PDA

View Full Version : Football Does it make sense to take a RB in the top 10 in today's NFL?


Rams Fan
09-18-2013, 05:48 PM
Poll forthcoming.

Deberg_1990
09-18-2013, 05:50 PM
No
Posted via Mobile Device

Bowser
09-18-2013, 05:51 PM
On the average, no. But if we can take a fucking right tackle one overall, then I say yes.

Right runner + right scheme + right surrounding players = profit

Ebolapox
09-18-2013, 05:53 PM
adrian

peterson

Urc Burry
09-18-2013, 05:54 PM
Unless your name is Adrian Peterson than no

threebag02
09-18-2013, 06:19 PM
No way in hell

Bewbies
09-18-2013, 06:22 PM
Yes. But they have to be game breaking freaks.

Buehler445
09-18-2013, 06:23 PM
Only if it is for otherworldly talent.

Rain Man
09-18-2013, 06:29 PM
It makes sense if that's the best available talent. It makes even more sense if other teams subscribe to the "RBs are cheap" theory and a top-tier RB falls to you at pick 9 or 10.

OrtonsPiercedTaint
09-18-2013, 06:31 PM
Janokowski has been nails and should be a HOFer. RB? sure

HoneyBadger
09-18-2013, 06:33 PM
Depends. Is that the major need for a team that has all the other components in place to already win?

cosmo20002
09-18-2013, 07:21 PM
He'd have to be pretty fucking special. Like the DNA of Jim Brown and Walter Payton were fused together somehow.

CrazyPhuD
09-18-2013, 07:23 PM
It makes sense if that's the best available talent. It makes even more sense if other teams subscribe to the "RBs are cheap" theory and a top-tier RB falls to you at pick 9 or 10.

This because you're also paying them jack shit(relatively speaking) for 5 years.

Now the question you should ask is, does it make sense to break the bank to sign any RB?

Psyko Tek
09-18-2013, 07:26 PM
I did not think of the price factor
you could run the guy to death in his first contract and then let him go

gawd, I hate to think that way

ClevelandBronco
09-18-2013, 07:29 PM
No way. And if you've already made that mistake and you can unload the guy for a first, you do it.

hometeam
09-18-2013, 07:29 PM
I voted no. But its more like a no, but...

milkman
09-18-2013, 07:43 PM
If you think a guy has the potential to be something special, a guy likecAdrian Peterson, a Marshall Faulk, then yes, you take them.

vailpass
09-18-2013, 07:46 PM
If you think a guy has the potential to be something special, a guy likecAdrian Peterson, a Marshall Faulk, then yes, you take them.

IF you are set at the other skill positions and IF a rb is BPA at your draft position then.....maybe.

O.city
09-18-2013, 07:47 PM
Just based on the life of said position in the NFL and length of playing time, they'd have to be extremely multifaceted and talented

milkman
09-18-2013, 07:49 PM
IF you are set at the other skill positions and IF a rb is BPA at your draft position then.....maybe.

If you're drafting in the top 10, then you aren't likely set at the other skill positions.

vailpass
09-18-2013, 07:50 PM
If you're drafting in the top 10, then you aren't likely set at the other skill positions.

Damn good point...

O.city
09-18-2013, 07:50 PM
Damn, I thoug it was just first round.


Top 10? No way

Mr. Laz
09-18-2013, 07:51 PM
Not unless he is extremely special

notorious
09-18-2013, 07:55 PM
A team can ALWAYS use another pass rusher if they are set at every position.

RB's can be found later.

Red Dawg
09-18-2013, 07:56 PM
No. Unless you a Peterson you look like you wasted the pick.

milkman
09-18-2013, 07:59 PM
Damn, I thoug it was just first round.


Top 10? No way

So, let's say you are the GM of the Rams.
You just drafted Sam Bradford #1 overall and are picking in the top 10.

There's a guy sitting on the board at your pick that you, and everyone else, believe has all the tools and potential to be the next Marshall Faullk.

You're passing on him?

milkman
09-18-2013, 08:01 PM
A team can ALWAYS use another pass rusher if they are set at every position.

RB's can be found later.

