Spending a top-20 pick on a RB is one of the worst decisions a team can make

[Superman]

4 hours ago, jshipp23 said:

Chubb has almost IDENTICAL measurables as Soloman Thomas..Just saying..Richardson isn't in the even in Barkley's area code..

 

Are you serious?

 

Trent Richardson: 5'9", 228 pounds, in his last season he had 1,679 rushing yards, averaged 5.9 yards/carry, had 24 total TDs, and was a significant factor in the passing game. The previous season, he returned 24 kicks and averaged 26.4 yards per return. He was described as explosive, powerful and balanced, among other things, and was impressive in every workout and drill.

 

Saquon Barkley: approx 5'11", 223 pounds, last season he had 1,271 rushing yards, averaged 5.9 yards/carry, had 21 total TDs, and has averaged 28.4 yards per kick return. He was a bigger part of the passing game than Richardson by volume, but their averages were the same. He hasn't worked out yet, but everyone is assuming he's going to set the Combine on fire.

 

Richardson and Barkley are incredibly similar in profile, basically the same size, and Richardson had a more productive final season. Where they differ is on tape, where you can see that Barkley is faster, quicker, and more elusive. And that's why you watch tape.

 

If you do the same with Chubb and Thomas, while they have obvious similarities on paper, they are very different players on tape. Thomas isn't even really an edge rusher. It's lazy and unreasonable to say 'Thomas struggled as a rookie, so I'm concerned about Chubb.' It's just as unreasonable and lazy as saying 'Richardson was a bust, so I don't know about Barkley.' It's just as unreasonable as saying 'Bosa has been amazing, Chubb will be as well.'

 

This isn't how you evaluate players. Thomas struggling as a rookie has nothing to do with Chubb. (And again, Thomas not being productive as a rookie doesn't mean he isn't a good player.) There's so much agenda in this Barkley/Chubb discussion it's pathetic. And we haven't even hit the Combine yet.

[2006Coltsbestever]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Are you serious?

 

Trent Richardson: 5'9", 228 pounds, in his last season he had 1,679 rushing yards, averaged 5.9 yards/carry, had 24 total TDs, and was a significant factor in the passing game. The previous season, he returned 24 kicks and averaged 26.4 yards per return. He was described as explosive, powerful and balanced, among other things, and was impressive in every workout and drill.

 

Saquon Barkley: approx 5'11", 223 pounds, last season he had 1,271 rushing yards, averaged 5.9 yards/carry, had 21 total TDs, and has averaged 28.4 yards per kick return. He was a bigger part of the passing game than Richardson by volume, but their averages were the same. He hasn't worked out yet, but everyone is assuming he's going to set the Combine on fire.

 

Richardson and Barkley are incredibly similar in profile, basically the same size, and Richardson had a more productive final season. Where they differ is on tape, where you can see that Barkley is faster, quicker, and more elusive. And that's why you watch tape.

 

If you do the same with Chubb and Thomas, while they have obvious similarities on paper, they are very different players on tape. Thomas isn't even really an edge rusher. It's lazy and unreasonable to say 'Thomas struggled as a rookie, so I'm concerned about Chubb.' It's just as unreasonable and lazy as saying 'Richardson was a bust, so I don't know about Barkley.' It's just as unreasonable as saying 'Bosa has been amazing, Chubb will be as well.'

 

This isn't how you evaluate players. Thomas struggling as a rookie has nothing to do with Chubb. (And again, Thomas not being productive as a rookie doesn't mean he isn't a good player.) There's so much agenda in this Barkley/Chubb discussion it's pathetic. And we haven't even hit the Combine yet.

Great Post, tough to debate any of that.

[jshipp23]

31 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Are you serious?

 

Trent Richardson: 5'9", 228 pounds, in his last season he had 1,679 rushing yards, averaged 5.9 yards/carry, had 24 total TDs, and was a significant factor in the passing game. The previous season, he returned 24 kicks and averaged 26.4 yards per return. He was described as explosive, powerful and balanced, among other things, and was impressive in every workout and drill.

