Barkley & B. Chubb if 2017 class

[krunk]

On ‎12‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 2:59 PM, NewColtsFan said:

 

Sorry...   but no....

 

There is no world in which Bradley Chubb the DE/OLB from NC State would've been a second round pick in last year's draft....

 

Or in ANY years draft for that matter.

 

Chubb is a top 5 player in this year's draft.   Last year, he'd have been top 10...

 

This year's draft is not as good as last year's.   But it's not THAT bad.

 

Chubb is a very, very talented player.   If you think he'd be a second round pick then you're not following the draft close enough to know...    Sorry.

 

Just because the EDGE CLASS is not as strong, doesn't mean that the best player of the class is not good, or, as you put it, a second rounder.

 

That's a mis-evaluation.   Chubb is a much better player than you realize...

 

I agree. No way Chubb is a second rounder last year. Insane and very biased calculation

[gacoop1]

Barkley has to be the first choice to help Luck or somebody in the offensive side.  Barkley can do it all, catch and run and go inside tackle to complement Mack.  The Defense can pick up and improve in 2018 especially with a new DC and implement new schemes, etc...ala Wade Phillips from the Rams.  Sad we didn't pick him up when he was available in 2017. But, no worries we'll be a much improved team with new coaches.....hoping.

[Surge89]

On 12/25/2017 at 4:07 PM, stitches said:

How does 23 sacks for a season as a team sound to you? Or no. 31 in pass-rush in the league?

 

Just an FYI a dominant running back helps both the oline (not allowing rushers to just rush but hesitate) and the QB (hesitation and play action) and the Defense (by being able to control the clock and keep the Defense fresh).  

 

So I'd say Barkley literally remedies both of those issues you just brought up... 

[Surge89]

On 12/25/2017 at 2:59 PM, NewColtsFan said:

 

Sorry...   but no....

 

There is no world in which Bradley Chubb the DE/OLB from NC State would've been a second round pick in last year's draft....

 

Or in ANY years draft for that matter.

 

Chubb is a top 5 player in this year's draft.   Last year, he'd have been top 10...

 

This year's draft is not as good as last year's.   But it's not THAT bad.

 

Chubb is a very, very talented player.   If you think he'd be a second round pick then you're not following the draft close enough to know...    Sorry.

 

Just because the EDGE CLASS is not as strong, doesn't mean that the best player of the class is not good, or, as you put it, a second rounder.

 

That's a mis-evaluation.   Chubb is a much better player than you realize...

 

 

I'm just not a big Chubb fan and to say he would have for sure been a top 10 last year is pushing it.  He "might" have been a top 20 player over Harris but it would be hard to have him slot over Barnett or Allen.

[NewColtsFan]

This is the argument you just made....

 

Bell, a SECOND round pick and a top 50 draft pick is the same as Jordan Howard, a FIFTH round pick taken roughly 150th overall.    You lump them together and make an argument that they're the same.Sorry, but that's wrong.

 

Your comment was about MID to late round RBs.    A second rounder is not a mid round pick.   It's a high pick.   So you e reframed the argument.   Mid round are the fourth and fifth round.   Late rounds are six and seven.

 

There have been no shortage of posts here showing that in any given year the the top 10 rushers are typically made up of 1-3 top RBs that were drafted in the first round and 7-9 RBs who were drafted later...

 

And THAT is the argument AGAINST using a first round draft pick on a RB.   Because you can find roughly the same guy in later rounds.    It doesn't matter what the reason is...   injury, too much weight,  questionable competition, whatever the reason...   those guys fall and can be found in later rounds.

 

[NewColtsFan]

39 minutes ago, Surge89 said:

 

I'm just not a big Chubb fan and to say he would have for sure been a top 10 last year is pushing it.  He "might" have been a top 20 player over Harris but it would be hard to have him slot over Barnett or Allen.

 

I think we are going to find that Chubb is much more explosive than Barnett and Harris...   but if you're now seeing that Chubb is a top 20 kid....   then fine...   st least you've moved off a second round view...    that was my main argument.

 

The rest is just a difference of opinion...

 

Appreciate that....

[stitches]

58 minutes ago, Surge89 said:

 

Just an FYI a dominant running back helps both the oline (not allowing rushers to just rush but hesitate) and the QB (hesitation and play action) and the Defense (by being able to control the clock and keep the Defense fresh).  

