Why Saquon Barkley should be our 2nd or third pick

[Superman]

41 minutes ago, stitches said:

IMO he is. I really liked his tape, now I need to see his testing. For a lot of positions I wouldn't put a ton of stock on the testing, but for EDGE it's almost a requirement IMO. If he tests similarly to Bosa in the agility tests(3 cone, shuttles, 10 yard split), I'd be all in for taking him. 

 

Did you come up with a comparison for him?

[Buddy Lee]

I believe if he's still there for the Colts Barkley would be the BPA. However, my first choice would be to trade down because I'm concerned that Chubb isn't a great fit for a 3-4 defense at OLB and there isn't an OL worthy of the #3 pick IMO. I also believe good RBs can be had with a lower value pick. Problem is in order to trade down you need a viable trading partner. 

[JColts72]

Just curious, if we take him at 3, are there any power force D players this upcoming FA?

[JColts72]

2 minutes ago, Buddy Lee said:

I believe if he's still there for the Colts Barkley would be the BPA. However, my first choice would be to trade down because I'm concerned that Chubb isn't a great fit for a 3-4 defense at OLB and there isn't an OL worthy of the #3 pick IMO. I also believe good RBs can be had with a lower value pick. Problem is in order to trade down you need a viable trading partner. 

Be something if Browns and Giants pass on QB, then at 3 there is one to take or trade the pick?

[OLD FAN MAN]

44 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I think this is an interesting post...   and I agree with a fair amount of it.    

 

That said, I couldn't disagree more with the first sentence.   We led the league in sacks allowed.   Not sure any other team was a close second.     The same system was in place in 16 and the last 6 games of the year we allowed just 9 sacks.   That was Top-5 in the NFL for that span.   But this year, Clark, Haeg, and Good barely showed up and I think those guys have talent.    And Philbin  has a great reputation.   So SOMETHING happened.    I just don't know what yet?

 

But the line needs major fixes and I'm expecting major assets to be spent in both free agency and the draft.   Politically speaking, considering Luck's status, the Colts HAVE TO address the line.   This is year 7 for Luck.   We have to give him a quality line once and for all.

 

i concur

[NewColtsFan]

1 minute ago, OLD FAN MAN said:

many of them cant because they are too slow and many get lost in space

 

I understand that...   I don't think Chubb will have either of those issues..    

 

But the responsibilities are different..  a 4-3 guy is going forward far more than a 3-4 guy...    the OLB is doing more lateral movement and much more dropping off..   and that kills some guys..

 

If Ballard loves Chubb, and I think he might,  I hope the workouts make it clear that Chubb can be the player we want him to be.    A 10-12 sack guy...

 

[PeterBowman]

8 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

That's because people act like it's the worst OL in the history of the universe, which it's not.

 

Still, our OL is pretty doggone bad, and probably needs three new starters. 

and 2 of those are guards....I'd be all about getting Nelson. But free agency could determine what they do during the draft regarding the O line.

[PeterBowman]

2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I understand that...   I don't think Chubb will have either of those issues..    

 

But the responsibilities are different..  a 4-3 guy is going forward far more than a 3-4 guy...    the OLB is doing more lateral movement and much more dropping off..   and that kills some guys..

 

If Ballard loves Chubb, and I think he might,  I hope the workouts make it clear that Chubb can be the player we want him to be.    A 10-12 sack guy...

 

also what's not being discussed much about Chubb too is that he's an elite edge setter too...he's not a liability in the run game.

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, Indeee said:

Where the back is concerned, I don't believe it will be by committee if KC guy is hired. Yes KC spells their lead backs from time to time for rest purposes or play packages but KC has always been a primary 3 down back system going all the way back to priest holmes days until present. I think if it's McDaniels then all backs would be used similar to how NE utilizes their backs. I still think Mack could be every down guy as long options are high percentage off tackle runs and designed plays to get him into space using short passes as runs essentially

 

Two things: 1) I don't think that just because the Chiefs typically use a lead back means that any Chiefs assistant would handle the offense the same way. 