 

Saquon Barkley: approx 5'11", 223 pounds, last season he had 1,271 rushing yards, averaged 5.9 yards/carry, had 21 total TDs, and has averaged 28.4 yards per kick return. He was a bigger part of the passing game than Richardson by volume, but their averages were the same. He hasn't worked out yet, but everyone is assuming he's going to set the Combine on fire.

 

Richardson and Barkley are incredibly similar in profile, basically the same size, and Richardson had a more productive final season. Where they differ is on tape, where you can see that Barkley is faster, quicker, and more elusive. And that's why you watch tape.

 

If you do the same with Chubb and Thomas, while they have obvious similarities on paper, they are very different players on tape. Thomas isn't even really an edge rusher. It's lazy and unreasonable to say 'Thomas struggled as a rookie, so I'm concerned about Chubb.' It's just as unreasonable and lazy as saying 'Richardson was a bust, so I don't know about Barkley.' It's just as unreasonable as saying 'Bosa has been amazing, Chubb will be as well.'

 

This isn't how you evaluate players. Thomas struggling as a rookie has nothing to do with Chubb. (And again, Thomas not being productive as a rookie doesn't mean he isn't a good player.) There's so much agenda in this Barkley/Chubb discussion it's pathetic. And we haven't even hit the Combine yet.

I was high on Thomas last year, watched a ton of both, and when I watch Chubb he reminds me of Thomas..I trust what I see..

[crazycolt1]

These 12 pages have given me a headache. There are only so many ways to say the same thing. Over and over and over is brain numbing.

Yes college numbers can tell a lot but these players are not drafted because of college numbers. The GMs are taking gambles on what they can do in the pros. When they look at tape and watch players they are not looking at the same things the average fan looks at. Players can look very good in college but put them up against pro players and things change quick. Sometimes good players take a couple of years to adjust to the speed, strength and brain savvy of the NFL.                                                

[2006Coltsbestever]

17 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

These 12 pages have given me a headache. There are only so many ways to say the same thing. Over and over and over is brain numbing.

Yes college numbers can tell a lot but these players are not drafted because of college numbers. The GMs are taking gambles on what they can do in the pros. When they look at tape and watch players they are not looking at the same things the average fan looks at. Players can look very good in college but put them up against pro players and things change quick. Sometimes good players take a couple of years to adjust to the speed, strength and brain savvy of the NFL.                                                

Lucky for you. I have a migraine at this point reading this Barkley vs Chubb stuff, when the only reason people can give for not taking Barkley is because he is a RB.

[dgambill]

On 2/23/2018 at 2:16 PM, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Edge was Great too he went Top 5 so was Faulk - both played for us and into the 2000's. I wasn't going to Post in this Thread anymore but cant help it because people seem to think RB's don't matter.

It’s not that running backs don’t matter...it’s that there isn’t much difference between running backs. Like Edge...we weren’t that much better rushing with Edge than by rbc with Addai and D. Rhodes. The fact is it didn’t matter with the Cowboys if the had D. Murray or E. Elliott... they actually were more potent running with Murray. With today’s NFL you can be the NE patriots and run the ball as efficiently as Pittsburgh Steelers with L. Bell with a group of White, Gillisee, and Lewis. Or Philly with their committe did than the Rams or Jacksonville. It just goes to show good running teams did just as good with a couple solid backs as those teams that had great backs like Pitts, Dallas, and LA. Nobody is saying you don’t need a good running game...just you don’t need a great runner to have a good one.

[LJpalmbeacher2]

8 minutes ago, dgambill said:

It’s not that running backs don’t matter...it’s that there isn’t much difference between running backs. Like Edge...we weren’t that much better rushing with Edge than by rbc with Addai and D. Rhodes. The fact is it didn’t matter with the Cowboys if the had D. Murray or E. Elliott... they actually were more potent running with Murray. With today’s NFL you can be the NE patriots and run the ball as efficiently as Pittsburgh Steelers with L. Bell with a group of White, Gillisee, and Lewis. Or Philly with their committe did than the Rams or Jacksonville. It just goes to show good running teams did just as good with a couple solid backs as those teams that had great backs like Pitts, Dallas, and LA. Nobody is saying you don’t need a good running game...just you don’t need a great runner to have a good one.

