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

[Lucky Colts Fan]

35 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

Had several HS teammates that were big Purdue and MA fans and Dilger went to same HS that my Uncle taught at and was a Sectional Rival of mine

 

30 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Dilger was on our 1995 AFC Title team(we got cheated) and was Great his Rookie season.

 

Ken Dilger is a hometown hero to those that know him.  Yeah he played collegiate football in the next state over (not quite as far away as Vanderbilt), but I have family that played, and coached, at Heritage Hills High School.

 

I remember relatives coming to games at the Hoosier Dome, just because Mr. Dilger was playing.  The same relatives that only visited Indy to watch the Heritage Hills football team compete in a state championship.  I have relatives that only came to Indy to watch either Mr. Ken Dilger or Mr. Jay Cutler play football.

 

Not Peyton Manning or Marvin Harrison or Dwight Freeney or Bobby Sanders.  There's A LOT to be said for the hometown-hero coming home and playing in front of the hometown crowd.

 

[Lucky Colts Fan]

2 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

What happens 20 years from now don't help us win games next season. If we don't get a couple of pass rushers Barkley will have a hard time getting into the HOF on a losing team.

 

1 minute ago, PrincetonTiger said:

See Archie Manning

 

Also Barry Sanders.

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

 

Ken Dilger is a hometown hero to those that know him.  Yeah he played collegiate football in the next state over (not quite as far away as Vanderbilt), but I have family that played, and coached, at Heritage Hills High School.

 

I remember relatives coming to games at the Hoosier Dome, just because Mr. Dilger was playing.  The same relatives that only visited Indy to watch the Heritage Hills football team compete in a state championship.  I have relatives that only came to Indy to watch either Mr. Ken Dilger or Mr. Jay Cutler play football.

 

Not Peyton Manning or Marvin Harrison or Dwight Freeney or Bobby Sanders.  There's A LOT to be said for the hometown-hero coming home and playing in front of the hometown crowd.

 

Your relatives probably know and/or had my Uncle as a teacher

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

 

Also Barry Sanders.

Bert Jones

[Lucky Colts Fan]

19 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

What happens 20 years from now don't help us win games next season. If we don't get a couple of pass rushers Barkley will have a hard time getting into the HOF on a losing team.

 

The Patriots almost won the SB with literally NO GOOD PASS RUSHERS.

 

Offense can get you there.  But Defense wins the day.

 

A perfect example is the Patriots.  Their SB wins can be attributed to their defense, but their SB losses can be attributed to their offense, or lack of offense... or defense.

[PrincetonTiger]

8 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

The Patriots almost won the SB with literally NO GOOD PASS RUSHERS.

 

Offense can get you there.  But Defense wins the day.

 

A perfect example is the Patriots.  Their SB wins can be attributed to their defense, but their SB losses can be attributed to their offense, or lack of offense... or defense.

Goes all the way back to the 85 Pats

[Lucky Colts Fan]

30 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

What happens 20 years from now don't help us win games next season. If we don't get a couple of pass rushers Barkley will have a hard time getting into the HOF on a losing team.

 

You're not wrong, though.

 

The Colts weren't "great" until we had both Freeney and Mathis.

 

We need at least two pass-rushers to make this team GO.  It's just a matter of timing.  If we were already a contender, Barkley would be the "cherry-on-top", but since it might be a year or two, drafting Chubb and trying to find an athletic pass-rusher next year could be our best option.

[crazycolt1]

32 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

The Patriots almost won the SB with literally NO GOOD PASS RUSHERS.

 

Offense can get you there.  But Defense wins the day.

 

A perfect example is the Patriots.  Their SB wins can be attributed to their defense, but their SB losses can be attributed to their offense, or lack of offense... or defense.

There is where you are wrong. The Patriots have a couple of super bowls by the other teams handing it to them. They also won one where the refs gave them one.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

9 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

There is where you are wrong. The Patriots have a couple of super bowls by the other teams handing it to them. They also won one where the refs gave them one.

 

???  Where was I wrong?  The Pats defense definitely earned those first 3 SBs.