 

2) Whether we use a primary lead back or not isn't really the point. It's kind of an auxiliary debate. The point is that drafting a back at the top of the first round isn't a good use of the resource, even if that back is great. The reasons for that are many, IMO, but one of the most obvious is that there are good backs to be found in various rounds, and since we're talking about KC, Kareem Hunt is a very relevant example. The last dominant back they had was Jamaal Charles, also a third rounder. 

[OLD FAN MAN]

3 hours ago, Myles said:

With the Browns having the 1 and 4th picks in the draft, I think they will take Barkely with the 1st. 

they could since barkley is the only elite player in the draft on paper, draft picks are still a crapshoot, never know how a player will play in the nfl

[Indeee]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Two things: 1) I don't think that just because the Chiefs typically use a lead back means that any Chiefs assistant would handle the offense the same way. 

 

2) Whether we use a primary lead back or not isn't really the point. It's kind of an auxiliary debate. The point is that drafting a back at the top of the first round isn't a good use of the resource, even if that back is great. The reasons for that are many, IMO, but one of the most obvious is that there are good backs to be found in various rounds, and since we're talking about KC, Kareem Hunt is a very relevant example. The last dominant back they had was Jamaal Charles, also a third rounder. 

I personally don't think Barkley will be there at 3, but other than that, where the Colts are concerned using the logic about finding good backs later in draft may be valid sometimes but with the Colts that's not the case. Jury is still out on Mack, could be an exception, but Ballard, Robinson and Ferguson all mid round/4th round picks and they sucked.  Hence why Colts went after Richardson and Gore

[Knuckles79]

I think we should go bpa if he is the guy then pull the trigger!  Its not like we have multiple playmakers on the offensive side of the the ball. 

[NewColtsFan]

28 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Just because a guy is an every down back doesn't mean he isn't part of a committee. 

 

Regardless why, Minnesota is RBBC, successfully, for most of the season.

 

The Eagles' lead back was Blount, but now it's Ajayi, who gets about half of the carries, while Blount gets about 35% and Clement and others get the rest. That's a committee. 

 

In Atlanta, Freeman and Coleman are separated by 40 carries and about 200 yards, and neither of them has dominant numbers individually. That's a committee. 

 

Murray and Henry in Tennessee, same thing.

 

The Panthers leading rusher by yardage is their QB. Stewart gets more carries than McCaffrey, but McCaffrey gets just as many total touches due to his 80 receptions. Neither is used as an every down back. Committee. 

 

The Saints have the best 1-2 punch in the league. Ingram is the lead back with about 65% of the carries, but Kamara gets plenty of series to himself, and gets the most third down work. Obviously a committee. 

 

So which of those teams doesn't rely on a committee?

 

I'm currently blocked from giving out more likes.    I've used up my daily quota...

 

So instead please accept this small token of my appreciation for breaking down rbbc...

 

 

[#12.]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

The point is that drafting a back at the top of the first round isn't a good use of the resource, even if that back is great.

 

Assuming every situation is the same and every draft is equal, then yes.  If we only had 15 million in cap space and I could be assured Chubb = Von Miller, I would go Chubb.  

 

 

[Buddy Lee]

2 minutes ago, Indeee said:

I personally don't think Barkley will be there at 3, but other than that, where the Colts are concerned using the logic about finding good backs later in draft may be valid sometimes but with the Colts that's not the case. Jury is still out on Mack, could be an exception, but Ballard, Robinson and Ferguson all mid round/4th round picks and they sucked.  Hence why Colts went after Richardson and Gore

Ballard was good, not great, until injury ruined him. Robinson was a poor pick IMO. Too slow. Varga, an UDFA, was better. I think Ferguson was a very late round pick not mid-round. Still, with better scouting you get better results.

[NewColtsFan]

13 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Two things: 1) I don't think that just because the Chiefs typically use a lead back means that any Chiefs assistant would handle the offense the same way. 

 

2) Whether we use a primary lead back or not isn't really the point. It's kind of an auxiliary debate. The point is that drafting a back at the top of the first round isn't a good use of the resource, even if that back is great. The reasons for that are many, IMO, but one of the most obvious is that there are good backs to be found in various rounds, and since we're talking about KC, Kareem Hunt is a very relevant example. The last dominant back they had was Jamaal Charles, also a third rounder. 