Yes your right, the production can be similar with RBC vs a great RB. ....

But a Elite/Great RB is not just about him getting 1,500 yards. They create headaches for DC's. 8 men in the box means single coverage fpr your receivers etc... It helps open up the passing game. 

Lets take OJ Simpson or Eric Dickerson, 2 Great RB's. If they were playing today, how often do you think opposing Defenses would line up in nickel or dime on 1st & 2nd downs?  Hardly ever. If you have a Top passing QB, like Luck, to go along with more passer friendly defensive coverages it helps the offense tremendously.

Now I'm not saying Barlkey is or will be a OJ or a Dickerson but you get the point.

Superstars open up plays fpr their teammates. RBC doesn't.

[jshipp23]

1 minute ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

Yes your right, the production can be similar with RBC vs a great RB. ....

But a Elite/Great RB is not just about him getting 1,500 yards. They create headaches for DC's. 8 men in the box means single coverage fpr your receivers etc... It helps open up the passing game. 

Lets take OJ Simpson or Eric Dickerson, 2 Great RB's. If they were playing today, how often do you think opposing Defenses would line up in nickel or dime on 1st & 2nd downs?  Hardly ever. If you have a Top passing QB, like Luck, to go along with more passer friendly defensive coverages it helps the offense tremendously.

Now I'm not saying Barlkey is or will be a OJ or a Dickerson but you get the point.

Superstars open up plays fpr their teammates. RBC doesn't.

Give up ..It's a lost cause..

[LJpalmbeacher2]

Just now, jshipp23 said:

Give up ..It's a lost cause..

I know... Like said above this thread is giving me a Headache. Just wanted say one last thing but I'm sure wpnt matter .

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 hour ago, dgambill said:

It’s not that running backs don’t matter...it’s that there isn’t much difference between running backs. Like Edge...we weren’t that much better rushing with Edge than by rbc with Addai and D. Rhodes. The fact is it didn’t matter with the Cowboys if the had D. Murray or E. Elliott... they actually were more potent running with Murray. With today’s NFL you can be the NE patriots and run the ball as efficiently as Pittsburgh Steelers with L. Bell with a group of White, Gillisee, and Lewis. Or Philly with their committe did than the Rams or Jacksonville. It just goes to show good running teams did just as good with a couple solid backs as those teams that had great backs like Pitts, Dallas, and LA. Nobody is saying you don’t need a good running game...just you don’t need a great runner to have a good one.

When you have Peyton Manning or Tom Brady you can get away with RB by Committee because they are in the Top 3 QB's of all-time. As of now Luck is Good to Very Good, when healthy Top 10 today (but not near GOAT status like Manning or Brady) but coming off injury having a RB like Barkley would take loads of pressure off him.

[Superman]

2 hours ago, jshipp23 said:

I was high on Thomas last year, watched a ton of both, and when I watch Chubb he reminds me of Thomas..I trust what I see..

 

I trust what I see more than I trust what you see. Chubb and Thomas have different traits, different strengths, and basically play different positions. 

 

Even if they had the exact same profile, exact same workout numbers, and exact same college production, they are still different players. The success or struggles of one don't indicate that the other will succeed or struggle.

[crazycolt1]

2 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Lucky for you. I have a migraine at this point reading this Barkley vs Chubb stuff, when the only reason people can give for not taking Barkley is because he is a RB.

No it's not. There are some who think a pass rusher is more important than a RB.

I have said all along that Barkley will not be there at #3 so I think all this back and forth is just arguments at this point. It has been explained by both sides from every angle that could be thought of. But wait, there will be more no doubt.

[jshipp23]

14 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I trust what I see more than I trust what you see. Chubb and Thomas have different traits, different strengths, and basically play different positions. 

 

Even if they had the exact same profile, exact same workout numbers, and exact same college production, they are still different players. The success or struggles of one don't indicate that the other will succeed or struggle.

I don't know what you are seeing then because I went back and watched them both again to see what I'm missing, and again, they look very similar playing style wise to me, and San Francisco is playing  Thomas at defensive end which is what Chubb will be playing for us.. I said it worries me that Thomas has struggled, doesn't mean Chubb will..I like Chubb, and still think Thomas will be good in time too..If anything Thomas is a little quicker, faster twitch than Chubb and looks better as far a college tape goes..