 

So I'd say Barkley literally remedies both of those issues you just brought up... 

Those are nonsense narratives and myths not supported by evidence. You can make the same argument about any position really... just watch - elite pass-rusher helps not only your pass rush defense, but also your CBs because the rushers don't give the opposing QB time to throw, and they also help your offense because they give you the ball back more quickly thus your QB has more opportunity and you hold the ball for more time and this helps your running backs and WRs and it exhausts your opponent's defense.

 

This is all largely nonsense. There is a reason why RBs are the lowest paid non-special teams players in the league and the lowest positional value in the league. It is not because they help your O-line and QB and defense and special teams and your coaches and .... so on and so forth. It's because they are very replaceable. Most RBs have somewhat narrow of an affect that is restricted specifically to what they are asked to do and the difference between the elite prospects and the average ones is much lower than the difference between the elite pass rushers and the average ones. 

[Indy Fan]

On 12/25/2017 at 2:59 PM, stitches said:

But you can surely start with the best prospect at the second most elite position in the league. Good pass-rushers don't hit free agency anymore so we will need to draft ours and this is a great opportunity to do that. IMO the value is not there for us to make a luxury pick like Barkley at 3. 

I don’t agree with the other poster in taking Barkley but I wouldn’t be opposed to solidifying the o-line to protect the “most elite position in the league.” It in turns allows for more time for the wide receivers to get open and opens up more running lanes for our backs. My philosophy is about starting in the trenches on both sides of the ball first and this can’t be accomplished in just one draft.

[Hoose]

I think we can all agree that Barkley is a major talent. Assuming he nails it at his pro day, he will go in the top 10 and deservedly so.  Its just that for a team in such desperate need of a pass rush, and with a player that has the talent of Chubb, this seems like an easy call to me. You cannot find talent like that on the open market; talented pass rushers stay with the team that drafted them. You CAN usually find several talented RBs in the draft and in free agency, and therein lies the difference. If I'm the Colts brass, I pick Chubb. Thats a no brainer. 

[Superman]

37 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

I think we are going to find that Chubb is much more explosive than Barnett and Harris...

 

I think he looks more explosive than both of them. Not sure how that will play out in testing.

[Superman]

31 minutes ago, stitches said:

Those are nonsense narratives and myths not supported by evidence. You can make the same argument about any position really... just watch - elite pass-rusher helps not only your pass rush defense, but also your CBs because the rushers don't give the opposing QB time to throw, and they also help your offense because they give you the ball back more quickly thus your QB has more opportunity and you hold the ball for more time and this helps your running backs and WRs and it exhausts your opponent's defense.

 

This is all largely nonsense. There is a reason why RBs are the lowest paid non-special teams players in the league and the lowest positional value in the league. It is not because they help your O-line and QB and defense and special teams and your coaches and .... so on and so forth. It's because they are very replaceable. Most RBs have somewhat narrow of an affect that is restricted specifically to what they are asked to do and the difference between the elite prospects and the average ones is much lower than the difference between the elite pass rushers and the average ones. 

 

20 minutes ago, Hoose said:

I think we can all agree that Barkley is a major talent. Assuming he nails it at his pro day, he will go in the top 10 and deservedly so.  Its just that for a team in such desperate need of a pass rush, and with a player that has the talent of Chubb, this seems like an easy call to me. You cannot find talent like that on the open market; talented pass rushers stay with the team that drafted them. You CAN usually find several talented RBs in the draft and in free agency, and therein lies the difference. If I'm the Colts brass, I pick Chubb. Thats a no brainer. 

 

Two very excellent posts that cut through the false narratives and highlight the real issues. 

[UKColt13]

I don’t like Chubb for us unless we shift to a full-time 4-3. Unlikely. Even then, he wouldn’t have been a 2nd rounder last year. Bottom of the top 10 probably. 

 

You said you didn’t think Chubb was that great and then said you want us to take him at #3? Am I missing something?

 

Honestly I’d rather take Barkley than Chubb right now.