 

The Pats defense stuffed Marshawn Lynch and then intercepted Russell Wilson.  You can blame the Seahawks staff if you want to, but the Pats defense made that play.

 

The Pats defense stopped the Falcons offense REPEATEDLY in the 2nd half.  Blame the Atlanta offense for inability if you want to, but the Pats defense made plays in that game.

 

The prolific 2007 Pats offense couldn't score more than 14 points against the NYG defense.  The 3 SBs that NE lost were to better defenses.  Period.

 

So again, offense gets you there, but defense wins the day.  Any of the 8 Pats SBs will testify to that.

[crazycolt1]

1 minute ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

???  Where was I wrong?  The Pats defense definitely earned those first 3 SBs.

 

The Pats defense stuffed Marshawn Lynch and then intercepted Russell Wilson.  You can blame the Seahawks staff if you want to, but the Pats defense made that play.

 

The Pats defense stopped the Falcons offense REPEATEDLY in the 2nd half.  Blame the Atlanta offense for inability if you want to, but the Pats defense made plays in that game.

 

The prolific 2007 Pats offense couldn't score more than 14 points against the NYG defense.  The 3 SBs that NE lost were to better defenses.  Period.

 

So again, offense gets you there, but defense wins the day.  Any of the 8 Pats SBs will testify to that.

Guess what?  I don't care about the Patriots. I think this whole forum is so possessed with the Patriots it gets old. We can't even talk about our own team without somehow the Patriots get brought up.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

1 minute ago, crazycolt1 said:

Guess what?  I don't care about the Patriots. I think this whole forum is so possessed with the Patriots it gets old. We can't even talk about our own team without somehow the Patriots get brought up.

 

Ok, let's just talk about the ONLY Indy Colts SB.

 

Peyton Manning and the offense got us there, but Bob Sanders and the DEFENSE won the day.

 

Maybe bringing up the Pats diluted my message that defense wins championships.  As good as I think Barkley is, I agree with you that we need to build the defense if we want to contend.

 

[Superman]

4 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

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.

 

Why is having one back who carries the load better than a committee of backs who produce at the same level as a feature back? Why do you think it's better to have Todd Gurley than to have Freeman and Coleman? Gurley didn't make the 2017 Rams better on offense than the 2016 Falcons?

 

I'm not at either/or guy, but I don't agree that having a top notch feature back would by itself take pressure off of Luck. I think Luck needs a) a good coaching staff, b) a better offensive line (doesn't even need to be a great OL, but I wouldn't complain about that), and c) a good mix of weapons, including versatile RBs. I'm not at all against having a feature back if we hit on one, as long as we don't use a rare draft pick to acquire him, but I think the offensive scheme and the OL play are dramatically more important.

 

Just to illustrate why I think you should leave the Smith/Aikman Cowboys in the past, Aikman averaged less than 29 pass attempts per game, about 200 passing yards per game, and never went over 230 yards per game in his career. He was normally in the 210-ish range. Luck has never averaged fewer than 35 attempts per game, and averages over 270 yards per game. And that's in an offense that put basically zero emphasis on passing efficiency. The rules and the increased efficiency and production from passing games make it possible for teams to manufacture efficiency and production in the running game. Nothing wrong with having good backs, but the value and impact of even good backs is reduced, especially compared with 10-15 years ago.

[Superman]

3 hours 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.

 

Ray Rice was drafted in the second round, and only played 5 seasons before having a major drop off in production and efficiency. More evidence suggesting a) you can acquire really good backs without using premium draft picks, and b) RBs don't last very long in the modern NFL.

 

3 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

This is too easy.

 

Yup.

[DownHillRunner]

On 2/23/2018 at 9:07 AM, Finball said:

https://www.fieldgulls.com/2018/2/23/17041846/nfl-draft-running-back-2018-top-20-saquon-barkley-leonard-fournette-ezekiel-elliott

 

 

I think all of thes have come up in Barkley discussions but here they are in one article.

 

I would rather us trade back and pick up Bradley Chubb or Quenton Nelson. I'm not on the Saquon Barkley bandwagon for several reasons. 