Where was Justin Houston drafted?
James Harrison?
Jared Allen?

saphojunkie
09-18-2013, 08:05 PM
Where was Justin Houston drafted?
James Harrison?
Jared Allen?

How about you look at the top ten rushers from the past few yeas and tell me how many we're first round picks.

Last year was six of ten. It makes sense in the first but top ten?

Just not worth it. At least right tackles aren't done at age 29.

Sfeihc
09-18-2013, 08:05 PM
It hasn't made sense for a long time unless we're talking Barry Sanders or maybe Adrian Peterson.

Deberg_1990
09-18-2013, 08:05 PM
So, let's say you are the GM of the Rams.
You just drafted Sam Bradford #1 overall and are picking in the top 10.

There's a guy sitting on the board at your pick that you, and everyone else, believe has all the tools and potential to be the next Marshall Faullk.

You're passing on him?

Yea, honestly it's going to vary from year to year and the situation obviously. In Richardsons case, he was the top RB available in his draft, but is he truly a "special" talent? IMO no. No where close to Faulk, Peterson talent.

The problem is, every draft is different, and you might have a weak draft like this year where teams overdraft guys just because there really isn't any "elite" talent available. For instance, in a stronger draft, guys like Fisher and Joeckel don't go until picks 9 or 10? Depends on the year....

Rams Fan
09-18-2013, 08:09 PM
So, let's say you are the GM of the Rams.
You just drafted Sam Bradford #1 overall and are picking in the top 10.

There's a guy sitting on the board at your pick that you, and everyone else, believe has all the tools and potential to be the next Marshall Faullk.

You're passing on him?

Hey, it could be possible if the Redskins continue to lose.

milkman
09-18-2013, 08:11 PM
How about you look at the top ten rushers from last year and tell me how many we're first round picks.

That's a short sighted vacuum.

L.A. Chieffan
09-18-2013, 08:14 PM
Having a line to run behind is much more important so no. Lineman only in the top 10

L.A. Chieffan
09-18-2013, 08:15 PM
Guys like Marshall Falk come around once in a decade. Charles was a second rounder.

Sweet Daddy Hate
09-18-2013, 08:17 PM
Does it make sense to draft a Tackle in the top 10 in today's NFL?

RealSNR
09-18-2013, 08:18 PM
I said no, because generally you don't see Adrian Petersons and Marshall Faulks.

When they're there, however, they can change a team's fortunes around faster than any other position except for QB.

ghak99
09-18-2013, 08:18 PM
It would have to be a once a decade type of RB going to a built team for me to do it in the top 10. Late first sure, but top 10 is tough to justify in today's league.

JoeyChuckles
09-18-2013, 08:21 PM
90's football, yes.
2010's football, no.
Future football, ?

Deberg_1990
09-18-2013, 08:22 PM
Charles was a second rounder.

3rd. He went there because he's built skinny.

L.A. Chieffan
09-18-2013, 08:24 PM
3rd. He went there because he's built skinny.

Yup, one of the best rbs in the league went in the third. It's harder to get OL that's why they should go first.

notorious
09-18-2013, 08:24 PM
Where was Justin Houston drafted?
James Harrison?
Jared Allen?

Nooooooooooooooooo!


Damn you. LMAO

Sweet Daddy Hate
09-18-2013, 08:28 PM
Yup, one of the best rbs in the league went in the third. It's harder to get OL that's why they should go first.

I hope we never stop drafting linemen in the 1st round. It should be our thing.

Rain Man
09-18-2013, 08:39 PM
To everyone saying no, let me ask you a few questions.

Would you give a first-round choice for a rookie Jamaal Charles? How about Adrian Peterson? Arian Foster? C.J. Spiller?

If the answer is yes, then you would give a first-round choice for a running back. Perhaps from a strategy perspective you would find it advantageous to wait, but that doesn't mean that they're not worth a first.

Sweet Daddy Hate
09-18-2013, 08:40 PM
RB's are more risky than QB's.

saphojunkie
09-18-2013, 08:55 PM
To everyone saying no, let me ask you a few questions.

