How would you feel on drafting Gurley?

[backshoulderfade]

I remember an ankle bit not 100%. He only rushed for a thousand yards one out of three seasons and never had 225 carries in a season.

I was aware of the carries, which could be viewed as a positive in some ways when you consider there is potentially less wear than their otherwise might be. If it is all injury related then that's an issue though.

[Superman]

I don't believe in the devaluation of the RB. A good back can completely change your offense and help control the tempo of the game. If Gurley is available at our pick I'd be happy if we picked him up.

 

A good running game can completely change your offense, but you don't have to have a top notch back to have a good running game. I'm all about being able to run the ball well. I don't think we should use a first rounder on a back, though.

[Superman]

If he clears his medical tests, then I'd be fine with it.

 

Gurley is a rare and special back.    You saw what Murray did for Dallas.     That's what Gurley could do for the Colts, IF we had a better O-line....

 

I'd roll the dice on him.....

 

Joseph Randle was just as good as Demarco Murray behind the Cowboys' line. Maybe better (higher TD percentage, higher average... of course, he was a reserve, not the lead back). No question Murray is the better player, but when you have a dominant offensive line, you don't really need the dominant back.

 

IMO, if we wind up with an offensive line like what Dallas has, it won't really matter who's carrying the ball. So long as we don't have bums, they'll be productive. We don't need Gurley, although he'd be nice.

[wig]

I was aware of the carries, which could be viewed as a positive in some ways when you consider there is potentially less wear than their otherwise might be. If it is all injury related then that's an issue though.

The last two years his carries were definitely low because of injuries and not the team trying to save his legs.

[backshoulderfade]

The last two years his carries were definitely low because of injuries and not the team trying to save his legs.

Obviously the ACL tear took his season away this year. Can't seem to find anything on other injuries.

Look at the Clemson game last year though. He totaled like 15 carries, not nessessarly to save his legs though.

[wig]

Obviously the ACL tear took his season away this year. Can't seem to find anything on other injuries.

Look at the Clemson game last year though. He totaled like 15 carries, not nessessarly to save his legs though.

http://m.ajc.com/news/sports/college/ugas-gurley-still-dealing-with-injuries-may-or-may/nd6Wh/

[NewColtsFan]

Joseph Randle was just as good as Demarco Murray behind the Cowboys' line. Maybe better (higher TD percentage, higher average... of course, he was a reserve, not the lead back). No question Murray is the better player, but when you have a dominant offensive line, you don't really need the dominant back.

 

IMO, if we wind up with an offensive line like what Dallas has, it won't really matter who's carrying the ball. So long as we don't have bums, they'll be productive. We don't need Gurley, although he'd be nice.

 

I'm sorry,  but I simply don't except that argument about Randle and Murray.

 

When you can show me that Joseph Randle did as well in the lead dog spot,  and not just that he had same numbers as a reserve,  then I'll agree.

 

But there's a big difference in what you do as a lead dog in a run heavy offense and as the back-up in a run heavy offense when you're not even in a time-share.    Randle was just getting work here and there.

 

Those two guys are simply not the same.

 

Put another way,  did anyone in Dallas say....  "We can let go of Murray,  we have Joseph Randle.   He can do the job."

 

We both know the answer......

[Superman]

I'm sorry,  but I simply don't except that argument about Randle and Murray.

 

When you can show me that Joseph Randle did as well in the lead dog spot,  and not just that he had same numbers as a reserve,  then I'll agree.

 

But there's a big difference in what you do as a lead dog in a run heavy offense and as the back-up in a run heavy offense when you're not even in a time-share.    Randle was just getting work here and there.

 

Those two guys are simply not the same.

 

Randle did better than Murray. Murray had a TD every 30 carries; Randle had one every 17 carries. Murray averaged 4.7 yards/carry; Randle averaged 6.7 yards/carry. I think you could adjust for usage and role and make an argument that Randle would have produced as well as Murray with lead back touches.

 

However, not only is that impossible to determine; that's not what I'm saying, and it's not my point. Murray is obviously better than Randle, based on what we've seen so far.

 

What I'm saying is that when you have a dominant line, you don't need a first round back. In fact, it's probably a waste. Statistically speaking, you'll get better production out of two backs with inferior talent than you will out of one back with superior talent. It's not that a highly talented RB isn't valuable, statistically. It's that his production is replaceable, at far less cost.

 

Most people would agree that they wouldn't want to spend $8m/year on a RB. It's the same logic that says I don't want to spend a first rounder on a RB. It's all about value above replacement. A RB's production -- even a top RB -- is replaceable. That's especially true when you have a dominant offensive line, which is why the Cowboys let Murray walk.

[NewColtsFan]

Randle did better than Murray. Murray had a TD every 30 carries; Randle had one every 17 carries. Murray averaged 4.7 yards/carry; Randle averaged 6.7 yards/carry. I think you could adjust for usage and role and make an argument that Randle would have produced as well as Murray with lead back touches.