[NewColtsFan]

8 hours ago, stitches said:

Those are nonsense narratives and myths not supported by evidence. You can make the same argument about any position really... just watch - elite pass-rusher helps not only your pass rush defense, but also your CBs because the rushers don't give the opposing QB time to throw, and they also help your offense because they give you the ball back more quickly thus your QB has more opportunity and you hold the ball for more time and this helps your running backs and WRs and it exhausts your opponent's defense.

 

This is all largely nonsense. There is a reason why RBs are the lowest paid non-special teams players in the league and the lowest positional value in the league. It is not because they help your O-line and QB and defense and special teams and your coaches and .... so on and so forth. It's because they are very replaceable. Most RBs have somewhat narrow of an affect that is restricted specifically to what they are asked to do and the difference between the elite prospects and the average ones is much lower than the difference between the elite pass rushers and the average ones. 

 

Not sure what evidence you'd like....     but I can tell you that in my readings,  the idea of a RB helping the team in multiple ways,  (slows the pass rush and helps keep the defense off the field is a broadly accepted view in the NFL.)

 

As as one example....     I can give you the Dallas Cowboys....

 

I've posted this several times before,  but a few years ago,  when Dallas drafted Elliott 4th overall,  the local media asked why and noted the growing trend of teams believing it's NOT worth it to draft a RB that high....

 

Jones responded that in their research,  they looked at the previous two years...   15 and 14...     and that in 14,  they had DeMarco Murray and he ran for about 1850 yards that year.     The Cowboys saw that they had the ball far more than they used to,  that their time of possesson was way up,   and that their defense (which was not great)  was off the field far more.      Then,  in 15,  Murray left as a free agent,  the Cowboys used Darren McFadden,  and he rushed for just under 1100 yards.   Their defense was back on the field far more than the previous year and the offense sputtered.     The Cowboys went 4-12.     Now,  they were NOT blaming it all on McFadden.  They had plenty of other problems as well.     I'm sure there were Tony Romo issues involved as well.

 

But that convinced the Cowboys that drafting Elliott high in the first,  even 4th overall,  was worth it to them.    And I believe they went 12-4 Elliott's rookie year.    And the team stats in 16 mirrored what they had been back in 14 with Murray.     So in 14 and 16 their formula worked.     In 15, using a good, but not great RB,  it did not.

 

Dallas is convinced their decision making worked.

 

I've never viewed this as an exception to the rule.      And I don't believe in drafting a RB that high,  UNLESS a quality RB is the last missing piece to a great offense, and the RB was a special talent.    Then, I'd be willing to do so.    Otherwise,   I'm fine drafting a RB in the 2nd or the 3rd or even the 4th round.      I'd like the Colts to use a 4th round pick this year to pair with Mack.     I think there will be a good solid pounder to contrast with Mack available at the top of the 4th...

 

Are there exceptions to the rule?      Yes.     Is Barkley that guy?      I don't know?    If Ballard drafts him,  I will support the decision,  but I believe it would be a mistake.

 

I just think the team has so many needs, that it's far more important to build the O-line and the defense with the draft this year.     And that's what I expect.....

 

Sorry for the length of ths post........    wanted to address all of your position....

 

[stitches]

4 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Not sure what evidence you'd like....     but I can tell you that in my readings,  the idea of a RB helping the team in multiple ways,  (slows the pass rush and helps keep the defense off the field is a broadly accepted view in the NFL.)

 

As as one example....     I can give you the Dallas Cowboys....

 

I've posted this several times before,  but a few years ago,  when Dallas drafted Elliott 4th overall,  the local media asked why and noted the growing trend of teams believing it's NOT worth it to draft a RB that high....

 

Jones responded that in their research,  they looked at the previous two years...   15 and 14...     and that in 14,  they had DeMarco Murray and he ran for about 1850 yards that year.     The Cowboys saw that they had the ball far more than they used to,  that their time of possesson was way up,   and that their defense (which was not great)  was off the field far more.      Then,  in 15,  Murray left as a free agent,  the Cowboys used Darren McFadden,  and he rushed for just under 1100 yards.   Their defense was back on the field far more than the previous year and the offense sputtered.     The Cowboys went 4-12.     Now,  they were NOT blaming it all on McFadden.  They had plenty of other problems as well.     I'm sure there were Tony Romo issues involved as well.

