Originally Posted by TwistedChief (Post 14928877)

And before Patrick Mahomes, Big 12 QBs never amounted to anything in the NFL. Get outside of the box and trust the guy who just brought us a SB.

Originally Posted by frozenchief (Post 14928888)

Then take a safety. I don’t care. The evidence over the past decade plus shows that RBs COST points.

I’m a numbers/data/analytics guy. I read what computer crunching data means for current NFL games means. And they mean that you don’t take an RB in the first round.

Here’s Geoff Schwartz talking about why it is ludicrous to pay for an elite RB in today’s NFL:

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2020/4/...ound-box-count

This was just a giant waste.

Originally Posted by frozenchief (Post 14928826)

Little bit younger but I don’t give a ****.

The evidence is clear: RBs don’t merit the attention that they did 30 years ago. You no longer need a first round RB. Handing the ball to an RB generally COSTS a team points. You can either look at the data and agree or you can make snide comments, but the fact is, Veach wasted this pick.

If you disagree, point to a RB in the last 15 years that had a positive Extra Points Added per carry. We would have been better off drafting a WR or another TE.

Originally Posted by frozenchief (Post 14928888)

Then take a safety. I don’t care. The evidence over the past decade plus shows that RBs COST points.

I’m a numbers/data/analytics guy. I read what computer crunching data means for current NFL games means. And they mean that you don’t take an RB in the first round.

Here’s Geoff Schwartz talking about why it is ludicrous to pay for an elite RB in today’s NFL:

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2020/4/...ound-box-count

This was just a giant waste.

Originally Posted by frozenchief (Post 14928855)

You miss the point. I said that OL will be a better choice if you want to improve the run game. Sol if there isn’t an OL that’s worthy of a 1st round pick, choose a CB or an LB or an edge rusher or another position we need. Fine. Just don’t waste a first round pick on an RB.

Originally Posted by frozenchief (Post 14928888)

Then take a safety. I don’t care. The evidence over the past decade plus shows that RBs COST points.

I’m a numbers/data/analytics guy. I read what computer crunching data means for current NFL games means. And they mean that you don’t take an RB in the first round.

Here’s Geoff Schwartz talking about why it is ludicrous to pay for an elite RB in today’s NFL:

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2020/4/...ound-box-count

This was just a giant waste.

Originally Posted by smithandrew051 (Post 14928802)

My knock is purely that Reid has been so good at finding RBs in the mid rounds.

That said, if he loves one enough to sign off on taking him early, then he’s probably a ****ing baller.

I’d rather take a good running back than reach for a CB, LB, etc

Originally Posted by Kyle DeLexus (Post 14928907)

You need a running game to close games out. This pick will also help put points on the board. He is a matchup nightmare for opposing teams. We can still improve the OL, D and possibly another WR or TE with our 4 other picks. Now we also have a RB under club control for 5 years + franchise tags. That extra year can be huge if you hit on a RB.

Originally Posted by RunKC (Post 14928918)

I love the guy but I have to ask: do you think it is a bad use of resources to draft a RB that has proven to not give a 2nd contract to?

Originally Posted by RunKC (Post 14928918)

I love the guy but I have to ask: do you think it is a bad use of resources to draft a RB that has proven to not give a 2nd contract to?

Originally Posted by frozenchief (Post 14928888)

Then take a safety. I don’t care. The evidence over the past decade plus shows that RBs COST points.

I’m a numbers/data/analytics guy. I read what computer crunching data means for current NFL games means. And they mean that you don’t take an RB in the first round.

Here’s Geoff Schwartz talking about why it is ludicrous to pay for an elite RB in today’s NFL:

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2020/4/...ound-box-count

This was just a giant waste.

Originally Posted by frozenchief (Post 14928921)

I get the argument. I don’t want to pay an RB premium $ in a few years. Why not draft BPA in another area, like OL or backfield or somewhere else that justifies a good contract in a few years?

The only saving grace to this is that the Chiefs are returning 20 of 22 starters and this is a luxury pick. BUt even a luxury pick is a waste of a pick.

Originally Posted by frozenchief (Post 14928921)

I get the argument. I don’t want to pay an RB premium $ in a few years. Why not draft BPA in another area, like OL or backfield or somewhere else that justifies a good contract in a few years?

The only saving grace to this is that the Chiefs are returning 20 of 22 starters and this is a luxury pick. BUt even a luxury pick is a waste of a pick.