 

However, not only is that impossible to determine; that's not what I'm saying, and it's not my point. Murray is obviously better than Randle, based on what we've seen so far.

 

What I'm saying is that when you have a dominant line, you don't need a first round back. In fact, it's probably a waste. Statistically speaking, you'll get better production out of two backs with inferior talent than you will out of one back with superior talent. It's not that a highly talented RB isn't valuable, statistically. It's that his production is replaceable, at far less cost.

 

Most people would agree that they wouldn't want to spend $8m/year on a RB. It's the same logic that says I don't want to spend a first rounder on a RB. It's all about value above replacement. A RB's production -- even a top RB -- is replaceable. That's especially true when you have a dominant offensive line, which is why the Cowboys let Murray walk.

 

I think you were making a decent argument right up to the end where you wrote this:

 

"A RB's production -- even a top RB -- is replaceable."

 

Would you like to try and back that up?     Because I don't think that's true.

 

I'd like to see something that supports that.     And don't go looking at Minnesota who has had huge trouble replacing Adrian Peterson.

 

As to the rest of your argument....   with discrepancies like that so much in favor of Randle,  then why did Dallas go out and sign McFadden?     Why did no one with Dallas say we're replacing Murray with Randle?     Look at how much better Randle's numbers are.  One might think that means Randle is better than Murray.     But he's not, and even you acknowledge that.

 

Hey, I've been pounding the drum for a great o-line since I showed up here in May of 2012.    My Stanford background cemented that, though I always felt that way.    I'm the guy who called for the Colts to draft La'el Collins in the first round while at the same time I've been yelling for a commitment to drafting some quality defensive help.     I get what having a great OL can do.

 

I just think Gurley is rare and special and not easily replaced in an NFL offense.

[Dustin]

I'd like to see something that supports that.     And don't go looking at Minnesota who has had huge trouble replacing Adrian Peterson.

 

Vikings went from 2,081 rushing yards in 2013 to 1,804 rushing yards in 2014. A difference of 277 yards, or 17 yards per game.

 

They also had the 4th best rushing DVOA in the league last year: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamoff

 

Now, I don't know about you, but I'd rather have the $10M in cap space than the extra 17 yards per game. 

[NewColtsFan]

Vikings went from 2,081 rushing yards in 2013 to 1,804 rushing yards in 2014. A difference of 277 yards, or 17 yards per game.

 

They also had the 4th best rushing DVOA in the league last year: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamoff

 

Now, I don't know about you, but I'd rather have the $10M in cap space than the extra 17 yards per game. 

 

Dustin.....

 

Those numbers might as well have been in Chinese for me.    I barely understood a thing.....

 

But if you're trying to say that Minnesota suffered almost no drop off from Peterson in '13 to whoever they used last year -- OK.

 

Then explain to me again why Minnesota wants Peterson back so they can pay him $12.75 Million to do the job that a bunch of no names did for pennies on the dollar?

[Dustin]

Those numbers might as well have been in Chinese for me.    I barely understood a thing.....

 

In 2013, the Vikings ran for a team total of 2,081 rushing yards.

 

In 2014 (the year without Peterson) they rushed for 1,804 team rushing yards.

 

The difference in their rushing total from the Peterson to non-Peterson year was 277 yards.

 

277 divided by 16 games in a season comes out to 17 yards per game.

 

The Vikings rushed for 17 yards a game less than they did when they had Peterson. 

 

Do you think a $13M cap hit is worth 17 yards per game? 

[BOTT]

Dustin.....

 

Those numbers might as well have been in Chinese for me.    I barely understood a thing.....

 

But if you're trying to say that Minnesota suffered almost no drop off from Peterson in '13 to whoever they used last year -- OK.

 

Then explain to me again why Minnesota wants Peterson back so they can pay him $12.75 Million to do the job that a bunch of no names did for pennies on the dollar?

Same reason they drafted Christian Ponder

[Dustin]

Then explain to me again why Minnesota wants Peterson back so they can pay him $12.75 Million to do the job that a bunch of no names did for pennies on the dollar?

 

I once saw a team give up a 1st round pick for a runnIngback who averaged 3.6 YPC. 

[NewColtsFan]

In 2013, the Vikings ran for a team total of 2,081 rushing yards.

 

In 2014 (the year without Peterson) they rushed for 1,804 team rushing yards.

 

The difference in their rushing total from the Peterson to non-Peterson year was 277 yards.

 

277 divided by 16 games in a season comes out to 17 yards per game.

 

The Vikings rushed for 17 yards a game less than they did when they had Peterson. 

 

Do you think a $13M cap hit is worth 17 yards per game? 

 

Did you read my post?     I sure can't tell  by your response.

 

The numbers you used here are the same numbers you used in your previous post.    I got that.   I understand that.

 

The numbers I didn't understand were in your links.     Not the ones in your post.

 

And the argument you just made is the one you should be sending to Minnesota.    Because they want Peterson back even though the guys they had last year did almost as good a job.

