Originally Posted by JakeF (Post 14928957)

Swift can be used as a traditional back
Swift can be used as a 3rd down type back(passes, draws,screens etc)

CEH can be used as a 3rd down type back

I imagine that Andy plans on using Damien to start and CEH as the 3rd down back, pass-catcher back.


I'm not mad, just a bit confused.

Originally Posted by frozenchief (Post 14928660)

Every time Derrick Henry got the ball, he COST Tennessee points.

RBs do NOT add value. Even if RBs can catch passes, they do not add value.

**** me with a sandpaper dildo. This was a bad ****ing decision. KC should have drafted best available LB or CB or IOL. And no, I don’t care how many yards this guy runs for over the next few years. This is a bad ****ing draft choice and if you think otherwise, you don’t understand numbers and probability.

Originally Posted by Detoxing (Post 14928926)

What if that running back ends up being one of your most reliable playmakers?

This team is loaded. It can afford to "splurge" on a RB.

This kid adds another dimension to this offense that we didn't have last season.

He gives us back everything Kareem Hunt gave us and then some.

I really feel like people don't understand that.

Originally Posted by JakeF (Post 14928957)

Swift can be used as a traditional back
Swift can be used as a 3rd down type back(passes, draws,screens etc)

CEH can be used as a 3rd down type back

I imagine that Andy plans on using Damien to start and CEH as the 3rd down back, pass-catcher back.


I'm not mad, just a bit confused.

Originally Posted by BigRedChief (Post 14928963)

this is solid info. But, the bottom line is that....... in Veach we trust. :clap:

Originally Posted by Rain Man (Post 14928956)

I'm not a contracts guy, but I wonder if anyone from this draft would be positioned for a second contract. Mahomes will be peaking five years from now. So maybe the plan is that you load up short-term guys for a good two or three year run and then reload.

Originally Posted by fredflintrock (Post 14928946)

Did I miss something from the rules committee? Are TDs scored by running backs not worth as many point as TDs scored by LB, or CB or IOL. I laugh at people that make exaggerated statements. How could he have cost them points everytime he touched the ball? Didn't he have over 20 TDs last year...oops just looked, only 16 rushing and 2 passing.
How many more points could they have scored on those touches if he hadn't gotten the ball, I guess I'm confused. Numbers? Probability? Would for you to explain this further without a bunch of links, you know, like your thought on the subject, please, if you have time.

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho (Post 14928986)

Thanks. I agree wholeheartedly on Veach.

CEH is going to make teams pay if they try to pay so much attention to Kelce and Hill. He gives them a third playmaker to pair with those two once Watkins is gone.

This was about attacking the way teams have tried to defend what the Chiefs DP so well.

Originally Posted by frozenchief (Post 14928989)

I’ve posted links to several articles, but the basic premise is a stat called “extra points added” or EPA. The basic gist is “How many extra points did the offense add on that play?” Its based upon analyzing NFL history to determine: in that play, with that down, distance, and distance to goal, what can a reasonable offense expect to get? If the offense gets more, they get a positive EPA. If they get less, they get a negative EPA.

And evidence shows that over the past 15-20 years, the game has substantially shifted to the point that passing plays have generally positive EPAs and running plays have generally negative EPAs. Put another way, the biggest variable in a team’s running game is not the RBs. It is the O line. In fact, the biggest predictor of whether a running play will be successful is not the particular RB. It is instead the O line. The identity of the RB does NOT matter when determining which play or player would be best in a particular situation. That means, if you have a good O line, it does not matter who is your running back. Nor do passes to RBs make up the difference. You’re better off making a WR a RB than a RB a WR.

Argue with me all you want. Tell me I’m having a meltdown (which is somewhat true). Ridicule me. Fine. I’m just saying what the evidence shows. And that evidence shows that a first round pick should be used for players and positions that can contribute a positive EPA.

I’m a big boy. I can take the slings and arrows. And if this guy runs for 4000 yards, feel free to post a link to any of my posts. But if you want offensive production, you’re better off with WRs, TEs, or O-linemen than a RB based upon the current evidence.

(BTW, nobody has challenged my data. Nobody has produced any analysis showing that drafting an RB in the first round is worth it. It’s just “calm down, dude.” That, though, is not an argument.)

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla (Post 14928984)

CEH was a 3 down guy at LSU.

Originally Posted by frozenchief (Post 14928989)

I’ve posted links to several articles, but the basic premise is a stat called “extra points added” or EPA. The basic gist is “How many extra points did the offense add on that play?” Its based upon analyzing NFL history to determine: in that play, with that down, distance, and distance to goal, what can a reasonable offense expect to get? If the offense gets more, they get a positive EPA. If they get less, they get a negative EPA.

And evidence shows that over the past 15-20 years, the game has substantially shifted to the point that passing plays have generally positive EPAs and running plays have generally negative EPAs. Put another way, the biggest variable in a team’s running game is not the RBs. It is the O line. In fact, the biggest predictor of whether a running play will be successful is not the particular RB. It is instead the O line. The identity of the RB does NOT matter when determining which play or player would be best in a particular situation. That means, if you have a good O line, it does not matter who is your running back. Nor do passes to RBs make up the difference. You’re better off making a WR a RB than a RB a WR.

Argue with me all you want. Tell me I’m having a meltdown (which is somewhat true). Ridicule me. Fine. I’m just saying what the evidence shows. And that evidence shows that a first round pick should be used for players and positions that can contribute a positive EPA.

I’m a big boy. I can take the slings and arrows. And if this guy runs for 4000 yards, feel free to post a link to any of my posts. But if you want offensive production, you’re better off with WRs, TEs, or O-linemen than a RB based upon the current evidence.

(BTW, nobody has challenged my data. Nobody has produced any analysis showing that drafting an RB in the first round is worth it. It’s just “calm down, dude.” That, though, is not an argument.)