 

Preach!!

 

Oh... and you forgot to drop the Mic!!  

 

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

4 minutes ago, Buddy Lee said:

Ballard was good, not great, until injury ruined him. Robinson was a poor pick IMO. Too slow. Varga, an UDFA, was better. I think Ferguson was a very late round pick not mid-round. Still, with better scouting you get better results.

Fergusen was a free agent! He is to small IMO he wont be back.

[Superman]

1 minute ago, Indeee said:

I personally don't think Barkley will be there at 3, but other than that, where the Colts are concerned using the logic about finding good backs later in draft may be valid sometimes but with the Colts that's not the case. Jury is still out on Mack, could be an exception, but Ballard, Robinson and Ferguson all mid round/4th round picks and they sucked.  Hence why Colts went after Richardson and Gore

 

The Colts haven't done a good job of drafting or coaching for a while now, so I'm not basing my thinking on what the Colts have done with mid round backs. (By the way, Ballard didn't suck, he looked like a legit every down back, and then he tore his ACL and was never the same.)

 

Throughout the league, there are guys taken beyond the first round who play really well. Some of them dominate. And they come out every year. 

 

Also, it doesn't have to be a 4th round guy, and I'm definitely not talking about 7th round guys and UDFAs. I wouldn't rely on that kind of player to be a significant part of the RB rotation, unless he takes off for us. There will be guys available in the 2nd and 3rd this year who will be capable of being lead backs. They won't be as good as Barkley, but I'm fine with that.

 

And every year, there's a guy in a mid round who blows up in the NFL. David Johnson, Kareem Hunt, Kenyan Drake, Alvin Kamara, Jay Ajayi, etc. And even less dynamic guys who are still productive, especially in a committee -- Jeremy Hill, Aaron Jones, Jamaal Williams, James White, etc. 

[Indeee]

1 minute ago, Buddy Lee said:

Ballard was good, not great, until injury ruined him. Robinson was a poor pick IMO. Too slow. Varga, an UDFA, was better. I think Ferguson was a very late round pick not mid-round. Still, with better scouting you get better results.

Look there is an answer for anything if you wanna positively spin it, all I'm saying is that MOST not all RB's in Mid to late rounds are platoon guys on any team and rarely pan out as superstars. Not once have I ever heard in these debates an example used when an extraordinary back wasn't mentioned. Again, jury is still out on Mack and I actually liked Ballard's first draft however he missed on Hunt and Kamara didn't he? But no one knew that at the time. It's a crapshoot, so don't tell me RB's can be had in later rounds and use Extraordinary examples prove a point or sway an opinion

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, #12. said:

 

Assuming every situation is the same and every draft is equal, then yes.  If we only had 15 million in cap space and I could be assured Chubb = Von Miller, I would go Chubb.  

 

Forget about Chubb. You could assure me that Barkley would be a healthy David Johnson, I still don't think it would be a good use of the third pick. This is a rare and valuable resource, one that we probably won't have at our disposal in the near future. I want to maximize the value of this pick, and that's either a dominant prospect at a premium position, or coming away with more picks to continue to shape the roster.

 

I'd rather give Le'Veon Bell $15m/year. Cap space is not as rare and valuable as the third pick in the draft, and since every situation is not the same, we should acknowledge that $15m/year is only 1/6th of our available cap space this offseason.

[Indeee]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

The Colts haven't done a good job of drafting or coaching for a while now, so I'm not basing my thinking on what the Colts have done with mid round backs. (By the way, Ballard didn't suck, he looked like a legit every down back, and then he tore his ACL and was never the same.)

 

Throughout the league, there are guys taken beyond the first round who play really well. Some of them dominate. And they come out every year. 

 

Also, it doesn't have to be a 4th round guy, and I'm definitely not talking about 7th round guys and UDFAs. I wouldn't rely on that kind of player to be a significant part of the RB rotation, unless he takes off for us. There will be guys available in the 2nd and 3rd this year who will be capable of being lead backs. They won't be as good as Barkley, but I'm fine with that.