 

Don't sell me on that.    Sell Minnesota.    Because they see it differently.

[Superman]

I think you were making a decent argument right up to the end where you wrote this:

 

"A RB's production -- even a top RB -- is replaceable."

 

Would you like to try and back that up?     Because I don't think that's true.

 

I'd like to see something that supports that.     And don't go looking at Minnesota who has had huge trouble replacing Adrian Peterson.

 

As to the rest of your argument....   with discrepancies like that so much in favor of Randle,  then why did Dallas go out and sign McFadden?     Why did no one with Dallas say we're replacing Murray with Randle?     Look at how much better Randle's numbers are.  One might think that means Randle is better than Murray.     But he's not, and even you acknowledge that.

 

Hey, I've been pounding the drum for a great o-line since I showed up here in May of 2012.    My Stanford background cemented that, though I always felt that way.    I'm the guy who called for the Colts to draft La'el Collins in the first round while at the same time I've been yelling for a commitment to drafting some quality defensive help.     I get what having a great OL can do.

 

I just think Gurley is rare and special and not easily replaced in an NFL offense.

 

I think the plan in Dallas is to replace Murray with a platoon, not any one player. McFadden and Randle and probably another back will be used to replace Murray's production. McFadden certainly didn't get a meaningful contract offer.

 

As for an example, I'll start with the Vikings. Despite injuries and inconsistent play, Asiata and McKinnon nearly matched Peterson's 2013 numbers. They definitely outproduced him as a receiver. And Asiata is an undrafted back who is probably less talented than 80% of the rest of the backs in the NFL. So I don't think the Adrian Peterson example is really disproving my argument. You have to go back to 2012, which is really an aberration in today's NFL.

 

But take a better example, like the Broncos. They had 394 carries split between four different backs with at least 54 carries. Those backs averaged 4.4 yards/carry, totaled nearly 1,800 yards, and scored 15 TDs. That's about an average rushing attack, but they're in the same range as Demarco Murray's career 2014, on the same number of carries. An extra .3 yards/carry from Murray isn't totally insignificant, but there is a factor of diminishing returns at some point -- how much better does that extra .3 yards/carry make your team, how many wins is it worth? And that's a group that includes a 2nd rounder, a 3rd rounder, and two UDFAs (one of which was the best of the bunch and will probably start in 2015). 

 

Or look at what the Ravens did with a journeyman 7th rounder, a 3rd rounder and a 4th rounder. They produced better than Murray.

 

There are plenty of examples of platoon backfields that outproduce one lead back.

 

Of course, I don't want a bunch of bums. What I want is to pair Gore and Boom and whoever else is healthy with a draft pick in 2015 -- Duke Johnson, Jay Ajayi, Jeremy Langford, TJ Yeldon, Cameron Artis-Payne, just to name a few -- and have a strong and deep RB platoon with room for growth. I want those guys to run behind a good (I won't get greedy and ask for great) offensive line. If we do that, I think we'll have a strong rushing attack.

 

I agree with your assessment of Gurley. I think he's a great talent. I'm nervous about his injury, and wonder whether he'll even play in 2015. But assuming he gets healthy, this year or next, I think he'll be a really good back in the NFL. I'd like to have him. I just don't think having a really good or even great back is worth a first round draft pick, especially when you have a good QB and a good offensive line.

 

There are other positions that impact the game more when you have a top talent, that are harder to find, and that last longer in the NFL. For me, a RB is not a first round acquisition in today's NFL. I've felt that way for a long time.

[NewColtsFan]

I think the plan in Dallas is to replace Murray with a platoon, not any one player. McFadden and Randle and probably another back will be used to replace Murray's production. McFadden certainly didn't get a meaningful contract offer.

 

As for an example, I'll start with the Vikings. Despite injuries and inconsistent play, Asiata and McKinnon nearly matched Peterson's 2013 numbers. They definitely outproduced him as a receiver. And Asiata is an undrafted back who is probably less talented than 80% of the rest of the backs in the NFL. So I don't think the Adrian Peterson example is really disproving my argument. You have to go back to 2012, which is really an aberration in today's NFL.

 

But take a better example, like the Broncos. They had 394 carries split between four different backs with at least 54 carries. Those backs averaged 4.4 yards/carry, totaled nearly 1,800 yards, and scored 15 TDs. That's about an average rushing attack, but they're in the same range as Demarco Murray's career 2014, on the same number of carries. An extra .3 yards/carry from Murray isn't totally insignificant, but there is a factor of diminishing returns at some point -- how much better does that extra .3 yards/carry make your team, how many wins is it worth? And that's a group that includes a 2nd rounder, a 3rd rounder, and two UDFAs (one of which was the best of the bunch and will probably start in 2015). 

 

Or look at what the Ravens did with a journeyman 7th rounder, a 3rd rounder and a 4th rounder. They produced better than Murray.

 

There are plenty of examples of platoon backfields that outproduce one lead back.