 

 

 

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Ray Rice was drafted in the second round, and only played 5 seasons before having a major drop off in production and efficiency. More evidence suggesting a) you can acquire really good backs without using premium draft picks, and b) RBs don't last very long in the modern NFL.

 

 

Yup.

So you want Chubb at 3, just asking but why do you think he is the best pick for our team? That could even be another topic, why should Chubb be picked over Barkley and Nelson. I am not so sure Nelson shouldn't go at #3 if we flop in Free Agency and don't get any O.Lineman.

[LJpalmbeacher2]

4 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

There is where you are wrong. The Patriots have a couple of super bowls by the other teams handing it to them. They also won one where the refs gave them one.

 

Yes. The pats have no more than 2 legitimate rings. Maybe those 2, which I don't recall, after further investigation will also be classified as tainted?

[LJpalmbeacher2]

3 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Why is having one back who carries the load better than a committee of backs who produce at the same level as a feature back? Why do you think it's better to have Todd Gurley than to have Freeman and Coleman? Gurley didn't make the 2017 Rams better on offense than the 2016 Falcons?

 

I'm not at either/or guy, but I don't agree that having a top notch feature back would by itself take pressure off of Luck. I think Luck needs a) a good coaching staff, b) a better offensive line (doesn't even need to be a great OL, but I wouldn't complain about that), and c) a good mix of weapons, including versatile RBs. I'm not at all against having a feature back if we hit on one, as long as we don't use a rare draft pick to acquire him, but I think the offensive scheme and the OL play are dramatically more important.

 

Just to illustrate why I think you should leave the Smith/Aikman Cowboys in the past, Aikman averaged less than 29 pass attempts per game, about 200 passing yards per game, and never went over 230 yards per game in his career. He was normally in the 210-ish range. Luck has never averaged fewer than 35 attempts per game, and averages over 270 yards per game. And that's in an offense that put basically zero emphasis on passing efficiency. The rules and the increased efficiency and production from passing games make it possible for teams to manufacture efficiency and production in the running game. Nothing wrong with having good backs, but the value and impact of even good backs is reduced, especially compared with 10-15 years ago.

We're not talking about 1 back carrying the load.

Sure, lets say we get a rb like Guice(who's very good) or maybe one who's not quite as good as Guice to pair with Mack and a inside Bruiser like the one you like from Giants. Those 3 backs would give us good production and our running game wpuld be fine.

 

But those 3 backs won't make DC's change their defensive game plan. They will be in base, nickel, dime depending on down and distance and score.

 

If Barkley is a elite rb, like many think he is, Luck will see more Base defense, 8 men in box and less nickel and dime. A elite rb, will help the passing game. Teams will gameplan to stop him and that would make Luck and our offense that much better.

 

A averge to slightly above average defensive player(we can obtain similar later or elsewhere) will not have the positive impact that a Elite rb will.

[aaron11]

8 hours ago, Superman said:

RBs don't last very long in the modern NFL.

i not going to worry about that if we get barkley.  he could help us win now before luck retires.

 

[Finball]

11 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I see your points but so many people act like RB's are irrelevant so I keep Posting a lot about why they are not. I am assuming you want Chubb at 3rd? or who do you want?

 

FWIW, I don't agree with the article in OP that rushing is irrelevant. Or RBs are. I do believe in strong running game but I think it can an should be achieved without using major assets to do so and instead on focus on pieces that can impact the passing game.

 

Right now, I'm leaning towards Chubb. And right now, only other optionI have at #3 is to trade down. I don't think any other player is worth it at #3.

[jshipp23]

2 hours ago, aaron11 said:

i not going to worry about that if we get barkley.  he could help us win now before luck retires.

 

^^^^^^^^^^^this^^^^^^^^^^^

[jshipp23]

The game breaking plays Barkley could make could potentially be the difference in 2 or 3 wins...That is a big impact..Could be the difference between making playoffs and or getting home field...

[Superman]

5 hours ago, aaron11 said:

i not going to worry about that if we get barkley.  he could help us win now before luck retires.