 

And every year, there's a guy in a mid round who blows up in the NFL. David Johnson, Kareem Hunt, Kenyan Drake, Alvin Kamara, Jay Ajayi, etc. And even less dynamic guys who are still productive, especially in a committee -- Jeremy Hill, Aaron Jones, Jamaal Williams, James White, etc. 

David Johnson yes (superstar) Kareem Hunt (will be a superstar) Jay Ajai? Not a chance. this guy it took 2 1/2-3 years to become semi relevant and he was so bad they drafted drake and Williams cause they thought this guy was a bust. Drake? 1/2 a season and you think he's awesome? I gotta see more, by that standard McKinnon should be a starter too he's had a few really productive games and how about Alfred Blue? All this cat does is run circles around Miller when he gets a real chance

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, Indeee said:

David Johnson yes (superstar) Kareem Hunt (will be a superstar) Jay Ajai? Not a chance. this guy it took 2 1/2-3 years to become semi relevant and he was so bad they drafted drake and Williams cause they thought this guy was a bust. Drake? 1/2 a season and you think he's awesome? I gotta see more, by that standard McKinnon should be a starter too he's had a few really productive games and how about Alfred Blue? All this cat does is run circles around Miller when he gets a real chance

 

What? 

 

Ajayi redshirted his first year, only dressing for 9 games due to injury. Then he was their clear lead back in his second year, with almost 1,300 rushing yards and 8 TDs. Acting like they drafted Drake because Ajayi was bad is just a gross misrepresentation of reality.

 

And you're clearly missing my point. It's not that any of these guys are so awesome and that's proof that you can always hit on an awesome back in the middle of the draft. It's not that there's a third round guy this year who is going to be just as good as Saquon Barkley, and all we have to do is wait and draft that guy.

 

The point isn't even that having a committee is better than having a clear lead back. 

 

It's simple: I don't think RB is a premium position in the NFL, and while it's obvious that the better backs you have the more productive your backfield will be, I believe on a balanced roster with a good QB and good coaching, that you'll get more impact from premium talent at other positions -- pass rusher, DB, LT, and so on. 

 

On top of that, I think it's obvious that even great RBs don't last long in the NFL anymore, and I'd like to have a player who has a good chance of being a difference maker for our team for the next 8-10 years.

 

I'm talking about maximizing this rare and valuable resource.

[stitches]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Did you come up with a comparison for him?

His hand usage is very similarly advanced like that of Bosa and he has the strength like Bosa did. I am not sure he's as explosive and agile as him though. That's why I want to wait and see the combine results. It's a risky comparison... 

[Steamboat_Shaun]

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Remember....

 

Whenn JJ Watt was in college no one saw  the JJ Warr we see today.    That's why he fell to 11th in the draft.    Everyone missed on that evaluation.

 

 

True. But I also remember when Grigson took Werner because we so desperately needed an EDGE, everyone was ecstatic, and at first everyone was ecstatic. We all know how that went. I think Chubb is a nice player, and I'd be happy to have him, but he seems pretty far from a "sure thing" IMO.

[Indeee]

17 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

What? 

 

Ajayi redshirted his first year, only dressing for 9 games due to injury. Then he was their clear lead back in his second year, with almost 1,300 rushing yards and 8 TDs. Acting like they drafted Drake because Ajayi was bad is just a gross misrepresentation of reality.

 

And you're clearly missing my point. It's not that any of these guys are so awesome and that's proof that you can always hit on an awesome back in the middle of the draft. It's not that there's a third round guy this year who is going to be just as good as Saquon Barkley, and all we have to do is wait and draft that guy.

 

The point isn't even that having a committee is better than having a clear lead back. 

 

It's simple: I don't think RB is a premium position in the NFL, and while it's obvious that the better backs you have the more productive your backfield will be, I believe on a balanced roster with a good QB and good coaching, that you'll get more impact from premium talent at other positions -- pass rusher, DB, LT, and so on. 

 

On top of that, I think it's obvious that even great RBs don't last long in the NFL anymore, and I'd like to have a player who has a good chance of being a difference maker for our team for the next 8-10 years.