 

Of course, I don't want a bunch of bums. What I want is to pair Gore and Boom and whoever else is healthy with a draft pick in 2015 -- Duke Johnson, Jay Ajayi, Jeremy Langford, TJ Yeldon, Cameron Artis-Payne, just to name a few -- and have a strong and deep RB platoon with room for growth. I want those guys to run behind a good (I won't get greedy and ask for great) offensive line. If we do that, I think we'll have a strong rushing attack.

 

I agree with your assessment of Gurley. I think he's a great talent. I'm nervous about his injury, and wonder whether he'll even play in 2015. But assuming he gets healthy, this year or next, I think he'll be a really good back in the NFL. I'd like to have him. I just don't think having a really good or even great back is worth a first round draft pick, especially when you have a good QB and a good offensive line.

 

There are other positions that impact the game more when you have a top talent, that are harder to find, and that last longer in the NFL. For me, a RB is not a first round acquisition in today's NFL. I've felt that way for a long time.

 

 

S.....

 

You wrote this......      "There are plenty of examples of platoon backfields that outproduce one lead back."

 

I'd agree with that.    But that's not what we were talking about.

 

We were talking about one SPECIAL lead back.

 

And you brought up the same example as Dustin did.    Minnesota.   

 

And my question to you is the same as it is to him........  Minnesota knows their running back by committee almost equaled Peterson from the previous year.    So, if that's the case....    why does Minnesota want him back?     Why aren't they trying to trade him?

 

Why are they willing to bring back Peterson at $12.75 Million when the other backs combined probably cost the Vikings less than $3 Mill.     Why not trade Peterson and use the other $10 Mill elsewhere?

[Superman]

S.....

 

You wrote this......      "There are plenty of examples of platoon backfields that outproduce one lead back."

 

I'd agree with that.    But that's not what we were talking about.

 

We were talking about one SPECIAL lead back.

 

And you brought up the same example as Dustin did.    Minnesota.   

 

And my question to you is the same as it is to him........  Minnesota knows their running back by committee almost equaled Peterson from the previous year.    So, if that's the case....    why does Minnesota want him back?     Why aren't they trying to trade him?

 

Why are they willing to bring back Peterson at $12.75 Million when the other backs combined probably cost the Vikings less than $3 Mill.     Why not trade Peterson and use the other $10 Mill elsewhere?

 

Well, I used Minnesota and compared their production with Peterson to their production without Peterson. It's not far off. I also used what Denver and Baltimore did vs what Murray did. Those are the two best RB seasons of the last three seasons. I think that's evidence that a platoon can match or come close to the production of even a special lead back, setting aside a near-record setting season.

 

As for what Minnesota thinks/wants, I can't really say why they think/want it. But I can say that the Vikings have averaged 6 wins a game for the last five seasons, so I don't really know that their preference is worthy of consideration. Aside from the fact that he's their one legacy player of the last decade (depending on what you think of Randy Moss; you might need to go back to the Cris Carter era), there's little reason for them to be so eager to pay him $13m in 2015. What they should be doing -- IMO, of course -- is trading him for whatever they can get, and turning the page. 

 

And I don't mean it to seem like I don't appreciate what a special back can do. But there are a lot of really good backs in the league that aren't first rounders -- Bell, Forte, Foster, McCoy, Charles, maybe others. Most of them get hot for a couple years, then quickly fade away. I'd rather use our first rounder on a special talent that is likely to be a difference maker for our team for more than three or four seasons, who can be a long term building block, who plays a position where the production isn't so readily replaced by inferior players, etc. 

[NewColtsFan]

Well, I used Minnesota and compared their production with Peterson to their production without Peterson. It's not far off. I also used what Denver and Baltimore did vs what Murray did. Those are the two best RB seasons of the last three seasons. I think that's evidence that a platoon can match or come close to the production of even a special lead back, setting aside a near-record setting season.

 

As for what Minnesota thinks/wants, I can't really say why they think/want it. But I can say that the Vikings have averaged 6 wins a game for the last five seasons, so I don't really know that their preference is worthy of consideration. Aside from the fact that he's their one legacy player of the last decade (depending on what you think of Randy Moss; you might need to go back to the Cris Carter era), there's little reason for them to be so eager to pay him $13m in 2015. What they should be doing -- IMO, of course -- is trading him for whatever they can get, and turning the page. 

 

And I don't mean it to seem like I don't appreciate what a special back can do. But there are a lot of really good backs in the league that aren't first rounders -- Bell, Forte, Foster, McCoy, Charles, maybe others. Most of them get hot for a couple years, then quickly fade away. I'd rather use our first rounder on a special talent that is likely to be a difference maker for our team for more than three or four seasons, who can be a long term building block, who plays a position where the production isn't so readily replaced by inferior players, etc. 

 

S....

 

You wrote this.....

 

"Most of them get hot for a couple years, then quickly fade away. I'd rather use our first rounder on a special talent that is likely to be a difference maker for our team for more than three or four seasons, who can be a long term building block, who plays a position where the production isn't so readily replaced by inferior players, etc."