 

 

Not gonna talk about how dramatically everyone is overrating the impact that RBs have on winning... If you want someone to help us win, drafting a RB at #3 is one of the last things you should do.

[Superman]

13 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

So you want Chubb at 3, just asking but why do you think he is the best pick for our team? That could even be another topic, why should Chubb be picked over Barkley and Nelson. I am not so sure Nelson shouldn't go at #3 if we flop in Free Agency and don't get any O.Lineman.

 

Let's assume Chubb puts up adequate agility/explosion numbers at the Combine. If that happens, I want Chubb at #3. I would expect him to be a playmaking edge defender who will have a high rate of pass rush productivity, and the only thing that impact wins/losses more than passing efficiency is pass rush efficiency, IMO, which is why good QBs and good pass rushers are the highest paid players in the league and almost never hit free agency.

 

I think taking a guard at #3 is almost as wasteful as taking a RB because good guards are readily available in free agency and cap space is a less important resource than a premium draft pick, but at least a guard has a chance to last for a decade, so if I had to choose between Nelson or Barkley at #3 and I can't trade down, I'd definitely take Nelson. If Ballard doesn't address the OL need in free agency, that's a failure on his part. 

 

This is because of the principles of drafting and team building that I value. It's not because I dislike Barkley or think RBs aren't important. (A key point to remember: "importance" does not equal "impact" does not equal "value.") If Ballard drafts Barkley at #3, I'll be a huge Barkley fan, I'd just be less of a Ballard fan.

 

I might favor trading down, regardless. If the board looks like these QB hungry teams will wind up pushing Chubb or Nelson down to the 6-10 range, I'd be fine with Ballard moving down and catching either of them. I still prefer Chubb, but Nelson I think is going to be a rock solid blocker for a long time, barring injury.

[dgambill]

16 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

The Patriots almost won the SB with literally NO GOOD PASS RUSHERS.

 

Offense can get you there.  But Defense wins the day.

 

A perfect example is the Patriots.  Their SB wins can be attributed to their defense, but their SB losses can be attributed to their offense, or lack of offense... or defense.

The Patriots have shown you can get to the SB a bunch of different ways. With defense, with high flying offense, with RBBC, with a great RB (Curtis Martin), by cheating but most importantly with great coaching and some talented players. There is no one way to be successful. I'm not worried so much about the direction the Colts will take to build this team into a championship caliber team. I do have my preferences and over time the league has become so focused on passing that qbs are now the most important players on a team....and pass rushers are a very close second. Thus we see the highest paid players are those associated in the passing game. QBs, ERs, LT, CBs and yes WRs are going to be those guys that make the premium money....thus I'm going to target players at those positions if I can.

 

One big caveat that I will give Barkley is that he should be VERY valuable in the passing game as well. That is a big plus I give him over a player like Leonard Fournette. Doesn't mean I still want to take him at 3 but I do recognize his ability to help multiple areas on the team.

[Superman]

10 hours ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

We're not talking about 1 back carrying the load.

Sure, lets say we get a rb like Guice(who's very good) or maybe one who's not quite as good as Guice to pair with Mack and a inside Bruiser like the one you like from Giants. Those 3 backs would give us good production and our running game wpuld be fine.

 

But those 3 backs won't make DC's change their defensive game plan. They will be in base, nickel, dime depending on down and distance and score.

 

If Barkley is a elite rb, like many think he is, Luck will see more Base defense, 8 men in box and less nickel and dime. A elite rb, will help the passing game. Teams will gameplan to stop him and that would make Luck and our offense that much better.

 

A averge to slightly above average defensive player(we can obtain similar later or elsewhere) will not have the positive impact that a Elite rb will.

 

I think the impact that a great RB has on a defense is also being overstated. No defense is going to stack the box if Healthy Luck is at QB, I don't care who the RB is.

 

I think the reverse is more accurate. An effective, efficient, or explosive passing game loosens things up for the running game. "Run to set up the pass" is another antiquated notion in the modern NFL.