Originally Posted by MAHOMO 4 LIFE! (Post 14928917)

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Brett Veach said a lot of teams were calling them asking if they were interested in coming up. He said once the Packers traded up the phones went silent and they were fine with that.</p>&mdash; James Palmer (@JamesPalmerTV) <a href="https://twitter.com/JamesPalmerTV/status/1253546601781424128?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 24, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Originally Posted by frozenchief (Post 14928921)

I get the argument. I don’t want to pay an RB premium $ in a few years. Why not draft BPA in another area, like OL or backfield or somewhere else that justifies a good contract in a few years?

The only saving grace to this is that the Chiefs are returning 20 of 22 starters and this is a luxury pick. BUt even a luxury pick is a waste of a pick.

Originally Posted by jerryaldini (Post 14928911)

Frozen I normally agree with you about running game. But picks are situational.
1. RBs were clearly BPA at that point
2. Chiefs lack any depth at the position
3. Perfectly fits Andy. CEH will be a beast in the passing game and Andy gadgets. Screen game and draws are big part of Andy's ability to keep defenses honest against his high pass ratio game. Situationally, he was the right guy at that spot

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 Detoxing (Post 14928920)

I don't think that people understand that this kid is special.

And in this system, what he does best will be highlighted.

You're all talking about the 2020 Offensive Rookie of the Year. Write that shit down and take it to the bank.

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 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 frozenchief (Post 14928921)

I get the argument. I don’t want to pay an RB premium $ in a few years. Why not draft BPA in another area, like OL or backfield or somewhere else that justifies a good contract in a few years?

The only saving grace to this is that the Chiefs are returning 20 of 22 starters and this is a luxury pick. BUt even a luxury pick is a waste of a pick.

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla (Post 14928797)

More versatility? How so?

Originally Posted by frozenchief (Post 14928611)

What the ever loving ****? A RB in the first round? You’ve got to be ****ing kidding me! There is no reason to take an RB in the first round. Jesus, an interior OL would have been a better choice than this shit. What the ever-lasting **** was Veach thinking? Can he not see what’s going on with the NFL?

Giant Waste of a draft choice.

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 duncan_idaho (Post 14928928)

Sports aren’t just a math problem.

CEH isn’t just a running back. He’s an extension of the passing game and a rare talent in that arena. He’s not going to be catching checkdowns and swings like so many RB routes. He’s going to be the centerpiece of Andy Reid’s screen game; he’s going to run dangerous routes (wheel, angle) and be a matchup nightmare for teams and move the chains.

A team running a nickel alignment against KC or a “big dime” is going to still have trouble matching up well with CEH. The premiere S and LB coverage guys are needed for doubling Hill and covering Kelce.

If your second coverage LB (or your LB in a dime) is trying to chase CEH in the past game, that’s a huge matchup advantage.

Originally Posted by RunKC (Post 14928918)

I love the guy but I have to ask: do you think it is a bad use of resources to draft a RB that has proven to not give a 2nd contract to?

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.)

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho (Post 14928971)

CEH can be used as a regular back for the Chiefs because... well... they treat every down like the NFL has traditionally treated 3rd down.

He’s an every down guy for them in 11 personnel. And he certainly was effective as a runner in straight run plays. He has good vision, cuts sharply, and has great stop-start/burst.

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 Chris Meck (Post 14928728)

They got their #1 rated RB.

Hard to argue with the #1 player at #32.

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 Basileus777 (Post 14929007)

Mentioning first round is just empty rhetoric, it's the 32nd pick. You take the most talented player that you think can help your team at that point. Most of the other positions of need had already had a run of picks. Veach and Reed thought their top rated RB was the best player available. It does not conflict with the idea that passing produces more efficient offense than running the ball in any way. Hell, this is coming from a regime that has passed the ball on first down more than any other in NFL history. They know the value of passing the ball.

Originally Posted by frozenchief (Post 14929023)

The guy could be a great RB. Knowing Veach and Reid, he probably will be. But that’s not the point. Don’t draft RBs in the first round.

I have a few iron-clad rules in my job: don’t put nurses or teachers on juries. Every time I’ve broken that rule, I’ve regretted it. And the analytics say don’t draft an RB in the first round. The only saving grace is that we have the best QB/player in the league, which makes our room for error larger than other teams.

Originally Posted by dirk digler (Post 14929020)

So based on your analysis teams should never run the ball they should just throw it every down?


And when would you draft a RB?

Originally Posted by frozenchief (Post 14929023)

The guy could be a great RB. Knowing Veach and Reid, he probably will be. But that’s not the point. Don’t draft RBs in the first round.

I have a few iron-clad rules in my job: don’t put nurses or teachers on juries. Every time I’ve broken that rule, I’ve regretted it. And the analytics say don’t draft an RB in the first round. The only saving grace is that we have the best QB/player in the league, which makes our room for error larger than other teams.

Originally Posted by RealSNR (Post 14929025)

"But we needed...."

