CheezyColt

This is dumb. The argument isn't that every running back picked after the first round is awesome. You're arguing against a point that was never made. The idea would be to find out where the successful RBs in the league were drafted. How do you miss the point by such a huge margin? It's impressive really.

I'd be more interested to see a Chiefs opener rematch honestly. It's hard to call it a return before McDaniels has ever coached a game for us. I'd say they won't put that matchup until after week 6.

So we just need to sign the best OL, best WR, best pass rusher, and top ILB on the market this year while re-signing our own best free agents? Simple enough.

All 4 of the final teams had top 5 defenses. Just because two teams had to lose doesn't make defense any less relevant. Why does that even need to be said?

There's a lot wrong with your posts but I'll keep it to two main points that I feel like answering (mainly because the baby just went to sleep so I need to try to get a couple hours in before he wakes back up) In what world is any draft pick, especially a RB that struggled against top talent, a guarantee? Hint: Not this one. People want a top defense because we do have that great QB. You said Jags and their #1 D couldn't keep up offensively - because they don't have that QB. Top QB+top D=success. Why do you think top qb/RB would be greater than top qb/defense? Steelers

Luck is undefeated when Colts hold opponents to under 20 points I believe. Think about that. And Blake played well tonight.

Fournette and the #1 rushing attack in the league couldn't stop the Pats either.

We can only hope!

Not silly. Look at the post I quoted and was responding to. JShipp was stating how much better Barkley is than T-Rich coming out, which is revisionist history at best. It sounds like we actually agree in that anyone, no matter how hyped, can bust. I have also made the same argument in regards to the value above replacement in this draft in the Chubb/Barkley debate, stating that this is a deeper draft of RBs than Edge rushers. Looks like we're on the same page.

All I keep hearing is Barkley is the next Adrian Peterson. I've heard that before (several times since 2012 actually). Before you say there's nothing to compare, let's note what sports outlets were saying about good ole TRich before he came out. BR "So while Richardson may not be as dangerous a quick-strike weapon as Peterson is, he's actually the safer pick coming out of college". SB Nation Mike Mayock: Trent Richardson Is The Best Running Back Prospect Since Adrian Peterson NFL.com combine profile "Richardson is as compact and coiled an athlete that the running back pos

Oh for * sake.

I don't buy that for a second. But to each their own I suppose.

That reason was a marketing one for season ticket sales during the upcoming relocation. Gruden = $$$ He is the cannon ball of splash hires.

Just in recent years there's been Gurley, Gordon, Zeke, and Fournette that have been "generational" RB talents. How often is does a blue moon come around anyway?

BPA should take need into account. Position value is a thing. The value above replacement between first round pass rushers vs day 2 pass rushers and first round RBs vs day 2 RBs is not equal. As ALFC said, with Luck in the lineup we're likely to have a potent offense again. If we ever want to compete for SBs again we have to build a defense. We have offensive cornerstones (Luck, Hilton, AC, Kelly). On defense we have Hankins and maybe Malik Hooker? Just doesn't seem to make sense to splurge on a RB when we have a weak O-line and defense.

The same one with a top 5 defense?

He's going to have to learn to stop falling down as he catches it, but I am excited to get him in space as well (provided we still take a couple shots per game downfield for him)

Pretty sure he announced that he's going back to Bama.

The fact that he is the only one who is informed enough to make the decision using the available data. We can say we have our favorite candidates, that makes sense. What doesn't make sense is putting it out there that if the only person dialed in enough to make an informed decision doesn't pick my favorite, arbitrarily picked, candidate then he isn't worth his salt period. I've seen Jshipp's evolution on Wilks in multiple posts as well. It started with "I think might like Wilks best" and has somehow morphed into "If Ballard doesn't choose Wilks he sucks." As previously stated, th

So if Ballard doesn't choose the candidate you think you like the most, he isn't worth his salt? That's ridiculous. We don't have the information on these guys like the people actually interviewing them.

I still think Dallas would have been better off taking Ramsey.

And if you watch a highlight reel of Chubb you'll never see him miss a tackle or not make a play. Highlight reels only show the good, of course he's going to look amazing.

I think Gurley led his team in either receptions or receiving yards this year.

This is 100% true. The fact that he's interviewing shows he's interested in the job, but he could get to NY or CHI and be blown away. We're competing for coaches in the same way coaches are competing for jobs. Just have to hope you find the right fit.

If we take Ballard at his word, BPA is his style. I feel that is backed up by the Hooker and Quincy picks. I preferred Rivers over Basham, and of course the Pats took Rivers right after we took Basham, but he got hurt so we don't know if he's any better yet. I believe Ballard has also said BPA with the caveat that with similar ranked players, need would factor in, though he also stressed he wouldn't pass up a great talent for need. He's also stressed that trenches are THE place to build a team. All of this is from memory, so it may be flawed. But I'm sure this can be verified via