 

The increased efficiency of the Rams passing game immediately backed defenses out of their loaded box looks, providing relief for Gurley in 2017 and bringing the percentage of stacked boxes he faced down from 26% to 16%. This happened at the beginning of the 2017 season, and held up over the course of the season.

 

http://theramswire.usatoday.com/2017/09/12/nfl-los-angeles-rams-todd-gurley-defense-box/

http://theramswire.usatoday.com/2018/01/14/nfl-los-angeles-rams-todd-gurley-next-gen-stats-loaded-box-2017/

 

So if you're thinking that adding a dynamic RB makes defenses stack the box, I think that's dead wrong. To the contrary, having an efficient passing game makes defenses back off and play more two deep / nickel / dime looks. Once again illustrating that good QBing makes life easier on RBs, not the other way around, and again highlighting why having a dynamic RB isn't as impactful as you're suggesting.

 

Let's assume we're not talking about an average or slightly above average defensive player. Let's say we're talking about a Pro Bowl level pass rusher, like Chandler Jones. Not quite All Pro, but a double digit sack guy who efficiently and effectively rushes the passer. And let's come down slightly from the "elite" projection on Barkley, and let's just say he's a Pro Bowl level guy -- 1,200 rushing yards, 400 passing yards, 10 TDs. I'd rather have the pass rusher.

[LJpalmbeacher2]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think the impact that a great RB has on a defense is also being overstated. No defense is going to stack the box if Healthy Luck is at QB, I don't care who the RB is.

 

I think the reverse is more accurate. An effective, efficient, or explosive passing game loosens things up for the running game. "Run to set up the pass" is another antiquated notion in the modern NFL.

 

The increased efficiency of the Rams passing game immediately backed defenses out of their loaded box looks, providing relief for Gurley in 2017 and bringing the percentage of stacked boxes he faced down from 26% to 16%. This happened at the beginning of the 2017 season, and held up over the course of the season.

 

http://theramswire.usatoday.com/2017/09/12/nfl-los-angeles-rams-todd-gurley-defense-box/

http://theramswire.usatoday.com/2018/01/14/nfl-los-angeles-rams-todd-gurley-next-gen-stats-loaded-box-2017/

 

So if you're thinking that adding a dynamic RB makes defenses stack the box, I think that's dead wrong. To the contrary, having an efficient passing game makes defenses back off and play more two deep / nickel / dime looks. Once again illustrating that good QBing makes life easier on RBs, not the other way around, and again highlighting why having a dynamic RB isn't as impactful as you're suggesting.

 

Let's assume we're not talking about an average or slightly above average defensive player. Let's say we're talking about a Pro Bowl level pass rusher, like Chandler Jones. Not quite All Pro, but a double digit sack guy who efficiently and effectively rushes the passer. And let's come down slightly from the "elite" projection on Barkley, and let's just say he's a Pro Bowl level guy -- 1,200 rushing yards, 400 passing yards, 10 TDs. I'd rather have the pass rusher.

 

No. I don't know if teams load the box with Luck at QB. The point is if they do Luck should exploit it. If they don't then a 'elite' rb will run even better vs a Base defense. Either way, our offense will have the edge. 

 

[dgambill]

20 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think the impact that a great RB has on a defense is also being overstated. No defense is going to stack the box if Healthy Luck is at QB, I don't care who the RB is.

 

I think the reverse is more accurate. An effective, efficient, or explosive passing game loosens things up for the running game. "Run to set up the pass" is another antiquated notion in the modern NFL.

 

The increased efficiency of the Rams passing game immediately backed defenses out of their loaded box looks, providing relief for Gurley in 2017 and bringing the percentage of stacked boxes he faced down from 26% to 16%. This happened at the beginning of the 2017 season, and held up over the course of the season.

 

http://theramswire.usatoday.com/2017/09/12/nfl-los-angeles-rams-todd-gurley-defense-box/

http://theramswire.usatoday.com/2018/01/14/nfl-los-angeles-rams-todd-gurley-next-gen-stats-loaded-box-2017/

 

So if you're thinking that adding a dynamic RB makes defenses stack the box, I think that's dead wrong. To the contrary, having an efficient passing game makes defenses back off and play more two deep / nickel / dime looks. Once again illustrating that good QBing makes life easier on RBs, not the other way around, and again highlighting why having a dynamic RB isn't as impactful as you're suggesting.