Would you give a first-round choice for a rookie Jamaal Charles? How about Adrian Peterson? Arian Foster? C.J. Spiller?

If the answer is yes, then you would give a first-round choice for a running back. Perhaps from a strategy perspective you would find it advantageous to wait, but that doesn't mean that they're not worth a first.

Would the Bills, Chiefs, and Vikings trade all of those players for a Super Bowl?

If the answer is yes, then you should have drafted a QB with that pick.

O.city
09-18-2013, 09:05 PM
So, let's say you are the GM of the Rams.
You just drafted Sam Bradford #1 overall and are picking in the top 10.

There's a guy sitting on the board at your pick that you, and everyone else, believe has all the tools and potential to be the next Marshall Faullk.

You're passing on him?

I'd be very hesitant to draft him yes.

Based on th longevity of the position in today's NFL and the trend of being able to find suitable backs elsewhere, I'd be hesitant

saphojunkie
09-18-2013, 09:05 PM
So, let's say you are the GM of the Rams.
You just drafted Sam Bradford #1 overall and are picking in the top 10.

There's a guy sitting on the board at your pick that you, and everyone else, believe has all the tools and potential to be the next Marshall Faullk.

You're passing on him?

That's kind of what the Colts just did.

vailpass
09-18-2013, 09:07 PM
I'd be very hesitant to draft him yes.

Based on th longevity of the position in today's NFL and the trend of being able to find suitable backs elsewhere, I'd be hesitant

That's the key. RBs break almost inevitably.

Sweet Daddy Hate
09-18-2013, 09:27 PM
That's the key. RBs break almost inevitably.

Look at Knowshon. They're risky.

vailpass
09-18-2013, 09:29 PM
Look at Knowshon. They're risky.

Yep. Or about any rb. Though he had a very good game last week.

milkman
09-18-2013, 09:30 PM
Would the Bills, Chiefs, and Vikings trade all of those players for a Super Bowl?

If the answer is yes, then you should have drafted a QB with that pick.

This isn't QB v. RB.

Any team that doesn't take a QB if they don't have one should be expellede from the league.

Sweet Daddy Hate
09-18-2013, 09:31 PM
This isn't QB v. RB.

Any team that doesn't acquire a QB if they don't have one should be expellede from the league.

Let's keep it Chiefs-centric, please.:D

Demonpenz
09-18-2013, 09:47 PM
Ka-janna carter

Sweet Daddy Hate
09-18-2013, 09:48 PM
Ka-janna carter

Amy Carter:

http://static.oprah.com/images/tows/201104/20110427-tows-obama-first-daughters-7-600x411.jpg

Demonpenz
09-18-2013, 09:51 PM
larry johnson

Sweet Daddy Hate
09-18-2013, 09:52 PM
larry johnson

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/11327785/Don+Johnson++11.jpg

keg in kc
09-18-2013, 09:53 PM
No, it doesn't really make sense to draft them high. Runningback has become more of a complimentary position in the NFL, with the explosion of the passing game, and the league as a whole has shifted towards stables of specialist RBs rather than featured single backs. There's a few exceptions of course, but they basically prove the rule.

Sweet Daddy Hate
09-18-2013, 09:56 PM
No, it doesn't really make sense to draft them high. Runningback has become more of a complimentary position in the NFL, with the explosion of the passing game, and the league as a whole has shifted towards stables of specialist RBs rather than featured single backs. There's a few exceptions of course, but they basically prove the rule.

You never really know what you're getting until it hits the field. That's true with any position, but more so with RB's.

keg in kc
09-18-2013, 10:03 PM
You never really know what you're getting until it hits the field. That's true with any position, but more so with RB's.They also tend to have shorter careers.

Sweet Daddy Hate
09-18-2013, 10:18 PM
They also tend to have shorter careers.

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.

L.A. Chieffan
09-18-2013, 10:23 PM
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.

truly, you have a dizzying intellect

Sweet Daddy Hate
09-18-2013, 10:24 PM
truly, you have a dizzying intellect

Ride the roller-coaster, lover.

Dave Lane
09-18-2013, 10:26 PM
It can.

Now back to Your regularly scheduled program of drafting only offense of lineman in the first round.