 

Before I say anything else, I should say that I'm in basic agreement with you.   That it's not worthwhile to use a 1st round pick on a running back.    I've posted that many times here over the years.  

 

I'm only saying in this thread that I think Gurley is an exception to the rule.

 

That -- picking at 29 -- he's so much better a player than anyone else who might be available to us at that point, that I'd be OK with taking him.     At 29 we might be taking a player who otherwise might be the best player in this draft and only fell due to injuries.     And I've offered the proviso that he's got to clear his medical hurdles.

 

Sometimes a player is worth being an exception to the rule.    I think Gurley is that kind of talent.

 

Otherwise,  as I've been thinking about this draft,  I've pegged the Colts taking a RB in the 4th round and lets focus on defense and perhaps the OL with the first 3 rounds.

[Superman]

S....

 

You wrote this.....

 

"Most of them get hot for a couple years, then quickly fade away. I'd rather use our first rounder on a special talent that is likely to be a difference maker for our team for more than three or four seasons, who can be a long term building block, who plays a position where the production isn't so readily replaced by inferior players, etc."

 

Before I say anything else, I should say that I'm in basic agreement with you.   That it's not worthwhile to use a 1st round pick on a running back.    I've posted that many times here over the years.  

 

I'm only saying in this thread that I think Gurley is an exception to the rule.

 

That -- picking at 29 -- he's so much better a player than anyone else who might be available to us at that point, that I'd be OK with taking him.     At 29 we might be taking a player who otherwise might be the best player in this draft and only fell due to injuries.     And I've offered the proviso that he's got to clear his medical hurdles.

 

Sometimes a player is worth being an exception to the rule.    I think Gurley is that kind of talent.

 

Otherwise,  as I've been thinking about this draft,  I've pegged the Colts taking a RB in the 4th round and lets focus on defense and perhaps the OL with the first 3 rounds.

 

That all makes sense. If not for his injury history, I might be in favor of making that exception for Gurley. I doubt it, but maybe he would have continued to destroy CFB in 2014, 7.4 yards at a time, and maybe I'd be on board.

 

But three things:

 

1) While I don't think drafting for need is the right approach, I do think that it's sometimes appropriate to scratch certain positions from your board, unless there's great value. I'd put RB in that category for us in 2015. Even if Gurley is a top five talent, he's still a RB. Maybe he's an exception, but...

 

2) Because we're still trying to settle the offensive line and the defense in general, I think we'd get more bang for our buck out of a starter / playmaker at a lot of other positions. Gurley probably won't be ready at the beginning of the season, which would reduce his impact in 2015, and maybe even bury him on the depth chart once he is healthy.

 

3) There's still questions about durability in the short term, and longevity. 

 

It's just my thinking, but I wouldn't make an exception for Gurley this year. All these things above, combined with my opinion of how you can get production out of the position, make it a no for me.

[pacolts56]

I don't think you can quantify....with stats alone....the value of a truly top tier, 3-down RB.

 

Production from a RBBC is one thing.....but having Andrew Luck and a solid WR/TE corps, and then adding a gifted homerun hitter at RB that gives opposing DCs migraines is another.

 

And when the RB in question is THAT good, the argument of their career longevity is a bit of a non-issue, IMO.

 

Because with the rookie salary cap having taken cap-killing salary bonuses out of the equation...a 3-4 year rookie deal PLUS a tagged year at the now-devalued salaries these RBs make represents the 5 years you're likely gonna get out of most of your roster anyway.

 

This Business Insider breakdown shows that the average career for a rookie making an opening day NFL roster is 6 years, with 1st round picks averaging 9.3 seasons.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/nfls-spin-average-career-length-2011-4

 

Now....I'll grant that RB's are probably a drag on that 9.3 year 1st round average, but IMO....if you can get the 5 best years of a truly worthy 1st round RB's career it's worth it. Especially if it correlates with the sweet spot of Andrew Luck's career.

 

If a RB who is THAT good were to land at our 1st round spot in a given draft year, especially at the late-round vicinity we're used to....we should pounce on him if he represents a clear added threat to our offense.

 

I've pointed out in previous threads how the selection of Leveon Bell in 2012 instead of Bjorn Werner not only would have netted us the better player and a gifted 3-down RB....but it would have rendered the Richardson trade completely unnecessary.....saving the 2013 1st rounder we surrendered and possibly helping solve our DL or Safety issues.

 

I like a mid-late round steal as much as anyone....and this coming draft, with Gurley coming off the ACL....I'd prefer we go that route.

 

But I'm not prepared to say we should NEVER draft a 1st round RB.

[aaron11]

 I don't think he is going to be there at 29,

id rather not get into big debate for this reason, but i personally wouldnt mind if we picked him at 29 though he wouldnt be my first choice

 

i dont put much stock into the devaluing of the position, but id still rather we grab a blue chip for one of the lines than a RB in the first round now that we have gore

[aaron11]

 

I've pointed out in previous threads how the selection of Leveon Bell in 2012 instead of Bjorn Werner not only would have netted us the better player

thats a no brainer in hindsight. i was hoping we would take eddie lacy

[pacolts56]

thats a no brainer in hindsight. i was hoping we would take eddie lacy

He'd have been a good choice too.