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

When you have Peyton Manning or Tom Brady you can get away with RB by Committee because they are in the Top 3 QB's of all-time. As of now Luck is Good to Very Good, when healthy Top 10 today (but not near GOAT status like Manning or Brady) but coming off injury having a RB like Barkley would take loads of pressure off him.

 

Matt Ryan won MVP with a committee, and went to the SB. That committee included one heavy use starter who was drafted in the 4th round, and one complementary backup who was drafted in the third round. They combined for almost 2,500 all purpose yards and 24 TDs.

 

Nick Foles just won the SB and SB MVP with a committee of backs. 

 

It's not just all time greats that succeed with an RBBC, and we all know it.

[Four2itus]

On 2/23/2018 at 8:48 PM, BOTT said:

You two should get a room already.

"Stop arguing with me"

"No you Stop arguing with me"

"I mean it....Stop arguing with me"

"Seriously, stop responding to my posts..."

"No you stop responding to my posts"

"You respond to my posts more"

"I dont read all of your posts....so just stop responding"

"Dude....I have stopped,quit replying to what I post"

 

 

This is known in the modern world as, wanting to have the last word. 

[Four2itus]

3 hours ago, Superman said:

There's so much agenda in this Barkley/Chubb discussion it's pathetic. And we haven't even hit the Combine yet.

Boy, if Barkley is still there after the 3rd pick, ya think there might be some comments afterward that infers fans knowledge being greater than NFL front offices?

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, jshipp23 said:

I don't know what you are seeing then because I went back and watched them both again to see what I'm missing, and again, they look very similar playing style wise to me, and San Francisco is playing him Thomas defensive end which is what Chubb will be playing for us.. I said it worries me that Thomas has struggled, doesn't mean Chubb will..I like Chubb, and still think Thomas will be good in time too..

 

Did you happen to pay attention to where Thomas lined up on passing downs?

 

http://walterfootball.com/scoutingreport2017SThomas.php

 

I posted that so you and others can read the quotes from NFL personnel guys about Thomas in that link. He was seen as a tweener DT/DE who was a questionable fit as an NFL edge rusher. He was basically a 3 tech who worked against guards on passing downs and late in games, and when he lined up on the outside he played as a two-gapping 5 tech. He was not a 7/9 edge rusher who worked primarily on the outside, like Chubb. I was and still am a fan of Thomas, but he is not a prototypical edge rush prospect, and will be at his best moving around on the defensive line, even playing inside on passing downs. Michael Bennett was the best comparison, IMO.

 

So basically, Thomas and Chubb are the same size, and that's about it. 

[Superman]

12 minutes ago, Four2itus said:

Boy, if Barkley is still there after the 3rd pick, ya think there might be some comments afterward that infers fans knowledge being greater than NFL front offices?

 

You can bet everything you have on that.

[Finball]

30 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Did you happen to pay attention to where Thomas lined up on passing downs?

 

http://walterfootball.com/scoutingreport2017SThomas.php

 

I posted that so you and others can read the quotes from NFL personnel guys about Thomas in that link. He was seen as a tweener DT/DE who was a questionable fit as an NFL edge rusher. He was basically a 3 tech who worked against guards on passing downs and late in games, and when he lined up on the outside he played as a two-gapping 5 tech. He was not a 7/9 edge rusher who worked primarily on the outside, like Chubb. I was and still am a fan of Thomas, but he is not a prototypical edge rush prospect, and will be at his best moving around on the defensive line, even playing inside on passing downs. Michael Bennett was the best comparison, IMO.

 

So basically, Thomas and Chubb are the same size, and that's about it. 

 

That's basically how he was used at SF this season.

[jshipp23]

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Did you happen to pay attention to where Thomas lined up on passing downs?