 

But that convinced the Cowboys that drafting Elliott high in the first,  even 4th overall,  was worth it to them.    And I believe they went 12-4 Elliott's rookie year.    And the team stats in 16 mirrored what they had been back in 14 with Murray.     So in 14 and 16 their formula worked.     In 15, using a good, but not great RB,  it did not.

 

Dallas is convinced their decision making worked.

 

I've never viewed this as an exception to the rule.      And I don't believe in drafting a RB that high,  UNLESS a quality RB is the last missing piece to a great offense, and the RB was a special talent.    Then, I'd be willing to do so.    Otherwise,   I'm fine drafting a RB in the 2nd or the 3rd or even the 4th round.      I'd like the Colts to use a 4th round pick this year to pair with Mack.     I think there will be a good solid pounder to contrast with Mack available at the top of the 4th...

 

Are there exceptions to the rule?      Yes.     Is Barkley that guy?      I don't know?    If Ballard drafts him,  I will support the decision,  but I believe it would be a mistake.

 

I just think the team has so many needs, that it's far more important to build the O-line and the defense with the draft this year.     And that's what I expect.....

 

Sorry for the length of ths post........    wanted to address all of your position....

 

I'm not convinced by this argument. I read an article explaining why this is a flawed perspective some time ago(I'm trying to find it, but I've read it about a year ago and I can't seem to find it right now, if I do I will post). In essence they explained why this doesn't survive more than the cursory look into the data. I think they used Dallas specifically. They showed that the team's running game was NOT impacted significantly by the drafting of Elliot(Dallas run about the same yards and about the same yards per carry as a team) and they attributed almost all the difference between their time of possession and opponent number of possessions to having had bad QB play in the previous year, rather than having Elliot in his rookie year. 

 

This argument also assumes drafting a defensive beast like... say Ramsey/Bosa wouldn't have been much better for the defense... 

[Surge89]

13 hours ago, stitches said:

Those are nonsense narratives and myths not supported by evidence. You can make the same argument about any position really... just watch - elite pass-rusher helps not only your pass rush defense, but also your CBs because the rushers don't give the opposing QB time to throw, and they also help your offense because they give you the ball back more quickly thus your QB has more opportunity and you hold the ball for more time and this helps your running backs and WRs and it exhausts your opponent's defense.

 

This is all largely nonsense. There is a reason why RBs are the lowest paid non-special teams players in the league and the lowest positional value in the league. It is not because they help your O-line and QB and defense and special teams and your coaches and .... so on and so forth. It's because they are very replaceable. Most RBs have somewhat narrow of an affect that is restricted specifically to what they are asked to do and the difference between the elite prospects and the average ones is much lower than the difference between the elite pass rushers and the average ones. 

 

Lol.

 

Nonsense narratives...  do you even watch football?  Because a majority of the NFL believes in those narratives that you call nonsense.  Also OF COURSE you can make that argument for any elite position.  That is why people want elite prospects for every position.  I mean how thick are you seriously trying to be?  And I completely agree that an elite pass rusher can help with multiple areas of the entire team but if you are trying to sell to me that Chubb is a more likely prospect of being a truly "elite" player than Barkley then I'm going to have to disagree with you to the 10th degree. 

 

Lol first before I venture down this rabbit hole with you I must say that salary in a vacuum is a terrible argument, but alas I'll bite.  The NFL had a drought of running backs for almost 8 years in which there were approximately 5 elite RBs in the entire league.  This is the first effect of off balancing the salary meta for RBs.  This is a huge influx of RB talent that is coming into the league and you are going to see salaries dramatically increase soon.  The first will most likely be Bell who will get his 16 million plus deal next year somewhere because having a RB who can do it all is going to be copied around the league again just like the running back by committee was copied from the Patriots about a decade ago.  

 

Also the RBs we've had the past couple of years are replaceable yes but the new crop coming in you will soon see more cases like the Cowboys where the RB just can't be replaced.  Hell they had Morris and McFadden and they still felt the drop off.  Look at Pittsburgh last year.  Bell goes down and the Steelers look like they didn't even belong in the game the minute he left.  So you can go on your hoopla over RBs and I'll even tell you that I partly agree with you.  Most RBs are easily replaceable and don't belong in the first round but when we start talking elite talent like Barkley and you voice their impact as nonsensical it is very hard to take you seriously.  

