushed for 1,300 yards, averaging like 4.5 per carry. and that was in that awful Offense when D's knew he was the only source of O. the point is, maybe a RB with less talent doesn't get the Ravens to the SB along with the trophy.
It's unbelieveable to me how so many ccannnot ccomprehend the concept of "best player available" regardless of position.
Granted, if we really thought that DMAC was the BPA at #6 with no one close, we should take him. However, here are my points: 1. I don't think he's all that good. When I watched Adrian Peterson last year, I was blown away by how tough he was and how fast he ran. Same with LaDanian Tomlinson. I'm not getting that sense from DMC. To me, he's maybe a #15 pick, not a top 6. Mel Kiper Jr may disagree with me, but I just don't see him being that good in the pros, where he'll get hit much harder every down and not outrun everyone to the outside. 2. BPA means Best Player Available. Not Best Athlete Available, not Best College Producer Available. He is a phenomenal athlete and produced a lot in college. But as a player in our system? I just don't think he's the best option. I'd rather take a player that we know can fit (Keith Rivers, for example) and will play well in our system. Our running game is going to have to be a tough between-the-tackles grind. Our offense needs to drain lots of minutes off the clock and control the ball. That's how we're building this team and honestly, DMC won't be a great player in that offensive system. 3. Years contributed should be a factor RB's slip in drafts for one very good reason. They don't last as long. A typical productive RB is in the league for about 8 years. Most don't last even that long. A productive LB will last 15 years. Athleticism and production (relative to position) being equal, who do you take? Heck, even if the RB has a little more ability, I think you should take the LB. Is DMC a lot better than, say, Rivers or McKelvin? Personally, I think he's better, but not 30% better. It's more like 10% better (the percentage being very relative, of course). 4. Scarcity should be a factor There are tons of good RB's in this draft. The difference between DMC and say, Hart (a much better fit for our system, I think), isn't that huge. The difference in a top pass rusher vs a pass-rusher in the 3rd or 4th round? That's huge. I'm okay with BPA, as long as we really think he's the best player.
All your points are good. We won't know if DMac has the goods until he is carrying the ball in the NFL for the NY Jets. If he busts on a another team - who cares. The draft is always a risk - there are no absolutely sure things. This is one of the reasons why I am so happy about the way we attacked the FA Market this year - you should get what you pay for. DRob is a classic example of what can happen in a draft. There is no way the guy ever lived up to #4 talent and his salary, especially this upcoming season is insane - that's why it is trade or good-bye for him. I feel the most important aspect of getting a player like McFadden is it is totally on the coaching staff to optimize his utilization. If we make him our #1 and expect him to be our every-down back, that would be asking for a mega-bust. I don't think DMac can do it out of the bottle - he will have to work hard for that role - I do think he is capable of getting there in a couple of years. The best utilization of McFadden in our offense is to drop him into the slot - that gives him the best chance of being successful. Also, have a package of 5 to 10 plays designed for him during a game out of the backfield and that does not always mean he should get the ball either - put DMac in the backfield and then have the play go to TJ - we have to keep the D honest.
