Does it make sense to take a RB in the top 10 in today's NFL?
 

Poll forthcoming.

No
Posted via Mobile Device

On the average, no. But if we can take a ****ing right tackle one overall, then I say yes.

Right runner + right scheme + right surrounding players = profit

adrian

peterson

Unless your name is Adrian Peterson than no

No way in hell

Yes. But they have to be game breaking freaks.

Only if it is for otherworldly talent.

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.

Janokowski has been nails and should be a HOFer. RB? sure

Depends. Is that the major need for a team that has all the other components in place to already win?

He'd have to be pretty ****ing special. Like the DNA of Jim Brown and Walter Payton were fused together somehow.

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?

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

No way. And if you've already made that mistake and you can unload the guy for a first, you do it.

I voted no. But its more like a no, but...

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.

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

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

Damn good point...

Damn, I thoug it was just first round.


Top 10? No way

Not unless he is extremely special

A team can ALWAYS use another pass rusher if they are set at every position.

RB's can be found later.

No. Unless you a Peterson you look like you wasted the pick.

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?

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.

It hasn't made sense for a long time unless we're talking Barry Sanders or maybe Adrian Peterson.

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....

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

That's a short sighted vacuum.

Having a line to run behind is much more important so no. Lineman only in the top 10

Guys like Marshall Falk come around once in a decade. Charles was a second rounder.

Does it make sense to draft a Tackle in the top 10 in today's NFL?

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.

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.

90's football, yes.
2010's football, no.
Future football, ?

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.

Nooooooooooooooooo!


Damn you. LMAO

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

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.

RB's are more risky than QB's.

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.

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 kind of what the Colts just did.

That's the key. RBs break almost inevitably.

Look at Knowshon. They're risky.

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

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.

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

Ka-janna carter

Amy Carter:

http://static.oprah.com/images/tows/...-7-600x411.jpg

larry johnson

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.

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.

truly, you have a dizzying intellect

Ride the roller-coaster, lover.

It can.

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

Australia.

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

Not unless it's an AP or LT.

Wait till I get going!





Now, where were we?

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

Priest Holmes was an UDFA.

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

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.

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.

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.

JC was a third rounder RIIIGHT

Good call. He's a safe pick.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.