L.A. Chieffan
09-18-2013, 10:26 PM
Ride the roller-coaster, lover.

Australia.

Sweet Daddy Hate
09-18-2013, 10:27 PM
It can.

Now back to Your regularly scheduled program of drafting only offense of lineman in the first round.

I'm betting at least three more during the Dorseid regime.

RustShack
09-18-2013, 10:29 PM
Not unless it's an AP or LT.

Sorter
09-18-2013, 10:33 PM
truly, you have a dizzying intellect

Wait till I get going!





Now, where were we?

BigMeatballDave
09-18-2013, 10:38 PM
Not unless it's an AP or LT.

You never know how that is ever going to work out.

Priest Holmes was an UDFA.

Molitoth
09-18-2013, 10:38 PM
Poll forthcoming.

It depends on if you have a great QB or not.

Rain Man
09-18-2013, 10:40 PM
Maybe I interpret the whole "first round" or "top ten" thing differently from other people.

For example, is Dwayne Bowe worth a top-ten pick?

In a draft where these guys are the top 12 prospects, the answer is yes.

Dwayne Bowe
Mike Mamula
Tony Mandarich
Trezelle Jenkins
Jon Baldwin
Ryan Leaf
Jamarcus Russell
Rashaun Woods
Freddie Mitchell
Matt Jones
Jarvis Moss
Ron Dayne

In a draft where these guys are the top 12 prospects, the answer is no.

Dwayne Bowe
Dan Marino
Adrian Peterson
Walter Payton
Reggie White
Lawrence Taylor
Anthony Munoz
Joe Montana
Walter Payton
Jerry Rice
Tony Gonzalez
Dick Butkus

"Worth a top-ten pick" is purely a function of who the other top players are. If it's a weak draft class, someone is worth a top-ten pick even if they're going to be a below-average NFL player, as long as they're one of the ten best prospects.

L.A. Chieffan
09-18-2013, 10:41 PM
Maybe I interpret the whole "first round" or "top ten" thing differently from other people.

For example, is Dwayne Bowe worth a top-ten pick?

In a draft where these guys are the top 12 prospects, the answer is yes.

Dwayne Bowe
Mike Mamula
Tony Mandarich
Trezelle Jenkins
Jon Baldwin
Ryan Leaf
Jamarcus Russell
Rashaun Woods
Freddie Mitchell
Matt Jones
Jarvis Moss
Ron Dayne

In a draft where these guys are the top 12 prospects, the answer is no.

Dwayne Bowe
Dan Marino
Adrian Peterson
Walter Payton
Reggie White
Lawrence Taylor
Anthony Munoz
Joe Montana
Walter Payton
Jerry Rice
Tony Gonzalez
Dick Butkus

"Worth a top-ten pick" is purely a function of who the other top players are. If it's a weak draft class, someone is worth a top-ten pick even if they're going to be a below-average NFL player, as long as they're one of the ten best prospects.

I'd take Munoz.

Earthling
09-18-2013, 10:44 PM
All depends on the rb in question and the roster currently on your team. I think you take what your team needs, provided that what you need is there.

keg in kc
09-18-2013, 10:58 PM
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.

Thig Lyfe
09-18-2013, 11:27 PM
JC was a third rounder RIIIGHT

Rain Man
09-18-2013, 11:32 PM
I'd take Munoz.

Good call. He's a safe pick.

Thig Lyfe
09-18-2013, 11:33 PM
If Adrian Peterson is there, take him. Otherwise, you can probably find a great starting RB in the second or even third round almost every year.

patteeu
09-19-2013, 08:24 AM
I voted no, but of course it depends. If you think the last piece you need to contend for a Superbowl, then sure. If you think he's HOF caliber, then sure.

Red Gorilla
09-19-2013, 09:17 AM
I voted yes. If the talent is there and the guy is way up on your board then you take him. Todd Gurley is a lock to go Top 10 in 2014. Richardson is a stud. He just doesn't fit their system and the Browns need a QB in a bad way.

Rausch
09-19-2013, 09:19 AM
I voted yes but ONLY if you already have your QBOTF and you feel this is a once in a generation type of player.

