(04-30-2021, 09:49 AM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ]WHO's idea was it to pick a RB in the first round? Stupid, stupid, stupid. oh wait, STUPID!
Since 2005, here is a breakdown of the RBs taken in the first round who became 1,000 yard rushers:
RD 1 - 55% 15/27
RD 2 - 29% 11/38
RD 3 - 16% 6/37
RD 4 - 7% 3/45
RD 5 - 7% 3/42
RD 6 - 4% 2/46
RD 7 - 2% 1/51
I'm going to keep posting this until people get it through their thick heads that if you want a GOOD RB, take one in the first round.
(04-30-2021, 09:42 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (04-30-2021, 09:19 AM)Sibelius Wrote: [ -> ]From Frank Schwab, draft winners and losers:
Teams unnecessarily taking running backs: Running backs do matter. But they can be found later in the draft. Sometimes after the draft.
The Jaguars know this. Last year they got James Robinson as an undrafted free agent, and he had 1,414 yards from scrimmage. He was a good NFL starter.
And the Jaguars, who went 1-15 last season and have many needs, took a running back 25th overall. Clemson running back Travis Etienne is a very good player, but was that the best way for the Jaguars to use their draft resources?
About the bolded part- that is complete and total horse manure.
Since 2005, here is a breakdown of the RBs taken in the first round who became 1,000 yard rushers:
RD 1 - 55% 15/27
RD 2 - 29% 11/38
RD 3 - 16% 6/37
RD 4 - 7% 3/45
RD 5 - 7% 3/42
RD 6 - 4% 2/46
RD 7 - 2% 1/51
Case closed!
Sure, you can find a RB in the later rounds, just like you can find a QB in the later rounds (Tom Brady), but like any other position, you'll have the best result if you try to pick the best one.
So you're saying that a player at any position taken in the first round tends to outperform players at that position taken in later rounds? No kidding!
The issue is that we have greater needs than a RB and we had excellent options at those positions.
(04-30-2021, 09:51 AM)Sibelius Wrote: [ -> ] (04-30-2021, 09:42 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]About the bolded part- that is complete and total horse manure.
Since 2005, here is a breakdown of the RBs taken in the first round who became 1,000 yard rushers:
RD 1 - 55% 15/27
RD 2 - 29% 11/38
RD 3 - 16% 6/37
RD 4 - 7% 3/45
RD 5 - 7% 3/42
RD 6 - 4% 2/46
RD 7 - 2% 1/51
Case closed!
Sure, you can find a RB in the later rounds, just like you can find a QB in the later rounds (Tom Brady), but like any other position, you'll have the best result if you try to pick the best one.
So you're saying that a player at any position taken in the first round tends to outperform players at that position taken in later rounds? No kidding!
The issue is that we have greater needs than a RB and we had excellent options at those positions.
No [BLEEP] kidding. They wanted a game breaking RB who can catch passes and can score from any spot on the field. Apparently, that's important to the offense they plan to run. So that's what they did.
It's probably because Etienne sucks.
I mean.. he had the BEST QB in a decade keeping defenses honest... they cared about the deep ball not the small ball garbage RB.
Hurray for us. Stupid, stupid decision. James Robinson is better.
(04-30-2021, 09:58 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]It's probably because Etienne sucks.
I mean.. he had the BEST QB in a decade keeping defenses honest... they cared about the deep ball not the small ball garbage RB.
Hurray for us. Stupid, stupid decision. James Robinson is better.
If you think Etienne sucks, you must not have watched him at all.
I don't think Etienne sux - I just don't think we needed him as much as we do other positions.
(04-30-2021, 09:54 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (04-30-2021, 09:51 AM)Sibelius Wrote: [ -> ]So you're saying that a player at any position taken in the first round tends to outperform players at that position taken in later rounds? No kidding!
The issue is that we have greater needs than a RB and we had excellent options at those positions.
No [BLEEP] kidding. They wanted a game breaking RB who can catch passes and can score from any spot on the field. Apparently, that's important to the offense they plan to run. So that's what they did.
I hope he runs like a maniac. I just hope he doesn't have to because TL is on the sidelines, injured, because we failed to get him a great line.
Should I have specified is going to suck in the NFL?