 

http://walterfootball.com/scoutingreport2017SThomas.php

 

I posted that so you and others can read the quotes from NFL personnel guys about Thomas in that link. He was seen as a tweener DT/DE who was a questionable fit as an NFL edge rusher. He was basically a 3 tech who worked against guards on passing downs and late in games, and when he lined up on the outside he played as a two-gapping 5 tech. He was not a 7/9 edge rusher who worked primarily on the outside, like Chubb. I was and still am a fan of Thomas, but he is not a prototypical edge rush prospect, and will be at his best moving around on the defensive line, even playing inside on passing downs. Michael Bennett was the best comparison, IMO.

 

So basically, Thomas and Chubb are the same size, and that's about it. 

That's funny because when we were still running 3-4 before it was known we were switching I said Chubb might be better inside on 3-4 and a guy who can move around on the line...I don't care what Walter football says, they are wrong more than they are right..

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, jshipp23 said:

That's funny because when we were still running 3-4 before it was known we were switching I said Chubb might be better inside on 3-4 and a guy who can move around on the line...I don't care what Walter football says, they are wrong more than they are right..

 

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic

 

Besides, WalterFootball didn't say it, they quoted NFL personnel people who said it. And as Finball just posted, that's exactly how the Niners used Thomas in 2017. He's not a true edge rusher, and he wasn't a true edge rush prospect.

 

This is just one of the main ways in which Thomas and Chubb are different prospects with different profiles, and why it doesn't make a lot of sense to compare them.

[krunk]

1 hour ago, jshipp23 said:

I don't know what you are seeing then because I went back and watched them both again to see what I'm missing, and again, they look very similar playing style wise to me, and San Francisco is playing  Thomas at defensive end which is what Chubb will be playing for us.. I said it worries me that Thomas has struggled, doesn't mean Chubb will..I like Chubb, and still think Thomas will be good in time too..If anything Thomas is a little quicker, faster twitch than Chubb and looks better as far a college tape goes..

Thomas was not and is mot a better pass rusher than Chubb. Thomas is mostly just a gap shooting 3 technique DT. That's exactly what I said he was coming out of Stanford after I studied him. Hes not really an edge rusher. You keep making some of the silliest comparisons just to devalue Chubb and prop up Barkley. Then what's Odd is you've tried to distance Chubb from Bosa despite the fact the production and other key attributes are the same. Barkley when we get into production can't even measure up to the back who was selected at #8 from last years draft. And to make up for that you list a bunch of physical attributes to the point if we didnt know better we would have thought it was Godzilla you were talking about. I try to make fair comparisons. Not stuff like Solomon Thomas and a 6'2" Okoronkwo. Or stuff like Cameron Jordan.

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Matt Ryan won MVP with a committee, and went to the SB. That committee included one heavy use starter who was drafted in the 4th round, and one complementary backup who was drafted in the third round. They combined for almost 2,500 all purpose yards and 24 TDs.

 

Nick Foles just won the SB and SB MVP with a committee of backs. 

 

It's not just all time greats that succeed with an RBBC, and we all know it.

Another Great point but at this point I am thinking about taking pressure off of Luck. I think Luck will come back and be Very Good, if not Great but he needs help. Ryan has never had the injuries that Luck has had. With Luck we can win with Committee RB's but I would rather have a RB that can carry an Offense the way Luck has. Troy Aikman for example had Emmitt, Emmitt carried that team in reality. I know it was the 90's but still you see my point.

[2006Coltsbestever]

To show you how much I know I thought Thomas would be much better than Bosa. That means I don't know much

[jshipp23]

7 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

To show you how much I know I thought Thomas would be much better than Bosa. That means I don't know much

Yeah..I thought Thomas would be a beast too...He still might, it takes time for some..lol

[2006Coltsbestever]

Just now, jshipp23 said:

Yeah..I thought Thomas would be a beast too...He still might, it takes time for some..lol

I am right a lot too but I dont want to boast about it because then I look arrogant. I was wrong about Bosa, dead wrong. I thought he would stink.

