Grades: Week 10 vs Rams

[Superman]

I don't disagree wtih you entirely, but I don't have an issue with an RB going in the first round if it's a can't miss prospect. I am sure there are plenty of teams who would take Adrian Peterson with a top 10 pick and a need at RB.  Now I'm not saying that Trent is as good as AP, but the comparisons were all we heard about pre-draft.  We judge the value of trades in hindsight.  I guess my point is that, while we can find potential top 10 RBs in the second round of the draft, that doesn't mean their value is forever a second round draft pick.  Let's say, knowing what we know now, would you have been upset if we get the same production out of Trent as the Eagles do LeSean McCoy or Marshawn Lynch?  Because to me, if you could guarantee the same production, those guys are worth a first round pick. 

 

What makes this trade so inflammatory for the critics, is that we took all the risk on the trade and that we forced ourselves into hitting on a OL prospect later in the draft (which is harder to do than what you are arguing).  Trust me, I get it.  Worse yet, we got a power running back with no power running OL.  Then after injuries, it just imploded.  I still have faith that this trade might be worth it.  But where my faith is fading is in Pep's system.  To some extent, even with a good OL, cramming 18-20 guys in the box just isn't going to cut it. It's like expecting a hole to open up in the middle of a Rugby scrum.  You might get push, but don't expect to take a chunk of yardage out.

 

To your first point, the thing is that with a good offensive line, you're going to get production out of your running backs. You might not get McCoy or Lynch production out of one back, but if you have a solid stable of backs, you should be able to. Our starting RB corps this season would have been nice if our line could run block consistently. And the only guy who cost our team a high pick would have been RB3.

 

I'm not totally against having a blue chip RB prospect, I just think that today's NFL is a multiback league. And that being the case, you can get good production out of a stable of backs just like you can get good production out of a workhorse back. So long as you can block.

 

As for our draft pick, there's no telling what we would have done in the first round. Some people assume that we would have been drafting OL, but that's not necessarily the case. So I don't look at it as Richardson vs. a first round lineman. I think that's a flawed premise. And obviously, the best players are supposed to be in the first round, but you can get good players in later rounds. If we want a lineman in the second, we can get one. Warford went early in the third, and he's having a good rookie year. I could go on, and I could go back to the last couple of drafts and point out examples. Hugh Thorton is experiencing growing pains, but he's been promising. I'm fine with us drafting linemen outside of the first round. It's not always as sexy, but it works all the time.

 

Last thing, Pep has a lot of improvement to make in his schemes and play calling. He's being kind of stubborn, and it's frustrating to watch. BUT, I understand it. I'm a firm believer that an offensive line has to grow over the course of time, even five elite players, before they reach their full potential as a unit. With the injuries and shuffling, the growth has been stunted. But if we stop trying to develop that ability to power the ball forward, it will never come. On the other hand, you have to put your guys in position to succeed, and you have to play to their strengths. I'd rather see us get the offense moving by any means necessary early in the game, then try to finish teams off with strong running. Instead, we've been forcing the issue, and with it not working, we've been falling behind.

 

Anyways, I think we all agree that we have to make some adjustments, and we need some upgrades. Whether those guys are on the roster or not, I don't know. Might be.

[OffensivelyPC]

To your first point, the thing is that with a good offensive line, you're going to get production out of your running backs. You might not get McCoy or Lynch production out of one back, but if you have a solid stable of backs, you should be able to. Our starting RB corps this season would have been nice if our line could run block consistently. And the only guy who cost our team a high pick would have been RB3.

 

I'm not totally against having a blue chip RB prospect, I just think that today's NFL is a multiback league. And that being the case, you can get good production out of a stable of backs just like you can get good production out of a workhorse back. So long as you can block.