So, if the Packers/Falcons could draft AP/Tomlinson/Marcus Allen/Bo Jackson this offseason then yes...

buddha
09-19-2013, 09:24 AM
According to most of you, the only position worthy of a top 10 pick is QB. Think of how stupid that is?

You need impact players all over the field. You don't have to have a great RB to win, but it sure as hell doesn't hurt.

Sorter
09-19-2013, 09:35 AM
Really depends on quite a few different variables.

patteeu
09-19-2013, 10:05 AM
I voted yes. If the talent is there and the guy is way up on your board then you take him. Todd Gurley is a lock to go Top 10 in 2014. Richardson is a stud. He just doesn't fit their system and the Browns need a QB in a bad way.

IMO, the poll question is whether or not you should put a RB that high on your board in the first place.

BlackHelicopters
09-19-2013, 10:08 AM
No

Cave Johnson
09-19-2013, 10:46 AM
According to most of you, the only position worthy of a top 10 pick is QB. Think of how stupid that is?

You need impact players all over the field. You don't have to have a great RB to win, but it sure as hell doesn't hurt.

That's not even remotely close to correct. The consensus, by and large, is that you take OT, QBs, pass rushers, a dominant NT/DT, CB, or WR.

There's plenty of reasons why the average draft position of RBs has dropped over time, including the fungibility and short careers of RBs and the move to pass-heavy league.

loochy
09-19-2013, 11:32 AM
Build a good oline and system and many backs can be very successful.

See Shanahan and the Broncos:

Terrell Davis
Mike Anderson
Clinton Portis
Reuben Droughns
Tatum Bell
Olandis Gary

Granted, TD was special, but still...

Pitt Gorilla
09-19-2013, 11:51 AM
Maybe I interpret the whole "first round" or "top ten" thing differently from other people.

For example, is Dwayne Bowe worth a top-ten pick?

In a draft where these guys are the top 12 prospects, the answer is yes.

Dwayne Bowe
Mike Mamula
Tony Mandarich
Trezelle Jenkins
Jon Baldwin
Ryan Leaf
Jamarcus Russell
Rashaun Woods
Freddie Mitchell
Matt Jones
Jarvis Moss
Ron Dayne

In a draft where these guys are the top 12 prospects, the answer is no.

Dwayne Bowe
Dan Marino
Adrian Peterson
Walter Payton
Reggie White
Lawrence Taylor
Anthony Munoz
Joe Montana
Walter Payton
Jerry Rice
Tony Gonzalez
Dick Butkus

"Worth a top-ten pick" is purely a function of who the other top players are. If it's a weak draft class, someone is worth a top-ten pick even if they're going to be a below-average NFL player, as long as they're one of the ten best prospects.pretty sure that type of nuanced argument isn't allowed. FYI.

Rain Man
09-19-2013, 12:09 PM
Build a good oline and system and many backs can be very successful.

See Shanahan and the Broncos:

Terrell Davis
Mike Anderson
Clinton Portis
Reuben Droughns
Tatum Bell
Olandis Gary

Granted, TD was special, but still...


I think you may have the wrong cause. Your first sentence should be "Have your offensive linemen dive at defenders' knees and the backs of their legs, and many backs can be very successful."

Rain Man
09-19-2013, 12:09 PM
pretty sure that type of nuanced argument isn't allowed. FYI.


Well, darn.

GloucesterChief
09-19-2013, 12:27 PM
Only if you are sure you are getting the next Adrian Peterson or Ray Rice. Other then that other positions are more important.

Buehler445
09-19-2013, 12:27 PM
I think you may have the wrong cause. Your first sentence should be "Have your offensive linemen dive at defenders' knees and the backs of their legs, and many backs can be very successful."

You've got it wrong too.

"Be a bunch of cheating donkey fucksticks and many backs can be successful."

rabblerouser
09-19-2013, 12:30 PM
I did not think of the price factor
you could run the guy to death in his first contract and then let him go

gawd, I hate to think that way

Bill Polian did it in Indy.