 

I'm talking about maximizing this rare and valuable resource.

No I get what your point was about maximizing, as I want Nelson, not caring about whether a guard should be taken so high. The value of Nelson based on this team and where the concerns SHOULD lie trumps whether or not a guard should be valued in top 5. As far as Ajyai we will agree to disagree, not based on redshirt/injury/whatever. I just would never put him in same sentence as Johnson or hunt for that matter. Just not a fan and I'm not sold on the current Colts ability to get a "Superstar" back in any other round other than the first and that's even debatable...Ha!! Mack may work out great if he is given a true shot

[OLD FAN MAN]

i think most gms pick the most elite impact, game changing talent regardless of position, they dont limit themselves by having fan rules like never picking a rb in the first

[stitches]

1 hour ago, PeterBowman said:

also what's not being discussed much about Chubb too is that he's an elite edge setter too...he's not a liability in the run game.

he's not just not liability. He's elite there! He ranked no. 1 on run stop efficiency by PFF in the entire country. He also ranked no. 9 in the country in pass-rush efficiency. Chubb's production and tape are very very VERY good. There is a reason why he's considered top 5 player in this draft before the athletic testing is revealed. IMO only mediocre athletic testing can get him out of the top... lets say 7.  

[jshipp23]

People always  point out the mid-round backs that hit, but fail to mention the multitude that sucked...1st round RB's are more of a sure thing...other than Richardson most have produced, unless injuries derail them....Barkley is the best  rb prospect since A.P...Only way I see him not being top 5 elite is a catastrophic injury.......He will  likely be best RB in NFL year 1, no holes in his game, and is a dangerous receiver as welll....

[Myles]

2 hours ago, richard pallo said:

I agree.  They would have the pick of the litter at 1.  It's almost certain the Giants will take a QB as well and we could trade our pick to a QB needy team.  That would leave them with the 3rd. QB prospect.  I could see them taking a RB at four though if he's there.  They would be crazy to play roulette and hope their guy is there at 4.  I don't think there new GM is going to make that mistake. 

If they value Mayfield and Allen about the same, it doesn't matter.   They could get Barkely and their QB.  

[LJpalmbeacher2]

If Luck is okay then I think Barkley should be the pick if he is still there at #3.

[chad72]

11 minutes ago, stitches said:

he's not just not liability. He's elite there! He ranked no. 1 on run stop efficiency by PFF in the entire country. He also ranked no. 9 in the country in pass-rush efficiency. Chubb's production and tape are very very VERY good. There is a reason why he's considered top 5 player in this draft before the athletic testing is revealed. IMO only mediocre athletic testing can get him out of the top... lets say 7.  

 

Chubb reminds me of Derek Barnett coming out of the draft last year, could have gone as high as a top 7 or 8 pick, we felt. We all felt Barnett would be a solid sack number provider (check) and will be a solid player for years to come and thus would be a low risk pick, bummer he went a pick before us. Similarly, Chubb will be a solid player for years to come, projecting whether that person will be elite at that next level is hard, and will be up to the player's work ethic, desire and development once they get to the NFL. Sure, we would all love elite over solid but solid over bust is still a safe floor to me.

 

The biggest thing we hope to accomplish is that the next set of coaches excel in player development that is just as important to the long term health of the franchise as the short term game day management is.

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, Indeee said:

No I get what your point was about maximizing, as I want Nelson, not caring about whether a guard should be taken so high. The value of Nelson based on this team and where the concerns SHOULD lie trumps whether or not a guard should be valued in top 5. As far as Ajyai we will agree to disagree, not based on redshirt/injury/whatever. I just would never put him in same sentence as Johnson or hunt for that matter. Just not a fan and I'm not sold on the current Colts ability to get a "Superstar" back in any other round other than the first and that's even debatable...Ha!! Mack may work out great if he is given a true shot

 

I'm not crazy about taking a guard at #3 either, but at least a guard is more likely to make it through a second contract. I'd take Nelson before Barkley, at #3.

