(04-30-2021, 09:53 AM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ]Exactly, why pick a RB in the first round. STUPID, STUPID, STUPID!!
This is why you pick a RB in the first round.
Since 2005, here is a breakdown of the RBs taken in the each 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
It's more a longevity issue though.
The careers of RBs, especially elite level years is much shorter than other positions.
This is the reason that people are not drafting RB's in the high rounds compared to past eras.
That plus the emphasis and rules changes that have benefitted the passing game over running.
(04-30-2021, 09:58 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (04-30-2021, 09:53 AM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ]Exactly, why pick a RB in the first round. STUPID, STUPID, STUPID!!
This is why you pick a RB in the first round.
Since 2005, here is a breakdown of the RBs taken in the each 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
You keep copy / pasting that everywhere - but it pretty much stands to reason that first round players will probably outperform players from lower rounds, regardless the position.
You want to make EVERY running back better? You want EVERY wide receiver better? Improve the offensive line. Do you want TL to be sitting on the sidelines injured because we didn't protect him? Jenkins was a more valuable pick.
You want our offense to run up higher numbers? Keep the opposing offense off the field. Defensive picks would have been more valuable.
(04-30-2021, 09:58 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (04-30-2021, 09:53 AM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ]Exactly, why pick a RB in the first round. STUPID, STUPID, STUPID!!
This is why you pick a RB in the first round.
Since 2005, here is a breakdown of the RBs taken in the each 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
This thing you keep posting leads to a couple of more questions.
The first is what's is the value of a thousand yards rusher? Looked like it didn't have much value last year with Robinson, so why would you stack your board to get someone like that, if the above correlation even means anything?
The second question is what did you pass up to take that back? In the case of this draft maybe nothing at all, we'll have to wait and see what the guys taken later do to really know. The Jaguars will be able to take another guy at 33 overall, but if Etienne turns out to just be a mediocre back and the jags could have had two great players at 25 and 33 but only got one, then the pick will have been really bad.
The biggest problem with taking running backs in the first round is they generally have short careers and don't make big impacts. Would you rather have a guy play great football for your team for 10 years, or 5 years of low impact football?
This kind of move is what I was afraid of with this regime. The move shows a lack of understanding of value.
accuttly he is a RB/WR it showed that this past season in starteing line up before they played ohio state.
(04-30-2021, 10:05 AM)Tank Commander Wrote: [ -> ]It's more a longevity issue though.
The careers of RBs, especially elite level years is much shorter than other positions.
This is the reason that people are not drafting RB's in the high rounds compared to past eras.
That plus the emphasis and rules changes that have benefitted the passing game over running.
That is why we drafted Etienne. He is a huge passing game threat. Get him in space, and he can take it to the house.
(04-30-2021, 09:58 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (04-30-2021, 09:53 AM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ]Exactly, why pick a RB in the first round. STUPID, STUPID, STUPID!!
This is why you pick a RB in the first round.
Since 2005, here is a breakdown of the RBs taken in the each 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
We already had a UDFA that became a 1000 yard rusher.
If we are this gung-ho on thousand yard rushers, maybe Vic was right, trade R1 P1 for some other franchise's future, take a game manager and hand that ball off 40x a game.
Why is a 1000 yard rusher a meaningful threshold? Has it been proven that a 1000 yard rusher leads to more wins than a 900 yard rusher or something that I am unaware of?
(04-30-2021, 09:00 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]If we weren't picking only a handful of picks later and didn't have 2 2nd picks, I would probably be more upset about this one.
Since this is the 1st round, I would rather have an elite guy at his position than reach of a position of need for a guy who may or may not pan out.
Don't get me wrong, I am not defending our GM here and think he is perfectly capable of being a horrible GM, but this pick didn't really upset me. The tackle they would have likely reached for is probably still sitting there.
This a good and sobering take.
He's basically a early second round pick. And we still have 33 to find some other available players
Sorry about that...
NH3...