 

I don't like going the 20/20 hindsight route, but it was in the context of this discussion that RBs should absolutely never be taken in the 1st round.

 

Maybe Werner surprises us all this year.....and with Gore aboard we at least have some credibility in the run game now.

 

We'll be okay.

[NewColtsFan]

That all makes sense. If not for his injury history, I might be in favor of making that exception for Gurley. I doubt it, but maybe he would have continued to destroy CFB in 2014, 7.4 yards at a time, and maybe I'd be on board.

 

But three things:

 

1) While I don't think drafting for need is the right approach, I do think that it's sometimes appropriate to scratch certain positions from your board, unless there's great value. I'd put RB in that category for us in 2015. Even if Gurley is a top five talent, he's still a RB. Maybe he's an exception, but...

 

2) Because we're still trying to settle the offensive line and the defense in general, I think we'd get more bang for our buck out of a starter / playmaker at a lot of other positions. Gurley probably won't be ready at the beginning of the season, which would reduce his impact in 2015, and maybe even bury him on the depth chart once he is healthy.

 

3) There's still questions about durability in the short term, and longevity. 

 

It's just my thinking, but I wouldn't make an exception for Gurley this year. All these things above, combined with my opinion of how you can get production out of the position, make it a no for me.

 

Nice post.     Thanks, I appreciate it.

 

Some thoughts....

 

I know some teams (not sure if it's all teams?)   go back and check on the injuries.    Were they simply bad luck, and another player fell on their leg and injured it,  or did the guy plant and his leg buckled?   

 

I first read about this about 35 years ago, when the Bengals went back and checked each of the knee injuries that Anthony Munoz suffered at USC.    Turns out, he was the victim of bad luck in each case.

 

They drafted him 3rd overall and I'm not sure he ever missed a single game in the NFL.....

 

If Gurley's injuries appear to be more him than a victim of circumstance,  then I'd be much more skeptical.   But if he's more the victim of circumstance and he's knee is healing and holding up well, and we're drafting at 29,  then I might be more willing to gamble.

 

There's part of me that dreads the possibility that we pass on him -- he goes on to a great NFL career -- and then we have to read all the Monday Morning QB's here saying Grigson blew it and should've taken Gurley.    It's a real damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.   And I hate those!

 

As to the Colts draft, I'd be perfect happy if we woke up Saturday morning having taken three quality defenders in the first three rounds.    As Dustin has noted in this thread,  we have all of four defensive players that Grigson has selected in his first three drafts.    At some point, we need to make a commitment to get much better on that side of the ball,  especially in light of Irsay's very public comments about being able to stop the run in January.

 

Then again,  if we spend one of those first three picks on the OL,  I'm not sure that can ever be criticized.   Our OL still isn't where it needs to be and protecting Luck as well as getting better run blocking is never a bad thing....

 

Your thoughts?

[Superman]

I don't think you can quantify....with stats alone....the value of a truly top tier, 3-down RB.

 

Production from a RBBC is one thing.....but having Andrew Luck and a solid WR/TE corps, and then adding a gifted homerun hitter at RB that gives opposing DCs migraines is another.

 

And when the RB in question is THAT good, the argument of their career longevity is a bit of a non-issue, IMO.

 

Because with the rookie salary cap having taken cap-killing salary bonuses out of the equation...a 3-4 year rookie deal PLUS a tagged year at the now-devalued salaries these RBs make represents the 5 years you're likely gonna get out of most of your roster anyway.

 

This Business Insider breakdown shows that the average career for a rookie making an opening day NFL roster is 6 years, with 1st round picks averaging 9.3 seasons.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/nfls-spin-average-career-length-2011-4

 

Now....I'll grant that RB's are probably a drag on that 9.3 year 1st round average, but IMO....if you can get the 5 best years of a truly worthy 1st round RB's career it's worth it. Especially if it correlates with the sweet spot of Andrew Luck's career.

 

If a RB who is THAT good were to land at our 1st round spot in a given draft year, especially at the late-round vicinity we're used to....we should pounce on him if he represents a clear added threat to our offense.

 

I've pointed out in previous threads how the selection of Leveon Bell in 2012 instead of Bjorn Werner not only would have netted us the better player and a gifted 3-down RB....but it would have rendered the Richardson trade completely unnecessary.....saving the 2013 1st rounder we surrendered and possibly helping solve our DL or Safety issues.

 

I like a mid-late round steal as much as anyone....and this coming draft, with Gurley coming off the ACL....I'd prefer we go that route.

 

But I'm not prepared to say we should NEVER draft a 1st round RB.

 

A drafted RB and even a first round RB is probably half of what you listed. Even if we go 4 years for the average, 6 years for a first rounder, that's still a big drag on the overall average. You're hardly getting out of the rookie contract, certainly not through a second contract. And when you add in time lost due to injuries over the career, it's even less return on your investment.

