National Football Post 1st round mock (with trades)

[The Bad Guy]

If you're going to cite poor positional value, then how can you justify taking a RB in the first round?

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by The Bad Guy

If you're going to cite poor positional value, then how can you justify taking a RB in the first round?

Because the idea that a RB is a poor positional value pick is a fairly novel one.

Just because the last few years has shown a dearth of quality high-round RBs doesn't mean that it's not historically easier to get them from there. If you have a chance to get the best RB in the draft, and arguably the best to come out in several years, at 11 - that's not a poor value at all.

RB is still an incredibly valuable position to fill and fill well.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Because the idea that a RB is a poor positional value pick is a fairly novel one.

It's novel because the game has changed. This isn't the 70s or 80s anymore. Teams don't win because they have John Riggins or Tony Dorsett or Franco Harris or Larry Csonka or Thurman Thomas. If you can have one of those, then GREAT, but you don't need one to win the SB. Not at all.

Just because the last few years has shown a dearth of quality high-round RBs doesn't mean that it's not historically easier to get them from there. If you have a chance to get the best RB in the draft, and arguably the best to come out in several years, at 11 - that's not a poor value at all.

It's easier to get a better anything in the early rounds, historically. Janikowski etc. But that doesn't mean the pick is "worth" it in the larger sense.

RB is still an incredibly valuable position to fill and fill well.

No, no it isn't. You're better off building up your passing attack and pass rush attack, in general. Welcome to the new millenium.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

It's novel because the game has changed. This isn't the 70s or 80s anymore. Teams don't win because they have John Riggins or Tony Dorsett or Franco Harris or Larry Csonka or Thurman Thomas. If you can have one of those, then GREAT, but you don't need one to win the SB. Not at all.



It's easier to get a better anything in the early rounds, historically. Janikowski etc. But that doesn't mean the pick is "worth" it in the larger sense.




No, no it isn't. You're better off building up your passing attack and pass rush attack, in general. Welcome to the new millenium.

So says the team with a HOFer at QB.

Having one of those is pretty damn nice - but we don't. And no amount of draft picks spent on WRs or tackles is going to change that.

However, getting a powerful RB that can force teams to slide their safeties up into the box might help. Further, having a guy like Richardson that's an excellent pass-blocker will help us keep from having to chip with a TE on passing downs as often so it frees up Moeaki to operate over the middle. Better still, Richardson's a very nice pass-catcher in his own right, so LBs or safeties will have to either account for him, or be burned by him.

Richardson will do more to help this offense due to his versatility than any other player we could draft at that spot, other than a premium quarterback. His contributions to the offense would go far beyond merely running the football. They would extend to the secondary through the threat he presents, to the blocking schemes due to his blocking ability, all the way to having a direct impact on the passing game itself because of his ability to catch balls out of the backfield.

Congratulations - you have a HOF quarterback. Beyond that, Patriots fans don't have the ****ing patent on football knowledge. If you didn't have Tom Brady, you'd still be the same pack of self-loathing shitheads you Massholes have always been. You'd shut right the **** up when it comes time to talk football because no amount of scrappy white WRs, Gronknandez's or RBs by committee would've won you a damn thing.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

So says the team with a HOFer at QB.

Having one of those is pretty damn nice - but we don't. And no amount of draft picks spent on WRs or tackles is going to change that.

However, getting a powerful RB that can force teams to slide their safeties up into the box might help. Further, having a guy like Richardson that's an excellent pass-blocker will help us keep from having to chip with a TE on passing downs as often so it frees up Moeaki to operate over the middle. Better still, Richardson's a very nice pass-catcher in his own right, so LBs or safeties will have to either account for him, or be burned by him.

Richardson will do more to help this offense due to his versatility than any other player we could draft at that spot, other than a premium quarterback. His contributions to the offense would go far beyond merely running the football. They would extend to the secondary through the threat he presents, to the blocking schemes due to his blocking ability, all the way to having a direct impact on the passing game itself because of his ability to catch balls out of the backfield.

Congratulations - you have a HOF quarterback. Beyond that, Patriots fans don't have the ****ing patent on football knowledge. If you didn't have Tom Brady, you'd still be the same pack of self-loathing shitheads you Massholes have always been. You'd shut right the **** up when it comes time to talk football because no amount of scrappy white WRs, Gronknandez's or RBs by committee would've won you a damn thing.

That's true, so why are we knocking ourselves out trying to be the best team in the NFL without a QB?

I'd rather have the best QB in football and the worst supporting cast than the other way around...and we're getting close to being the other way around.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

That's true, so why are we knocking ourselves out trying to be the best team in the NFL without a QB?

I'd rather have the best QB in football and the worst supporting cast than the other way around...and we're getting close to being the other way around.

Preaching to the choir.

But this draft is a QB graveyard, it truly is. There are going to be guys going in the first round this year that would be 3rd or even 4th rounders a lot of years. Next year there are likely to be 5+ guys that are going to be better options than all but the top 2 in this year's draft. Beyond the obvious in Barkley (asshole), there's Jones and Manuel, not to mention underclassmen like Wilson and Bray that could come out, maybe even Murray. And there's always an off-the-radar guy that emerges and rises like a rocket.

All of those guys are likely to be better prospects than anyone we would consider that high, except for maybe Tannehill.

And I'm also pro-Tannehill, I wouldn't be at all upset if we took a HR swing on him. He could be our guy.

But then again, 'our guy' could possibly be even better next season and at a less significant opportunity cost (i.e. not giving up a potentially elite multi-purpose back like Richardson to get him).

But apart from using that pick on a QB, I really see no other great option for us to use it on.