 

As for Ajayi, I'm not saying he's as good as David Johnson. The point -- which again was somewhat an auxiliary debat --  was not to compare backs, it's that good, productive backs don't have to come from the first round, and there are plenty of examples. Put Ajayi in the second group of less dynamic but still productive guys, if that helps.

 

One more thing on Ajayi, I wouldn't have drafted him because he has a chronic and degenerative knee condition. But I thought he was good at Boise, and he's been productive in the NFL. The Dolphins drafted him in the fifth and traded him for a fourth, I think that's a win for them, considering the fact that I don't think he'll last another three seasons, period.

 

And there's the word "superstar" again. I'm not of the opinion that we need a superstar back to be a perennial contender. I'd rather keep adding players at what I think are premium positions, and platoon at RB. If we hit on a really good guy in a later round, that's a bonus. It's not that important to me. I'd mix and match backs every season, and rely on the coaching staff to get the most out of them.

[stitches]

1 minute ago, chad72 said:

 

Chubb reminds me of Derek Barnett coming out of the draft last year, could have gone as high as a top 7 or 8 pick, we felt. We all felt Barnett would be a solid sack number provider (check) and will be a solid player for years to come and thus would be a low risk pick, bummer he went a pick before us. Similarly, Chubb will be a solid player for years to come, projecting whether that person will be elite at that next level is hard, and will be up to the player's work ethic, desire and development once they get to the NFL.

 

The biggest thing we hope to accomplish is that the next set of coaches excel in player development that is just as important to the long term health of the franchise as the short term game day management is.

IMO Chubb has much more advanced hand usage than Barnett and probably has a bit more speed. Barnett has elite bend around the edge though... 

[jshipp23]

When was  last time a RB was the undisputed consensus BPA by all the so called experts in the entire draft???Should be all you need to know.....Right around same spot we took Faulk, and James it's in Colt DNA, and it's the piece we have been missing the entire Luck era........IF he is gone I roll the dice with Chubb and offer Bell a monster contract if Pitt doesn't franchise him....We have needed a Rb for years!!!!It has been holding back this offense forever.......

[Finball]

46 minutes ago, jshipp23 said:

People always  point out the mid-round backs that hit, but fail to mention the multitude that sucked...1st round RB's are more of a sure thing...other than Richardson most have produced, unless injuries derail them....Barkley is the best  rb prospect since A.P...Only way I see him not being top 5 elite is a catastrophic injury.......He will  likely be best RB in NFL year 1, no holes in his game, and is a dangerous receiver as welll....

 

Lot of research suggests otherwise, at least relative to other positions.

 

https://www.stampedeblue.com/2017/12/30/16831878/is-there-a-best-round-to-draft-a-running-back-rushing-success-rate-ypc-explosive

 

RBs take the most punishment. Everyone in football can be injured but RBs are especially at high risk. Another reason to not use a high pick on one.

(1st round) Running backs are twice as likely to bust than become Pro Bowlers, while receivers and defensive linemen are in the same range.

[JColts72]

For those who follow college ball to a t, are there any good backs projected to go later rounds?

[stitches]

4 minutes ago, JColts72 said:

For those who follow college ball to a t, are there any good backs projected to go later rounds?

It's a strong RB class once again. There will be good RBs in the 3d-4th round IMO. 

Some rough fluid projection

------------------------Round 1

Sequon Barkley

Derrius Guice

------------------------Round 2 & 3

Bryce Love

Ronald Jones III

Damien Harris

Sony Michel

Nick Chubb

Rashaad Penny

------------------------Round 4+

Jordan Scarlet

Royce Freeman

Bo Scarbrough

Kerryon Johnson

Josh Adams

Myles Gaskin

Mark Walton

Josh Adams

Akrum Wadley

Kalen Ballage

Justin Jackson

 

I'm missing someone really good almost certainly... the point is - there are a lot of good backs in this draft. 

 

[Defjamz26]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Just because a guy is an every down back doesn't mean he isn't part of a committee. 

 

Regardless why, Minnesota is RBBC, successfully, for most of the season.

 

The Eagles' lead back was Blount, but now it's Ajayi, who gets about half of the carries, while Blount gets about 35% and Clement and others get the rest. That's a committee. 