[jshipp23]

15 minutes ago, krunk said:

Thomas was not and is mot a better pass rusher than Chubb. Thomas is mostly just a gap shooting 3 technique DT. That's exactly what I said he was coming out of Stanford after I studied him. Hes not really an edge rusher. You keep making some of the silliest comparisons just to devalue Chubb and prop up Barkley. Then what's Odd is you've tried to distance Chubb from Bosa despite the fact the production and other key attributes are the same. Barkley when we get into production can't even measure up to the back who was selected at #8 from last years draft. And to make up for that you list a bunch of physical attributes to the point if we didnt know better we would have thought it was Godzilla you were talking about. I try to make fair comparisons. Not stuff like Solomon Thomas and a 6'2" Okoronkwo. Or stuff like Cameron Jordan.

You got me figured out...lol

[dgambill]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Matt Ryan won MVP with a committee, and went to the SB. That committee included one heavy use starter who was drafted in the 4th round, and one complementary backup who was drafted in the third round. They combined for almost 2,500 all purpose yards and 24 TDs.

 

Nick Foles just won the SB and SB MVP with a committee of backs. 

 

It's not just all time greats that succeed with an RBBC, and we all know it.

Exactly. How many SB champs have we seen with RBBC vs riding a single star back. Thing is we have a star qb...Luck is more like Manning and Brady then a qb that needs a running game to carry him like a Bortles, Goff, or Prescott. 

 

Im not here to say having a star running back is a bad thing...doesn’t have its advantages...but I am certain that we can run the ball effectivley and force 8 man boxes etc even with a lesser name. 8 man box is a product of down and distance and the ability of the defense to stop the run. We will see plenty of 8 man boxes if we run it effectively no matter what the name of the back is in the back field. Teams don’t come with an 8 man box to stop a guy... they do it to stop and effective running game. I’m not against Barkley...I’m just for building the team a different way.

[2006Coltsbestever]

Troy Aikman won 3 SB's with Emmitt Smith, without Emmitt they win 0 and that team was stacked. When he sat out for 2 games in 1993 they stunk so it wasn't just their O.Line that made their RB's Great. Dallas was 0-2 without him. After he came back they were a machine. John Elway didn't win a SB until Terrell Davis joined the team. Davis won SB MVP in 1997. Marshall Faulk won as the primary RB in the 1999 Season. Marshawn Lynch was the best Offensive player on the Seahawks when they won the SB in 2013. That team could've won with Trent Dilfer at QB because Lynch was a 1 man focal point - here I used an example where I don't go to back to the Phil Collins days.

[jshipp23]

8 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Troy Aikman won 3 SB's with Emmitt Smith, without Emmitt they win 0 and that team was stacked. When he sat out for 2 games in 1993 they stunk so it wasn't just their O.Line that made their RB's Great. Dallas was 0-2 without him. After he came back they were a machine. John Elway didn't win a SB until Terrell Davis joined the team. Davis won SB MVP in 1997. Marshall Faulk won as the primary RB in the 1999 Season. Marshawn Lynch was the best Offensive player on the Seahawks when they won the SB in 2013. That team could've won with Trent Dilfer at QB because Lynch was a 1 man focal point - here I used an example where I don't go to back to the Phil Collins days.

Running back by committee!!!

[jshipp23]

There are only about 5 "elite ", level RB's in the NFL most years...So of course most teams have to do it by commitee..

[dgambill]

3 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Troy Aikman won 3 SB's with Emmitt Smith, without Emmitt they win 0 and that team was stacked. When he sat out for 2 games in 1993 they stunk so it wasn't just their O.Line that made their RB's Great. Dallas was 0-2 without him. After he came back they were a machine. John Elway didn't win a SB until Terrell Davis joined the team. Davis won SB MVP in 1997. Marshall Faulk won as the primary RB in the 1999 Season. Marshawn Lynch was the best Offensive player on the Seahawks when they won the SB in 2013. That team could've won with Trent Dilfer at QB because Lynch was a 1 man focal point - here I used an example where I don't go to back to the Phil Collins days.

