Does it make sense to take a RB in the top 10 in today's NFL?

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by Sweet Daddy Hate

It's riskier than a QB. If the QB sucks, you'll have a shot at picking another and hopefully better one sooner rather than later. If the RB sucks, you're stuck in a reverse one dimensional game that will kill most QB's.

I don't know that I agree that it's necessarily more risky, but the RB position has grown increasingly devalued while the QB has gone the other direction, so the potential reward isn't really even close to equivalent. Just look at Minnesota... Best RB in the league, but they have yet to become a contender without a quality signal caller. A biblical home run at RB doesn't protect them from a failure to find a solution behind center. A fact which pretty clearly shows both the risk inherent at QB as well as the value of both positions.

Too many people focus just on the risk half of the equation and ignore the reward factor. Missing 3 out of 4 times on a QB will ultimately put you ahead of teams that hit on lesser positions. Because that one hit changes the entire dynamic of a franchise, and puts them in the catbird seat for a decade.