So we are going to completely downplay the fact he had the best QB in college football for the last 10-15 years...?
Just don't see first round talent there.... especially when we have James Robinson.
Just like Trent Richardson was the best in College because he had the best offensive line in football... you don't think Etienne benefitted from defenses playing the line soft because they were afraid of the deep ball?
I can’t wait to refer back to this thread after we see our screen game go wild this year.
You know what.. green bay drafts like crude and has still had Aaron Rodgers based success. So the team wanting to play fast requires versatile players. Have to draft for it so I am using the wait and see approach.
Caldwell is the king of great draft grades and that worked great for us.
(04-30-2021, 09:46 AM)Sibelius Wrote: [ -> ] (04-30-2021, 09:24 AM)JagFanFirst Wrote: [ -> ]Every guy we wanted at #25 will still be around with our first pick in the second. I also like that TLaw and ETN are reunited. Makes TLaw's transition to Jax much easier.
That thinking only works if Moe, Barimore and Jenkins are all available through the first pick of round 3, so we can get all the guys we SHOULD have picked before Etienne. Otherwise, we missed on a more needed player for the sake of taking a RB we didn't need.
By picking a RB we made our round 3 or 4 pick in round 1. What a waste.
You're assuming that running back at #3 or #4 would be as good as Etienne. He won't be. Get the best players when you can.
(04-30-2021, 10:22 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]Should I have specified is going to suck in the NFL?
So we are going to completely downplay the fact he had the best QB in college football for the last 10-15 years...?
Just don't see first round talent there.... especially when we have James Robinson.
Just like Trent Richardson was the best in College because he had the best offensive line in football... you don't think Etienne benefitted from defenses playing the line soft because they were afraid of the deep ball?
And now he's got that same QB on his team. Problem solved.
(04-30-2021, 10:39 AM)JagFanFirst Wrote: [ -> ] (04-30-2021, 09:46 AM)Sibelius Wrote: [ -> ]That thinking only works if Moe, Barimore and Jenkins are all available through the first pick of round 3, so we can get all the guys we SHOULD have picked before Etienne. Otherwise, we missed on a more needed player for the sake of taking a RB we didn't need.
By picking a RB we made our round 3 or 4 pick in round 1. What a waste.
You're assuming that running back at #3 or #4 would be as good as Etienne. He won't be. Get the best players when you can.
(04-30-2021, 10:22 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]Should I have specified is going to suck in the NFL?
So we are going to completely downplay the fact he had the best QB in college football for the last 10-15 years...?
Just don't see first round talent there.... especially when we have James Robinson.
Just like Trent Richardson was the best in College because he had the best offensive line in football... you don't think Etienne benefitted from defenses playing the line soft because they were afraid of the deep ball?
And now he's got that same QB on his team. Problem solved.
On the worst team in the NFL with some of the worst tackles in the NFL.
Ain't gonna work. Just more worry when it comes to Urban... all he talks about is College this and College that in his interviews.. he still thinks it works the same.
(04-30-2021, 02:49 AM)snaxdelrio Wrote: [ -> ]These Jelly haters would have given Tampa Bay an A for the Etienne pick but ok lol
Maybe because they are a complete team who just won the SB and not a 1-15 team?
(04-30-2021, 09:07 AM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ] (04-30-2021, 05:14 AM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]Honest question to those who followed UM closely.
How often did he utilize his RBs out of the backfield as receivers at UF or OSU?
For that matter, how often did Bevell utilize backs as receivers in Seattle and Detroit?
While looking up clips of TL, I noticed he used Etienne quite a bit as a receiver. Nothing overly fancy...dumpoffs mostly.
Is utilizing RBs out of the backfield an integral part of UM's offensive approach, Bevell's offensive approach, or might it be something they are incororating from Clemson's offense to ease TL's transition to the pros?
If they place a heavy emphasis on utilizing RBs in the passing game, then perhaps the pick makes more sense.
Considering just about all of the players people were clamoring for at 25 are still on the board at 33 and I don't have the hostility towards taking a RB early that most of you have, I'm not as irritated by this pick as some of you. But it leads to some questions, though.
Knowing how much RBs are used in the passing game in this offense will answer many of them.