 

Let's assume we're not talking about an average or slightly above average defensive player. Let's say we're talking about a Pro Bowl level pass rusher, like Chandler Jones. Not quite All Pro, but a double digit sack guy who efficiently and effectively rushes the passer. And let's come down slightly from the "elite" projection on Barkley, and let's just say he's a Pro Bowl level guy -- 1,200 rushing yards, 400 passing yards, 10 TDs. I'd rather have the pass rusher.

Exactly. 8 man box happens because of down and distance, personnel on the field, lack of ability to throw the ball, and an issue with the defense to stop the run without committing more players. We can see that the running back themselves have little to do with it. I know people think the bigger the name of the running back the bigger the chance of forcing an 8 man box but that is so little to do with it.

 

 

Check out 8+% and look who is running against it the most....it isn't always the best backs...its the backs with the worst passing game. The avg nfl d coordinator doesn't wake up thinking about how to stop the run. Its a passing league first....and they worry about the run only if your qb stinks and they aren't afraid of them.

https://nextgenstats.nfl.com/stats/rushing#yards

 

Of the 9 RBs with 1000 yards

• Fournette - 49%
• Howard - 43%
• Ingram - 42%
• McCoy - 36%
• Gordon - 29%
• Hunt - 24%
• CJA - 22%
• Bell - 20%
• Gurley - 17%

What is the difference between Gurley/Bell and Fournette/Howard.....how about a potent passing game. As for Ingram its pretty obvious that he was was splitting time with Kamara was saw almost no 8 man boxes...so playing only on running downs can effect that percentage. But I agree with @Superman the game is backwards from what it once was.....qbs determine the box....not rbs. Now if you think we should exploit the fact that we should face fewer stacked boxes with Luck at qb by having Barkley in the backfield that is your choice...but again the production is not that much different from elite rb over simply a quality one. We've seen all those numbers already in this thread. We aren't here to say we don't want a good rb....just that their impact on the game is not what it once was (as far as one guy vs committee). When you got guys like J Stewert who isn't an elite rb facing the most stacked boxes and teams like Arizona at the top...it tells you teams will stack the box more so against bad passing teams...and not so much a great runner. 

[Superman]

2 hours ago, dgambill said:

As for Ingram its pretty obvious that he was was splitting time with Kamara was saw almost no 8 man boxes...so playing only on running downs can effect that percentage.

 

It's amazing that Ingram saw so many loaded boxes, and Kamara saw the least in the league. Makes me think defenses picked up on some play calling tendencies of the Saints.

[krunk]

I didnt see anything drastically different we did with our game plan when we faced Leveon Bell or Todd Gurley. We did fine against both as well as Fournette. The times we got gashed it was against less heralded backs. I'm speaking to LJs point about elite backs causing game plan shifts and what not. Not sure if there's a clear cut benefit there.

[dgambill]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

It's amazing that Ingram saw so many loaded boxes, and Kamara saw the least in the league. Makes me think defenses picked up on some play calling tendencies of the Saints.

Yes I think teams keyed to the fact when Ingram was on the field they were keying in runs...Saints probably used more of 12 formation etc. doesn’t mean that even being predictable meant they still weren’t successful or that running against an 8 man box slowed them down too much. Like I said formations and down and distance and the lack of opponents to stop them means that they used 8 man boxes against them more than they would like. I do think Ingram was keyed on because the team was much more flexible and versatile with Kamara on the field. Between the two they were middle of the road. Anyways I think the stats back your arguement pretty well.

[LJpalmbeacher2]

So you guys don't think Defenses gear up when facing backs like Zeke, a young AP, Gurley, Eric Dickerson, OJ etc.... ???

 

I do. And that's why I think when you pair up a Elite RB with a Top QB the combination could be cool. 