 

As for our draft pick, there's no telling what we would have done in the first round. Some people assume that we would have been drafting OL, but that's not necessarily the case. So I don't look at it as Richardson vs. a first round lineman. I think that's a flawed premise. And obviously, the best players are supposed to be in the first round, but you can get good players in later rounds. If we want a lineman in the second, we can get one. Warford went early in the third, and he's having a good rookie year. I could go on, and I could go back to the last couple of drafts and point out examples. Hugh Thorton is experiencing growing pains, but he's been promising. I'm fine with us drafting linemen outside of the first round. It's not always as sexy, but it works all the time.

 

Last thing, Pep has a lot of improvement to make in his schemes and play calling. He's being kind of stubborn, and it's frustrating to watch. BUT, I understand it. I'm a firm believer that an offensive line has to grow over the course of time, even five elite players, before they reach their full potential as a unit. With the injuries and shuffling, the growth has been stunted. But if we stop trying to develop that ability to power the ball forward, it will never come. On the other hand, you have to put your guys in position to succeed, and you have to play to their strengths. I'd rather see us get the offense moving by any means necessary early in the game, then try to finish teams off with strong running. Instead, we've been forcing the issue, and with it not working, we've been falling behind.

 

Anyways, I think we all agree that we have to make some adjustments, and we need some upgrades. Whether those guys are on the roster or not, I don't know. Might be.

I can agree with that.  When there's a lot of blame to go around, it's like standing in a boat and being able to throw a rock in any direction and hit water.  If there's one thing that's been made clear to me, is that while we have been very good considering we stripped 3/4 of our roster in 2012, we still have a long way to go in our rebuild.  The pieces are getting there and that's promising.   You see so much promise in a team that has beaten the caliber of teams it has this year, but then get knocked back a step when you lose to a team by 30 points that you probably should have beat.  Tough to keep expectations in check sometimes considering where we were two years ago and how we've exceeded expectations on the other hand.

[Superman]

I can agree with that.  When there's a lot of blame to go around, it's like standing in a boat and being able to throw a rock in any direction and hit water.  If there's one thing that's been made clear to me, is that while we have been very good considering we stripped 3/4 of our roster in 2012, we still have a long way to go in our rebuild.  The pieces are getting there and that's promising.   

 

Yeah, I said that a lot during the offseason. We played way over our heads in 2012. That record is not a true indication of the quality of our roster. A lot of people look at 11-5 and assume that we're a step away from being in the Super Bowl. And while we've beaten juggernauts so far this year, our roster still has holes. The injuries are also holding us back, and we have a young coaching staff. I think what we're seeing this year is the growing pains of a young team.

[Chucksoft]

The name, man.  Come on.  I get it and I'm sure that you weren't intending to be malicious with it.  But considering purpose behind the name, it's a bit disrespectful if you ask me.  Not telling you what to do or anything, but think about why the name "Chuckstrong" came around from the get go.  Had nothing to do with football or his coaching, ya know?

 

But I really wanted to respond to the 1st round trade part.  I can understand and even agree that using a first round pick for a RB is pushing it - especially when he hasn't shown any signs of improvement over the course of 8 or so weeks.  He deserves an offseason before the criticism deserves any serious support.  That being said, with the new rookie pay wage scale, OL are going much higher than they ever have.  There was what, 7 offensive lineman taken in the first 11 picks?  If we make the playoffs, we'd be picking from 2nd tier OL in a strong class.  And, by many accounts thus far, this year's draft class isn't boasting the offensive line depth...yet, anyway.  Which means that if we did have our first round pick, we're looking at a prospect that will either be a project, or a prospect that is NFL ready, but a gamble.  They're out there, sure.  But unless you have a top 10 pick, the gamble we took on Richardson will be about the same gamble that we took on any OL at the mid-20th pick in the draft.

 

If the Colts can let Papa John use #ChuckStrong and exploit his cancer to shill more pizzas to people than I think I can get away with using it to poke fun at the way our team is playing. I know we are all Colts fans but get off your high horses guys! See what I did there?

 

OIh yeah, and the decision to trade away a first round draft pick for a RB will always be a bad one.