[Surge89]

13 hours ago, Superman said:

 

 

Two very excellent posts that cut through the false narratives and highlight the real issues. 

 

Lol.

 

I'm not sure I've ever had a more disagreeing post with you.  

 

It's odd how adamant you are to sustain this disdain for a position.

[Surge89]

13 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I think we are going to find that Chubb is much more explosive than Barnett and Harris...   but if you're now seeing that Chubb is a top 20 kid....   then fine...   st least you've moved off a second round view...    that was my main argument.

 

The rest is just a difference of opinion...

 

Appreciate that....

 

Tbh I need to see numbers.  When I watch I'm not wowed but the numbers don't lie.  I've never viewed him as a second rounder but in my initial views through the college season there was a lot of chance involved in his "highlights" but then again I was never focusing on him individually.  I'll be sure to take a look and attempt to not have a biased angle but I'm sure it'll be useless until I see his combine. 

 

I'll say this though hes for sure one of the better edge rushers.  The guys behind are just blah besides Key and Ferrell and Ferrell might be fools gold with all of that dominant talent around him.  Who knows at this point...

[stitches]

23 minutes ago, Surge89 said:

 

Lol.

 

Nonsense narratives...  do you even watch football?  Because a majority of the NFL believes in those narratives that you call nonsense.  Also OF COURSE you can make that argument for any elite position.  That is why people want elite prospects for every position.  I mean how thick are you seriously trying to be?  And I completely agree that an elite pass rusher can help with multiple areas of the entire team but if you are trying to sell to me that Chubb is a more likely prospect of being a truly "elite" player than Barkley then I'm going to have to disagree with you to the 10th degree. 

 

Lol first before I venture down this rabbit hole with you I must say that salary in a vacuum is a terrible argument, but alas I'll bite.  The NFL had a drought of running backs for almost 8 years in which there were approximately 5 elite RBs in the entire league.  This is the first effect of off balancing the salary meta for RBs.  This is a huge influx of RB talent that is coming into the league and you are going to see salaries dramatically increase soon.  The first will most likely be Bell who will get his 16 million plus deal next year somewhere because having a RB who can do it all is going to be copied around the league again just like the running back by committee was copied from the Patriots about a decade ago.  

 

Also the RBs we've had the past couple of years are replaceable yes but the new crop coming in you will soon see more cases like the Cowboys where the RB just can't be replaced.  Hell they had Morris and McFadden and they still felt the drop off.  Look at Pittsburgh last year.  Bell goes down and the Steelers look like they didn't even belong in the game the minute he left.  So you can go on your hoopla over RBs and I'll even tell you that I partly agree with you.  Most RBs are easily replaceable and don't belong in the first round but when we start talking elite talent like Barkley and you voice their impact as nonsensical it is very hard to take you seriously.  

Lets cross that bridge with the salaries when we reach it. There has been plenty of top of the league RBs in the last several years and none of them got paid. Admittedly some for reasons not having to do with their talent. 

 

The league(announcers and analysts) regurgitating those flawed narratives is the reason fans keep thinking they are true. To a huge degree they are NOT. It's the same reason why the league keeps valuing future picks less than current year picks. They are NOT. It's the same reason commentators in the NBA kept regurgitating the narrative that jump shooting teams can't win anything. Etc. Some narratives are just based on widespread and bad understanding of what's happening and even if there is a kernel of truth in some of them(maybe there is some for example with the idea that elite RBs help your team stay on field more) the impact is nowhere close to what those analysts assume it is. It is severely overstated and largely not worth entering into the conversation. 

 

My argument is not that elite RBs are not helpful to a team. They are! My argument is that the difference of value they bring compared to the average RB is nowhere close to the difference of value between elite and average in other premier positions(pass-rush, CB, OT, etc.)

[Surge89]

8 minutes ago, stitches said:

Lets cross that bridge with the salaries when we reach it. There has been plenty of top of the league RBs in the last several years and none of them got paid. Admittedly some for reasons not having to do with their talent. 

 

The league(announcers and analysts) regurgitating those flawed narratives is the reason fans keep thinking they are true. To a huge degree they are NOT. It's the same reason why the league keeps valuing future picks less than current year picks. They are NOT. It's the same reason commentators in the NBA kept regurgitating the narrative that jump shooting teams can't win anything. Etc. Some narratives are just based on widespread and bad understanding of what's happening and even if there is a kernel of truth in some of them(maybe there is some for example with the idea that elite RBs help your team stay on field more) the impact is nowhere close to what those analysts assume it is. It is severely overstated and largely not worth entering into the conversation. 

