Originally Posted by RealSNR (Post 14345060)

RBs these days know how expendable they are and that they're the position group most likely to get ****ed over in terms of collecting a payday for the amount of abuse their body takes. They're starting to rebel. Bell did that, and now Gordon is at it. It's getting to the point where you won't be able to do that with RBs if you hit on a really good one.

Now, if I were a GM, if Gordon came up to me with the demands he gave the Chargers, I'd say, "That's nice, sweetie" and trade the guy's ass. The market is shit, so I still might not get a decent return for the trade, but I got my good player for a couple years, got some draft picks in return to spend on more young players, and best of all, I'm more than likely still going to come out on top, because the RB's replacement will probably be just fine.

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath15 (Post 14343399)

Even the "special ass players" are only special until they aren't.

Todd Gurley, please pick up the white courtesy phone.

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 14345102)

Barkley is definitely awesome

But I just don’t think the difference in a generational running back and simply a good running back is worth overspending

Originally Posted by Valiant (Post 14345166)

How did that guy collapse so bad during the season and playoffs? I know he got paid, but damn.

Originally Posted by BryanBusby (Post 14345131)

Well I mean yeah, it's obvious that Gettleman is clearly reeruned.

While Nelson is really good and will have a long career, I'll take the elite talent that will change my entire Offense.


But it's not overspending. Thanks for playing.

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 14345268)

The second overall pick? That’s overspending for a rb

Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy (Post 14345016)

Stop making this into a science question. Barkley is way better than Fisher could ever hope to be. Period.

The notion that you 'have' or 'can never' draft a certain position is what leads to draft busts. There are so many variables to that question there is really no absolute answer like some of you all want to make it out to be. It is also why most of you on here would suck at being a GM.

Originally Posted by staylor26 (Post 14345284)

I’m not of the opinion that you never take a RB in the 1st. Every year, every pick, every team, every prospect etc. is different.

That doesn’t mean that positional value isn’t a legitimate reason to pass on a RB early.

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 14345268)

The second overall pick? That’s overspending for a rb

Originally Posted by BryanBusby (Post 14346315)

Elite players that score a lot of points for you have a lot of value. Glad I could clear that up.

Taking a Barkley, EE or an AP over one Eric Fisher is a no brainer.

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 14346324)

And it’s the easiest position to find players that score a lot of points ya and have value without spending a lot of value or money

Especially in a capped league and in the draft you’re taking a player you know you’re only going to have for a max of five years at best because you’re not gonna break off and pay a rb

Originally Posted by BryanBusby (Post 14346328)

It's easy to find elite players? Tell me more.

This is the same stupid aas argument 9 years ago when people were against Berry at 5.

PoSiTiOnAl VaLuE tHo

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 14346343)

No it’s not easy to find elite players

But the difference in an elite running back vs a good one isn’t the same as the difference in an elite player at a different position and a good player