 

In Atlanta, Freeman and Coleman are separated by 40 carries and about 200 yards, and neither of them has dominant numbers individually. That's a committee. 

 

Murray and Henry in Tennessee, same thing.

 

The Panthers leading rusher by yardage is their QB. Stewart gets more carries than McCaffrey, but McCaffrey gets just as many total touches due to his 80 receptions. Neither is used as an every down back. Committee. 

 

The Saints have the best 1-2 punch in the league. Ingram is the lead back with about 65% of the carries, but Kamara gets plenty of series to himself, and gets the most third down work. Obviously a committee. 

 

So which of those teams doesn't rely on a committee?

The Saints I get. But with Carolina, it’ll be different once Stewart leaves in the offseason. McCaffery will likely be used how the Rams use Gurley. He’ll get a bunch of touches rushing and catching the ball.

 

Same with the Eagles. Blount is old and might not be back so it’ll be Ajayi getting all the carries. Maybe Barner is their relief back.

 

Henry same thing. It’s not a committee. It’s a guy getting more snaps because he’s outplaying the starter. And Henry only just started getting more carries the last half of the season. When Murray gets released, it’ll be a one man show like it was before he started to slow down.

 

Ill give you Atlanta and the Saints though. I just feel committe has to be 2 or more guys getting equal snaps, where both guys are rotated for their ability and not because one guy is slowing down and a hand was forced. The Georgia Bulldogs have a RBBC. 3 RBs who they just constantly rotate. It’s college but that’s a perfect example of what I consider RBBC. In the NFL, I really only see the Pats, Saints, and Falcons running that system effectively. And I don’t think the idea that you can just substitute that for a typical lead back system is valid. Yes, it does work for some teams. However there are also teams who draft 1st round backs who can play all 3 downs and catch out the backfield, and have huge success (Dallas, The Rams, Chargers when Gordon is healthy, early AP,) and even if it’s not a 1st round back, teams like the Chief rely on a mostly one back system. I just think all of these new notions people are saying that teams have about RBs (it’s all RBBC, you can easily get a RB later, never draft a RB in the 1st, etc...) are overstated. A lot of that is just teams being victims of circumstance. If you’re the Falcons and always picking in the teens you’re not going to be able to draft an Elliot or Gordon so you’re going to have to find Devonta Freeman’s and Tevin Coleman’s. Team’s who get top 15 picks get the benefit of being in position to draft those elite RBs, and they don’t already have one on the roster, they take them. I don’t think there’s any right or ideal rules for drafting RBs. The only thing that is wrong is pigeonholing  yourself when it comes to RBs.

[jshipp23]

43 minutes ago, Finball said:

 

Lot of research suggests otherwise, at least relative to other positions.

 

https://www.stampedeblue.com/2017/12/30/16831878/is-there-a-best-round-to-draft-a-running-back-rushing-success-rate-ypc-explosive

 

RBs take the most punishment. Everyone in football can be injured but RBs are especially at high risk. Another reason to not use a high pick on one.

(1st round) Running backs are twice as likely to bust than become Pro Bowlers, while receivers and defensive linemen are in the same range.

I am not comparing RB to other positions???? Obviously they take the most punishment and would be more likely to be injured, thats why u need more than 1 good 1....How good is L.A without Gurley? How about Pitt with no Bell? Atlanta without Freeman? Dallas with no Zeke? RB can be  difference.....NFL ROSTERS turn over at a high  rate every 5 years you have a completely new team except for a  few guys....Ill take a hall of fame Rb for 7 years if it means championships.....Longterm rebuild philosophies rarely work in NFL....You find lightening in a bottle and try to sustain it....It should always be a win NOW philosophy especially if you have a franchise QB.....Yes Luck needs protection, but an elite RB can protect luck as much as a GUARD...YOU can have the greatest line in the world and it won't mean anything without weapons...

[jshipp23]

With Barkley and Mack we will have what the Saints have with Ingram and Kamara on steroids...I think it's working out well for Drew Brees just saying....We can sign and draft a couple guards and RT to improve the line....Just because we draft Barkley doesn't mean we can't improve the line.....