 

And really, the reason the longevity is an issue is because -- despite how good he is for a short period of time -- the assumption is that you could have had a really good player at a different position, and have less time lost due to injury, and have him making an impact for a longer period of time. Meanwhile, you can find good backs, maybe not special, but in a platoon they'll get the job done, with less invested at a non-premium position.

 

Which of those scenarios makes it easier to build a sustained contender?

 

As for making the Richardson trade unnecessary, I think two things are important to remember. First, in my opinion, the Richardson trade was unnecessary anyways. Given my stance in this thread, I'm sure you can understand that I didn't think giving up a first rounder for a RB was a good trade. Second, Grigson probably doesn't make the trade if Ballard doesn't get hurt, so he was less likely to use a first on a back in 2013 before Ballard got hurt. I don't know if you were making that argument back around the draft, or if it's just a hindsight argument. Either way, I think what this comes down to is that the Richardson was a bad trade, on its own merits. Doesn't really mean we should have used a first rounder on another back, IMO.

 

Like you say, a mid rounder is my preference also. I'm more comfortable saying NEVER draft a first round RB, but I acknowledge that there are exceptions to pretty much every rule (except, never get involved in a land war in Asia). I just think, given our team composition and Gurley's injury history, he isn't the exception. JMO

[Superman]

Nice post.     Thanks, I appreciate it.

 

Some thoughts....

 

I know some teams (not sure if it's all teams?)   go back and check on the injuries.    Were they simply bad luck, and another player fell on their leg and injured it,  or did the guy plant and his leg buckled?   

 

I first read about this about 35 years ago, when the Bengals went back and checked each of the knee injuries that Anthony Munoz suffered at USC.    Turns out, he was the victim of bad luck in each case.

 

They drafted him 3rd overall and I'm not sure he ever missed a single game in the NFL.....

 

If Gurley's injuries appear to be more him than a victim of circumstance,  then I'd be much more skeptical.   But if he's more the victim of circumstance and he's knee is healing and holding up well, and we're drafting at 29,  then I might be more willing to gamble.

 

There's part of me that dreads the possibility that we pass on him -- he goes on to a great NFL career -- and then we have to read all the Monday Morning QB's here saying Grigson blew it and should've taken Gurley.    It's a real damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.   And I hate those!

 

As to the Colts draft, I'd be perfect happy if we woke up Saturday morning having taken three quality defenders in the first three rounds.    As Dustin has noted in this thread,  we have all of four defensive players that Grigson has selected in his first three drafts.    At some point, we need to make a commitment to get much better on that side of the ball,  especially in light of Irsay's very public comments about being able to stop the run in January.

 

Then again,  if we spend one of those first three picks on the OL,  I'm not sure that can ever be criticized.   Our OL still isn't where it needs to be and protecting Luck as well as getting better run blocking is never a bad thing....

 

Your thoughts?

 

You make good points about researching the cause of his injuries. Anthony Munoz is a good example of that. No one can see the future, but previous injuries generally make future injuries more likely.

 

Aside from that, the question about whether he'll ever return to form after this knee injury is a big one. And again, we can't know in advance. To me, the risk is a major deterrent. The research will be done, and maybe the decision makers will be fine with the risk. To me, the odds are just not favorable. That's all I really have to go on. And so far, he hasn't allowed any independent medical personnel to evaluate him, for whatever reason. So I don't think the decision makers have a lot to go on, either.

 

The reason it's such a huge deterrent is that our team needs to add talent. The best shot we have at improving our team as of right now is with our first round pick. If we get it right, that player should make our team better in 2015; Gurley might not play in 2015. 

 

I think picking defensive playmakers and even an offensive lineman would have more immediate impact for our team, and would have longer impact also. And like you said, we have very few drafted defensive players. 

 

Of course, I don't know anything. Gurley might be at the top of Grigson's board.

[Gavin]

Just take Abdullah or Johnson in the 2nd or 3rd round

[UKColt13]

In general I have no problem with taking a RB in the first. I disagree with the whole "it's a passing league!" argument because a good running game can improve your offense hugely (as we now know). LeVeon Bell came in and helped make the Steelers O a powerhouse. Eddie Lacy has taken the pressure off of Rodgers in GB. A good running game keeps the defense honest and doesn't allow them to drop 8 men into coverage consistently.

 

But, I wouldn't draft Gurley or Gordon, because I believe that they both have question marks next to them (just my opinion). Gurley's is health. I realise he is a young guy but he relies on explosion and a serious knee injury can affect that. Gordon ran behind a Wisconsin line. Wisconsin are known for powerful, road-grader linemen and a run heavy offense that can inflate RB's stats. Gordon needs to show he isn't just a product of the system and that he can produce behind a more leaky line.

 

I like both players, and both are 1st round prospects but I don't want the Colts to draft them. Mainly because of our shortcomings on D rather than their shortcomings on the field.