[aaron11]

15 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Not gonna talk about how dramatically everyone is overrating the impact that RBs have on winning... If you want someone to help us win, drafting a RB at #3 is one of the last things you should do.

i dont agree with that, he could help us win now

 

its not like hooker did much for our win total 

 

 

[jshipp23]

23 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

i dont agree with that, he could help us win now

 

its not like hooker did much for our win total 

 

 

Myles Garrett is twice the player Chubb is, and still couldn't help Cleveland win a game..Bosa couldn't get Chargers in playoffs and they have an elite QB..Barkley would get Colts in playoffs year 1 even with Brissett..

[Str8himalaya]

On 2/23/2018 at 2:02 PM, 2006Coltsbestever said:

No need to argue it, Barry Sanders and Emmitt Smith are the best 2 RB's over the last 30 years, both were Top 20 picks. This will be my last Post on this Thread. We will Draft Chubb anyway IMO and I am fine with it.

Barry never won a SB either. Emmitt did because he had...a HOF QB, a HOF WR, and what some consider the best OL in the history of the game. They were both great, and I think Barry was the GOAT, but no RB has carried his team to a SB and won it (that I can think of, I may be wrong). Even the GOATs couldn't do it alone. Could Barkley be a piece, of course, but his impact won't be the same as some of the premium positions, like Superman quoted, just not the supply that is needed for the demand. 

[Superman]

7 hours ago, aaron11 said:

i dont agree with that, he could help us win now

 

its not like hooker did much for our win total 

 

Ugh...

 

Not that it's relevant, but Hooker actually put away the Browns game with an interception. Then he got hurt a month later. 

 

Please don't act like it makes sense to judge first round draft picks on the basis of whether they make game deciding plays in their rookie season. Please.

[Superman]

7 hours ago, jshipp23 said:

Myles Garrett is twice the player Chubb is, and still couldn't help Cleveland win a game..Bosa couldn't get Chargers in playoffs and they have an elite QB..Barkley would get Colts in playoffs year 1 even with Brissett..

 

Good heavens...

[jshipp23]

5 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Good heavens...

You can't only use philosophy to spin it against running backs...

[NewColtsFan]

7 hours ago, jshipp23 said:

Myles Garrett is twice the player Chubb is, and still couldn't help Cleveland win a game..Bosa couldn't get Chargers in playoffs and they have an elite QB..Barkley would get Colts in playoffs year 1 even with Brissett..

 

Oh, Dear God!!        

 

[Superman]

17 hours ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

So you guys don't think Defenses gear up when facing backs like Zeke, a young AP, Gurley, Eric Dickerson, OJ etc.... ???

 

I do. And that's why I think when you pair up a Elite RB with a Top QB the combination could be cool. 

 

Not really, assuming that back plays on a team with efficient QBing. Young AP almost never did, and we see statistical evidence that teams play Gurley differently based on the QBing.

 

First of all, do you really not think that bringing up Dickerson and OJ is irrelevant? They played 30-40 years ago, when QBs only threw the ball 25 times a game and completed about 50-55% of their passes. Do you really not think the changes in the game have adjusted the way defenses react to RBs?

 

Second, we posted above how often Gurley saw stacked boxes, particularly the drastic difference from 2016 when the Rams had inefficient QB play to 2017 when they had much more efficient QB play. This is evidence that defenses don't load the box against good RBs the way you claim they do.

 

Third, pairing good players together is always a good idea. Having high level RB play is obviously better than having mediocre RB play. That's not being debated. The question is what kind of resources should a team commit to a RB prospect, given the impact even good RBs have in the modern NFL.

[Superman]

Did you guys not watch the opener last year? The Colts loaded the box with 8 men on 10.5% of his carries. He still only averaged 2.1 yards/carry, and his longest carry was just 12 yards. Goff still ate up our secondary for 300 yards and a 72% completion rate.

 

This trend carries across the league in today's NFL. Teams don't load the box against good RBs unless the QB sucks. And even then, they still might not, because even below average passers in today's NFL are vastly more efficient and productive than the majority of passers from 20+ years ago. The worst QB in 2017 was way better than any QB OJ Simpson or Eric Dickerson ever played with.