Nobody is saying having a great runner is bad thing. It’s simply in this era the rb is not as valuable as it once was. I’ve got no problem with wanting to build a team around a rb..I think there is plenty of prescedent for doing it both ways. We saw teams like New Orleans, Philly, Minnesota, Atlanta do it with rbbc and teams like Pittsburgh, Jacksonville, LA, and Dallas do it with one star back. Heck you have the Pats who pass to set up the run and have a very very productive running game so there isn’t nothing wrong with doing it different ways. I’m on the rbbc list...I’d rather invest my high picks on other positions. It’s just how I would build my team. No prob with those that would do it differently. We’ve seen both ways be successful. I’m just one of those people that believes there aren’t a huge difference in production from a “premier” back and others. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

5 minutes ago, dgambill said:

Nobody is saying having a great runner is bad thing. It’s simply in this era the rb is not as valuable as it once was. I’ve got no problem with wanting to build a team around a rb..I think there is plenty of prescedent for doing it both ways. We saw teams like New Orleans, Philly, Minnesota, Atlanta do it with rbbc and teams like Pittsburgh, Jacksonville, LA, and Dallas do it with one star back. Heck you have the Pats who pass to set up the run and have a very very productive running game so there isn’t nothing wrong with doing it different ways. I’m on the rbbc list...I’d rather invest my high picks on other positions. It’s just how I would build my team. No prob with those that would do it differently. We’ve seen both ways be successful. I’m just one of those people that believes there aren’t a huge difference in production from a “premier” back and others. 

If Barkley wasn't in this Draft and a need, I would be ProChubb or ProNelson. I see your points.

[PrincetonTiger]

The Emotions of PrincetonTiger when looking at this thread

 

 

 

   Friendly Reminder from TigerTown   

    Everyone needs to find their Happy Place

[Finball]

42 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Troy Aikman won 3 SB's with Emmitt Smith, without Emmitt they win 0 and that team was stacked. When he sat out for 2 games in 1993 they stunk so it wasn't just their O.Line that made their RB's Great. Dallas was 0-2 without him. After he came back they were a machine. John Elway didn't win a SB until Terrell Davis joined the team. Davis won SB MVP in 1997. Marshall Faulk won as the primary RB in the 1999 Season. Marshawn Lynch was the best Offensive player on the Seahawks when they won the SB in 2013. That team could've won with Trent Dilfer at QB because Lynch was a 1 man focal point - here I used an example where I don't go to back to the Phil Collins days.

 

As mentioned in the article I posted in the OP, their offense didn't took off until they drafted Wilson. They went 7-9 for two years, drafted Wilson and had less than 9 losses in the following two regular seasons combined. Wilson was and is, extremely efficient passer. They probably would've lost to the 49ers in 2013.

 

Also only one of those examples is from this decade and even century. Lynch is the only recent example and he had highly efficient QB and one of the GOAT defenses to help him.

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, Finball said:

 

As mentioned in the article I posted in the OP, their offense didn't took off until they drafted Wilson. They went 7-9 for two years, drafted Wilson and had less than 9 losses in the following two regular seasons combined. Wilson was and is, extremely efficient passer. They probably would've lost to the 49ers in 2013.

 

Also only one of those examples is from this decade and even century. Lynch is the only recent example and he had highly efficient QB and one of the GOAT defenses to help him.

Many labeled ML a flop until RW got to Seattle 

[2006Coltsbestever]

4 minutes ago, Finball said:

 

As mentioned in the article I posted in the OP, their offense didn't took off until they drafted Wilson. They went 7-9 for two years, drafted Wilson and had less than 9 losses in the following two regular seasons combined. Wilson was and is, extremely efficient passer. They probably would've lost to the 49ers in 2013.

 

Also only one of those examples is from this decade and even century. Lynch is the only recent example and he had highly efficient QB and one of the GOAT defenses to help him.

Ray Rice 257 Carries nearly 1200 Yards, 61 Catches as well - Ravens win the SB in 2012, example 2. They didn't do RB by committee either. Flacco at QB and they win it all.

[2006Coltsbestever]

This is too easy.

[crazycolt1]

4 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Ray Rice 257 Carries nearly 1200 Yards, 61 Catches as well - Ravens win the SB in 2012, example 2. They didn't do RB by committee either. Flacco at QB and they win it all.

How many rings did the Colts win with James?  How many did they win with RBBC?

[2006Coltsbestever]

Just now, crazycolt1 said:

How many rings did the Colts win with James?  How many did they win with RBBC?

We had Peyton Manning who is arguably the GOAT