We had several positions where we could use an upgrade at starter + depth. RB was one of those positions. So STFU about need. We had a need, and this pick fills it.

"But we had needs at LB and CB..."

Do you want a Carl Peterson draft? Because that's how you get a Carl Peterson draft.

You never ****ing draft for need. ****. Did some of you just start watching football yesterday?

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 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 tk13 (Post 14928953)

The biggest thing people are going to miss is they're thinking of him as a RB. You gotta remember this is Andy Reid we're talking about. The RB is an extension of the passing game for Reid.

Even last year, in what you'd consider a weak RB regular season by Reid standards, our RBs caught like 80 passes.

In Westbrook's prime in Philly they used to target him 100 times a year.

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho (Post 14929037)

That’s all well and good. But Andy Reid is an outlier in the way he calls plays, the amount of times he throws the ball, and how he uses his RB in the passing game.

He’s an exception to the rule.

Numbers matter. I’m a stats guy myself. But matchups matter, too.

Because of his elusiveness as a route runner, CEH is a major upgrade to what Reid can do with his RB in routes. Go watch him run angle routes. There are plenty of highlights of it.

CEH is going to make it harder for teams to sit with two high or three high DBs, because he will ROAST LBs in space in passing routes. He’s going to make it more difficult for teams to bracket both Hill and Kelce because he will dominate LBs in space.

Originally Posted by Superturtle (Post 14929050)

43 catches for 379 yards in the final 8 games against the toughest stretch of LSUs schedule. Auburn, Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma, Clemson. But it's a bad pick because he's listed at RB.

Originally Posted by Red Dawg (Post 14929063)

Don't like it. RB is a waste of a pick this early but Veach deserves some teust.

Originally Posted by carcosa (Post 14929045)

This is why nerds need to be bullied more

Originally Posted by frozenchief (Post 14929029)

Throw on pretty much every down. I’d run if it were short yardage situations.

And if it were me, I’d not draft an RB before 5th round and preferably UDFA. I’d spent my attention on an O line, TEs, and WRs after having a great QB (like Mahomes).

Do a quick check to see what percentage of top RBs in the last 5 years were UDFAs.

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho (Post 14929037)

That’s all well and good. But Andy Reid is an outlier in the way he calls plays, the amount of times he throws the ball, and how he uses his RB in the passing game.

He’s an exception to the rule.

Numbers matter. I’m a stats guy myself. But matchups matter, too.

Because of his elusiveness as a route runner, CEH is a major upgrade to what Reid can do with his RB in routes. Go watch him run angle routes. There are plenty of highlights of it.

CEH is going to make it harder for teams to sit with two high or three high DBs, because he will ROAST LBs in space in passing routes. He’s going to make it more difficult for teams to bracket both Hill and Kelce because he will dominate LBs in space.

Originally Posted by frozenchief (Post 14929066)

I don’t really give a shit what someone else’s opinion is. And I really like to argue.

What frustrates me is not the disagreement. It’s that most responses are just “Well, I don’t agree with you, so you’re a moron.” Carcosa at least asked questions and presented other data. Dirk Digler asked questions.

To me, there’s a world of difference between “I disagree with you because X” and “God, you are so ****ing stupid. Eat a bag of dicks.” I’m happy to get along with the first. Second, not so much. I’ve had several discussions with people I don’t agree with - NinerDoug and Donger come to mine - when they at least have courtesy to advance a proposition and support it with evidence.

Disagree with me? I really could not care less. Call me names? So what? Point me to evidence that undermines my conclusion and ask me to explain it? That is a worth while discussion right there and I’m more than happy to engage. After all, if i cannot back up my argument with logic and evidence, then I shouldn’t adhere to it. So if you can give me logic and evidence showing I am wrong, I will consider it.

Originally Posted by frozenchief (Post 14929066)

I don’t really give a shit what someone else’s opinion is. And I really like to argue.

What frustrates me is not the disagreement. It’s that most responses are just “Well, I don’t agree with you, so you’re a moron.” Carcosa at least asked questions and presented other data. Dirk Digler asked questions.

To me, there’s a world of difference between “I disagree with you because X” and “God, you are so ****ing stupid. Eat a bag of dicks.” I’m happy to get along with the first. Second, not so much. I’ve had several discussions with people I don’t agree with - NinerDoug and Donger come to mine - when they at least have courtesy to advance a proposition and support it with evidence.

Disagree with me? I really could not care less. Call me names? So what? Point me to evidence that undermines my conclusion and ask me to explain it? That is a worth while discussion right there and I’m more than happy to engage. After all, if i cannot back up my argument with logic and evidence, then I shouldn’t adhere to it. So if you can give me logic and evidence showing I am wrong, I will consider it.