Originally Posted by Megatron96 (Post 15282315)

Who on my list isn't generational? Okay, Curtis might be on the fence there, and maybe Ricky, but they're right there. But look at their stats; they both were pretty damned good running/receiving backs for most of their careers. They'd be a plus on nearly any team, certainly most any team in 2020.

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 15282323)

In this day and age, I would NEVER take a RB in the top 15.

Look at Saquon Barkely. He's now missed 8 games in 2 seasons, after making it through his rookie year.

As much as we lamented RBBC back in the 1990's, the NFL has changed. Feature backs just aren't worth it anymore. You need a couple of guys that can present matchup problems all over the field.

Name a RB drafted in the top 10 in the last 10 years that actually ended up being worth the pick. McCaffrey was 8th overall, that might be it.

Leonard Fournette? Meh. As good as Ezekiel Elliott is, you can't win playoff games feeding him the ball like that.

Trent Richardson was a complete bust.

I mean, I'm probably missing a few but other than McCaffrey, who is the real difference maker on that list?

The top of the draft is for DE, DT, OT, and QB. That's where championship teams are built when it comes down to it.

Originally Posted by Megatron96 (Post 15282352)

If the Chiefs could've taken him, you wouldn't have taken him?

Originally Posted by ChiefsFanatic (Post 15282345)

I would never put Watters in the same group with Bo, LT, Sanders, Smith, Brown, etc

And I really wouldn't put Martin in that group either.

Now, Bo didn't have the career of Sanders, Smith, Brown, etc. but I think it's undeniable that he was a generational runner back, even with his limited body of work.

But, I don't think Watters or Martin belong in the conversation about generational running backs, and I don't care what stats they accumulated. Because if those two were on that level, then Frank Gore would be too, and while he is a freak of nature still playing RB after all these years, he is just not on those others player's level.

But, it's just an opinion.

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 15282363)

Not in the top 5, no. I would have taken Chubb, Nelson, and/or McGlinchey over Barkley myself. Maybe even Denzel Ward, so I could get the 5-year contract to control his cost since CB's get so expensive.

I would never take a RB in the top 10. Ever.

Originally Posted by Megatron96 (Post 15282371)

Whoa, I didn't say top 5, did I? I thought I said somewhere in the top 20.

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 15282385)

The answer is still no.

I'm not taking an ILB or RB in the top 20.

In the top 10: DE/Edge, DT, OT, QB
In the top 20/borderline top 10: CB, S, OG/C, WR, TE
Anywhere else: RB, ILB

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla (Post 15282339)

Martin's 4.0 yards per carry isn't going to excite anyone enough to spend a first on him. Hell, that wouldn't be top 10 this season.

Originally Posted by Megatron96 (Post 15282417)

Well then I guess I'm on the other side of the fence. Because if I had a top 10 pick and Marshall Faulk/Barry Sanders/LT/Bo Jackson falls to me (and I needed a RB), I'd take him instantly.

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 15282438)

Building around a RB just doesn't work in this version of the NFL. Taking a RB that high is pretty much guaranteeing you're going to have too much emphasis on running the ball.

Originally Posted by RunKC (Post 15282421)

Just keep that same energy if a damn good fatty is there at 32. A lot of times 32 is no mans land kind of like this year. Nobody really sexy was available except at a position that’s discounted.

If we got an IOL who was playing as good as Osemele was for cheap for 5 years nobody here would bitch about it.

It really comes down to ensuring your pick is a hit and not another Breeland Speaks. But hey when your staff is hitting on several picks throughout the draft like we did this year you gain a lot of flexibility.

Originally Posted by Megatron96 (Post 15282459)

Again 'whoa,' I'm not talking about building a team from basically scratch; I'm talking you have your QB, one or two receiving weapons that are top tier or close, a decent defense. Your team is missing a RB (plus a couple holes maybe on offense/defense like most teams in the middle/lower tier). Or a good team that somehow trades their way into the top 10. Either way, you have a need at RB; I'm taking one of those guys no questions asked.

Now, if the scenario is "we're building a team from the ground up and we have a top 5 pick," then no, I don't take even a generational RB there because i don't even have an OL probably.

To take an RB in the top 5 you at least have to have an OL, at least a mid-tier QB, at least a couple decent receivers. You can build a quality defense in three years, but you'd have to have all those other things to make the RB pick make sense.

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 15282480)

In your scenario, I look to add a weapon like a WR or TE, or depth on the defensive line or the defensive backfield with an eye to replacing key pieces in the future, even though you may be set now.

I still wouldn't take a RB. I'd take one or even two later.