 

My argument is not that elite RBs are not helpful to a team. They are! My argument is that the difference of value they compared to the average RB is nowhere close to the difference of value between elite and average in other premier positions(pass-rush, CB, OT, etc.)

 

Hmm, not sure what broadcast you are referencing but right now all the rage is Brady and putting the ball into the QBs hands (a la no huddle).  I can't even remember the last time I even heard a narrative about running backs being needed.  But let's say you are right.  It doesn't change though that the narrative exists because it is in fact true.

 

Let's take the Steelers for example since they have the premier back right now.  When Bell is in the game they almost never sub.  If they do it's about 7 or 8 plays in for a breather.  This allows them to change formations at will and completely derail a pass rush via no subs.  When Pit needs a 4min offense Bell becomes the feature and when they need the 3rd down they throw it to him in the flat and still drain clock (that's some stuff they stole from Manning and Addai btw) as an extension of the run game.  All while this drainage of time completely puts the Defense in favor by leaving the other offense with little time on the clock and now more predictable and easier to defend as they get one dimensional.  This is not foreign football this is basic stuff. 

 

Now your next paragraph though is where we agree.  An elite pass rusher has a much higher effect than an average one in relation to RBs.  That is unquestionable.  But the gap between Barkley and the other RBs and Chubb and his peers... Well imo is heavily in favor of Barkley.  If you were to put both players in the 2017 draft Barkley is most likely the first RB off the board still (even in a historically loaded RB class) and Chubb is maybe the 3rd or 4th rusher.  I think this context is extremely important when we are talking about best available at pick 2-5.  Would I like a trade down? Well yea of course but if I'm forced to pick I'd personally like for Ballard to take the higher chance of a blue chip player in Barkley than the lower chance of a blue chip player in Chubb but get the position we need. To me it's about drafting the better player not the better position.  If they were equal in talent then I can agree on the better position but even then if we are talking about position relating to Indy how is either position not in need of a serious upgrade?   

 

Ballard's gonna have a tough decision regardless.

[stitches]

16 minutes ago, Surge89 said:

 

Hmm, not sure what broadcast you are referencing but right now all the rage is Brady and putting the ball into the QBs hands (a la no huddle).  I can't even remember the last time I even heard a narrative about running backs being needed.  But let's say you are right.  It doesn't change though that the narrative exists because it is in fact true.

 

Let's take the Steelers for example since they have the premier back right now.  When Bell is in the game they almost never sub.  If they do it's about 7 or 8 plays in for a breather.  This allows them to change formations at will and completely derail a pass rush via no subs.  When Pit needs a 4min offense Bell becomes the feature and when they need the 3rd down they throw it to him in the flat and still drain clock (that's some stuff they stole from Manning and Addai btw) as an extension of the run game.  All while this drainage of time completely puts the Defense in favor by leaving the other offense with little time on the clock and now more predictable and easier to defend as they get one dimensional.  This is not foreign football this is basic stuff. 

 

Now your next paragraph though is where we agree.  An elite pass rusher has a much higher effect than an average one in relation to RBs.  That is unquestionable.  But the gap between Barkley and the other RBs and Chubb and his peers... Well imo is heavily in favor of Barkley.  If you were to put both players in the 2017 draft Barkley is most likely the first RB off the board still (even in a historically loaded RB class) and Chubb is maybe the 3rd or 4th rusher.  I think this context is extremely important when we are talking about best available at pick 2-5.  Would I like a trade down? Well yea of course but if I'm forced to pick I'd personally like for Ballard to take the higher chance of a blue chip player in Barkley than the lower chance of a blue chip player in Chubb but get the position we need. To me it's about drafting the better player not the better position.  If they were equal in talent then I can agree on the better position but even then if we are talking about position relating to Indy how is either position not in need of a serious upgrade?   

 

Ballard's gonna have a tough decision regardless.

I guess we have to agree to disagree on that point with the narratives.