 

If we have a solid defensive draft this year, there is a good RB class coming next year that I would be very tempted to take advantage of.

[pacolts56]

Just take Abdullah or Johnson in the 2nd or 3rd round

I'd be happy to see us take David Johnson in the 2nd round.

[Valpo2004]

I'd rather wait til the 2nd if possible.  

[krunk]

I'd be happy to see us take David Johnson in the 2nd round.

 

He's talking about Duke Johnson not David.

[pacolts56]

He's talking about Duke Johnson not David.

Ooops...forgot about the "Shady" clone from Miami, thanks.

Different style runners, Duke and David...but either one is fine with me.

[krunk]

I love me some Gurley and I think it would be Awesome to have him together with Gore, but I also love me some Duke Johnson.  I think it would be very exciting to have a Frank Gore and Duke Johnson Tandem.  Then you add in Boom Herron and whoever else and we're looking real good.

[PeterBowman]

if he's the BPA and no other teams are willing to trade up for the spot, then I'm all about Gurley.

[hoosierhawk]

I would pass on a RB in the first for a first round OL. We need to build the line first. I'd take a good OL and an average RB before a poor OL and a great RB. Not only will the good OL help the running game but also the passing game and most know we need to protect our franchise QB.

[pacolts56]

A drafted RB and even a first round RB is probably half of what you listed. Even if we go 4 years for the average, 6 years for a first rounder, that's still a big drag on the overall average. You're hardly getting out of the rookie contract, certainly not through a second contract. And when you add in time lost due to injuries over the career, it's even less return on your investment.

 

And really, the reason the longevity is an issue is because -- despite how good he is for a short period of time -- the assumption is that you could have had a really good player at a different position, and have less time lost due to injury, and have him making an impact for a longer period of time. Meanwhile, you can find good backs, maybe not special, but in a platoon they'll get the job done, with less invested at a non-premium position.

 

Which of those scenarios makes it easier to build a sustained contender?

 

As for making the Richardson trade unnecessary, I think two things are important to remember. First, in my opinion, the Richardson trade was unnecessary anyways. Given my stance in this thread, I'm sure you can understand that I didn't think giving up a first rounder for a RB was a good trade. Second, Grigson probably doesn't make the trade if Ballard doesn't get hurt, so he was less likely to use a first on a back in 2013 before Ballard got hurt. I don't know if you were making that argument back around the draft, or if it's just a hindsight argument. Either way, I think what this comes down to is that the Richardson was a bad trade, on its own merits. Doesn't really mean we should have used a first rounder on another back, IMO.

 

Like you say, a mid rounder is my preference also. I'm more comfortable saying NEVER draft a first round RB, but I acknowledge that there are exceptions to pretty much every rule (except, never get involved in a land war in Asia). I just think, given our team composition and Gurley's injury history, he isn't the exception. JMO

No....I generally don't like taking 20/20 hindsight angles, mostly because GMs are going to strike out on 1st rounders at any position sooner or later, whether they simply underperform or bust outright.

 

But you gotta admit....this Bell/Werner/TRich example broke the mold and really screwed us up on several levels.

 

No, my contention is simply that catching a "lightening in a bottle RB" for 4-5 years during Andrew's prime....now that they've been so deeply devalued....versus building a solid enough line to support a RBBC are evidently not that different in degrees of difficulty, and a healthy Todd Gurley taken at #29 would have been fine with me.

 

Because let's face it, we've been chasing our tails for the past 8 years now trying to recapture a playoff-caliber rushing attack and for the most part the run-blocking at playoff time has simply not been good enough. 

 

So if we're gonna continue such a frustratingly   job of assembling an O-line that is at least good enough to support a RBBC approach versus playoff defenses, all I'm saying that asking Andrew to compensate for it may not be enough....and that an instinctive and gifted RB, drafted in the 1st round if necessary, could exponentially help and be the difference between being a contender and a Super Bowl Champion.

 

Good quality depth at the position and wise use of one's premier RB's carry total are very important as well. 

 

There are good examples on both side of the debate....Dallas and Denver on yours, and Seattle and Pittsburgh on mine.

 

One thing is for sure....until we execute one of the two approaches, we may have a hell of a time winning the Super Bowl.

[Briggs32]

We drafted Werner because of need and look where that got us. I think we are ata point where we can go BPA as long as we can adequately fit him in our scheme.

[BOTT]

We drafted Werner because of need and look where that got us. I think we are ata point where we can go BPA as long as we can adequately fit him in our scheme.

And how do you know this?

[That Guy]

We drafted Werner because of need and look where that got us. I think we are ata point where we can go BPA as long as we can adequately fit him in our scheme.

 

Actually, Werner is probably the only BPA pick in Grigson's history (other than MAYBE Dwayne Allen and Josh Chapman (and Luck does not count!)).  They have mentioned multiple times (and yes, I believe them) that they were not expecting Werner to be available.  Grigson's drafts are FULL of players targeted.