Oh man oh man please ask this question of Marshawn Lynch. But let me pop a bag of popcorn first.
Okay...limiting the discussion to Marshawn Lynch, here are Lynch's targets and receptions totals between 2011-2015, and then the total number of RB targets each season:
2011 41 targets 28 receptions; 103 total RB/FB targets
2012 30 targets 23 receptions; 76
2013 44 targets 36 receptions; 67
2014 48 targets 37 receptions; 74
2015 21 13 ---------------------Lynch only played in 7 games this year; 78 targets
Russell Wilson arrived in 2012
These numbers do not, by any stretch, tell the whole story. For instance we don't know what percentage of plays the RB was the primary receiver (i.e. on a screen) or a subsequent read.
(04-30-2021, 10:05 AM)ATLjag Wrote: [ -> ]I was not happy with the pick of a RB in round 1, but the more I read some analysis of him, and his versatility as a run and pass weapon, the more I am liking the pick.
A couple interesting reads...
https://thebuffalofanatics.com/the-spy-n...s-etienne/
https://www.bigblueview.com/2021/4/14/22...-ny-giants
Thanks for posting these articles. The more I think about this pick, the more I like it. Etienne adds something that this team needed- a very fast back who is a very good receiver. It's true they may have had greater needs, but I'm not sure there will necessarily impact this team more than Etienne. You can say Carter or Gainwell in the 3rd would be much better value, but they are not as good as Etienne.
Once Etienne goes 80 for a touchdown on a screen pass, most of the naysayers will come around. If Robinson gets hurt, those same people will be ecstatic that they have another back who can allow the offense to not miss a beat.
(04-30-2021, 10:22 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]Should I have specified is going to suck in the NFL?
So we are going to completely downplay the fact he had the best QB in college football for the last 10-15 years...?
Just don't see first round talent there.... especially when we have James Robinson.
Just like Trent Richardson was the best in College because he had the best offensive line in football... you don't think Etienne benefitted from defenses playing the line soft because they were afraid of the deep ball?
As to the point in bold, if TL is everything we hope he will be, why wouldn't Etienne benefit similarly in the NFL? Yes, there are differences between the college and pro game, but at least one of them-the narrower hashmarks-may actually work to Etienne's benefit?
Chad Reuter NFL.COM A
Bleacher Report: A-
Washington Post B+
Sporting News A-
Sports Illustrated B-
If these grades were even close to being true, we wouldn't be picking Trevor Lawrence.
(04-30-2021, 11:49 AM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ] (04-30-2021, 10:22 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]Should I have specified is going to suck in the NFL?
So we are going to completely downplay the fact he had the best QB in college football for the last 10-15 years...?
Just don't see first round talent there.... especially when we have James Robinson.
Just like Trent Richardson was the best in College because he had the best offensive line in football... you don't think Etienne benefitted from defenses playing the line soft because they were afraid of the deep ball?
As to the point in bold, if TL is everything we hope he will be, why wouldn't Etienne benefit similarly in the NFL? Yes, there are differences between the college and pro game, but at least one of them-the narrower hashmarks-may actually work to Etienne's benefit?
And if we had a complete team that was competing for the Superbowl every year I would be all for it.
We have the worst team in the NFL with some of the worst OTs protecting TL. So we go RB.... when we already have a BETTER RB on the roster... it just makes no sense.
(04-30-2021, 11:57 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ] (04-30-2021, 11:49 AM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]As to the point in bold, if TL is everything we hope he will be, why wouldn't Etienne benefit similarly in the NFL? Yes, there are differences between the college and pro game, but at least one of them-the narrower hashmarks-may actually work to Etienne's benefit?
And if we had a complete team that was competing for the Superbowl every year I would be all for it.
We have the worst team in the NFL with some of the worst OTs protecting TL. So we go RB.... when we already have a BETTER RB on the roster... it just makes no sense.
What if Robinson isn't better. What if ETN can do everything that Robinson can do, but has breakaway speed on top of it? Meyer really likes to spread things out and use RBs in a variety of ways, so having more than one good one could be a very good thing for his offense.
Personally, I would have preferred something other than RB at that spot, but what if ETN is the next MJD? Is he worth pick 25 then?