 

Don't get me wrong - I think Barkley is special. For a RB. I just don't think the difference between him and Nick Chubb is worth losing on the elite prospects at different positions.

 

I would much rather have say... Minkah Fitzpatrick and Nick Chubb/Sony Michel/Rashaad Penny than Barkley and... Quenton Meeks/Ken Webster or whoever CB you can get in the early 3d round.  

 

I'd much rather have Bradley Chubb/Landry/Key(whoever you deem the best passrusher) and Nick Chubb/Sony Michel/Rashaad Penny than Barkley and... Jaylon Ferguson or Jeff Holland or whoever you can get at the top of the third at EDGE.

 

I would much rather have Connor Williams and Nick Chubb/Sony Michel/Rashaad Penny than Barkley and Mitch Hyatt/Jemarco Jones or whoever OT you can get at the top of the third. 

 

That's really my point... RB is very deep and good this year and you can find good talent down the draft. You cannot do the same with the pass-rushers or CBs or OTs... 

[Superman]

11 hours ago, Surge89 said:

 

Lol.

 

I'm not sure I've ever had a more disagreeing post with you.  

 

It's odd how adamant you are to sustain this disdain for a position.

 

I have no disdain for the running back position. I said in another thread that RBs are the best athletes, pound for pound, in the game. 

 

I think that the value above replacement for very good/great RBs isn't significant enough to justify spending a high first round draft pick on a RB. (In other words, how many more wins does a great RB represent for a balanced team with a good QB, vs a replacement level RB on that same team?)

 

I also think that RBs are unlikely to last more than 4-5 seasons in the NFL, based on the physical abuse they are subjected to and the changes that are being made to the game.

 

As such, I'd rather create a committee of backs who I can mix and match week to week and year to year without spending considerable resources on the position. I would actually rather spend $16m/year on Le'Veon Bell (and he's not going to get $16m/year, btw) than use the third pick in the draft on a RB, because top tier draft picks are more rare and more valuable than cap space, especially for a team that stands to be $90m under the cap this offseason.

[BOTT]

15 hours ago, Surge89 said:

 

Lol.

 

Nonsense narratives...  do you even watch football?  Because a majority of the NFL believes in those narratives that you call nonsense.  Also OF COURSE you can make that argument for any elite position.  That is why people want elite prospects for every position.  I mean how thick are you seriously trying to be?  And I completely agree that an elite pass rusher can help with multiple areas of the entire team but if you are trying to sell to me that Chubb is a more likely prospect of being a truly "elite" player than Barkley then I'm going to have to disagree with you to the 10th degree. 

 

Lol first before I venture down this rabbit hole with you I must say that salary in a vacuum is a terrible argument, but alas I'll bite.  The NFL had a drought of running backs for almost 8 years in which there were approximately 5 elite RBs in the entire league.  This is the first effect of off balancing the salary meta for RBs.  This is a huge influx of RB talent that is coming into the league and you are going to see salaries dramatically increase soon.  The first will most likely be Bell who will get his 16 million plus deal next year somewhere because having a RB who can do it all is going to be copied around the league again just like the running back by committee was copied from the Patriots about a decade ago.  

 

Also the RBs we've had the past couple of years are replaceable yes but the new crop coming in you will soon see more cases like the Cowboys where the RB just can't be replaced.  Hell they had Morris and McFadden and they still felt the drop off.  Look at Pittsburgh last year.  Bell goes down and the Steelers look like they didn't even belong in the game the minute he left.  So you can go on your hoopla over RBs and I'll even tell you that I partly agree with you.  Most RBs are easily replaceable and don't belong in the first round but when we start talking elite talent like Barkley and you voice their impact as nonsensical it is very hard to take you seriously.  

You say Morris and McFadden like they are good players.

[krunk]

On 12/27/2017 at 11:16 AM, NewColtsFan said:

 

I think we are going to find that Chubb is much more explosive than Barnett and Harris...   but if you're now seeing that Chubb is a top 20 kid....   then fine...   st least you've moved off a second round view...    that was my main argument.

 

The rest is just a difference of opinion...

 

Appreciate that....

Chubbs motor reminds me of Freeney.  Then he's got the strength as well.

[2006Coltsbestever]

9 minutes ago, krunk said:

Chubbs motor reminds me of Freeney.  Then he's got the strength as well.

I hope so