Marshall Faulk>Edgerrin James>Joseph Addai

Chief Roundup
09-19-2013, 12:36 PM
The value of the RB position is horribly low. Probably the lowest it has ever been.
When you combine the value of the position in todays NFL along with all of the successful backs from mid rounds it is hard to spend a 1st round pick on one at all let alone a top ten pick on a RB.

taterhog
09-19-2013, 01:27 PM
Maybe I interpret the whole "first round" or "top ten" thing differently from other people.

For example, is Dwayne Bowe worth a top-ten pick?

In a draft where these guys are the top 12 prospects, the answer is yes.

Dwayne Bowe
Mike Mamula
Tony Mandarich
Trezelle Jenkins
Jon Baldwin
Ryan Leaf
Jamarcus Russell
Rashaun Woods
Freddie Mitchell
Matt Jones
Jarvis Moss
Ron Dayne

In a draft where these guys are the top 12 prospects, the answer is no.

Dwayne Bowe
Dan Marino
Adrian Peterson
Walter Payton
Reggie White
Lawrence Taylor
Anthony Munoz
Joe Montana
Walter Payton
Jerry Rice
Tony Gonzalez
Dick Butkus

"Worth a top-ten pick" is purely a function of who the other top players are. If it's a weak draft class, someone is worth a top-ten pick even if they're going to be a below-average NFL player, as long as they're one of the ten best prospects.

You have Payton listed twice in un-relatable scenario #2. lol

Red Gorilla
09-19-2013, 01:29 PM
IMO, the poll question is whether or not you should put a RB that high on your board in the first place.

Yes, if he is that talented you do it without hesitation. Ozzie Newsome who is considered the best GM by most people took one at #5 overall and immediately won the Superbowl. I don't think the game has changed so much that you avoid RBs early. Especially with the new rookie wage scale in place. Hell, last year two guards went in the top 10. Are RBs really even in question?

Rain Man
09-19-2013, 01:30 PM
You have Payton listed twice in un-relatable scenario #2. lol

He's really that good.

taterhog
09-19-2013, 01:32 PM
He's really that good.

Only if he can play special teams

lcarus
09-19-2013, 02:09 PM
What about someone like LeSean McCoy? Someone who is great at running the ball AND great as a receiver out of the backfield. If you planned on running an offense suited for a back like that, would you consider him worthy of a top 10 selection?

Frosty
09-19-2013, 02:12 PM
Only if he can play special teams

Great gunners are hard to find.

Red Gorilla
09-19-2013, 02:20 PM
The value of the RB position is horribly low. Probably the lowest it has ever been.
When you combine the value of the position in todays NFL along with all of the successful backs from mid rounds it is hard to spend a 1st round pick on one at all let alone a top ten pick on a RB.

No, it all depends on the talent. This year's class will be a pretty talented class all around and a RB (Todd Gurley) will definitely go top 10. Maybe even top 5. He's a top 10 lock.

Rain Man
09-19-2013, 02:36 PM
What about someone like LeSean McCoy? Someone who is great at running the ball AND great as a receiver out of the backfield. If you planned on running an offense suited for a back like that, would you consider him worthy of a top 10 selection?

Yeah, that's what I think. We know that it's a passing league now. But if you have a guy with great hands like McCoy or our own Jamaal Charles, why would you not take a backfield receiver who can also keep defenses honest up the middle or off tackle? Battering ram running backs in the mold of George Rogers or Christian Okoye may be out of vogue due to the terrible rules changes, but dual-threat backs should be all the more valuable as a result.

Sweet Daddy Hate
09-19-2013, 05:51 PM
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.

Minnesota is a highly retarded exception. Anyone who KNOWINGLY takes Matt Cassel to be a part of their squad? Come on, man.

patteeu
09-20-2013, 07:25 AM
If the Chiefs could have traded Jamaal Charles to someone early in the 2011 season for a 1st round pick, knowing that QBs like Luck and RG III were likely to be available in the draft, would it have been a good move? I think so, because in addition to 2 1st rounders, it would have improved their chances of sucking enough to make one of them the first overall.

I like what both Indy and Cleveland are doing here. And I like Trent Richardson's chances of eventually playing in post season games better now too.