I read a few draft reviews and many of them stating no matter how good a player you don't take a back in the first round. When was this rule passed?

I don't remember it being passed.  But I think the paradigm started changing with Mike Shanahan and Terrell Davis.

Terrell Davis was lowly drafted but had success in Shanahan's system.  Then other lowly drafted guys had success in Shanahan's system.

Then Arian Foster had success in Houston.

I think somewhere in there is when the mindset started to change.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

I read a few draft reviews and many of them stating no matter how good a player you don't take a back in the first round. When was this rule passed?

Top 7 RBs in rushing yards last season..... 0 1st rounders.

Top 7 leaders in passing...... 6 1st rounders.

Top 7 receiving.... 2 1st rounders.

It's not a rule but RB just isn't as valuable to a teams success. Running the ball is valuable but not the actual running back. I think they also have the lowest shelf life of any position in football.

---

I read a few draft reviews and many of them stating no matter how good a player you don't take a back in the first round. When was this rule passed?

I don't remember it being passed.  But I think the paradigm started changing with Mike Shanahan and Terrell Davis.

Terrell Davis was lowly drafted but had success in Shanahan's system.  Then other lowly drafted guys had success in Shanahan's system.

Then Arian Foster had success in Houston.

I think somewhere in there is when the mindset started to change.

Yes, but it's so much BS because history shows, the best running backs are taken in the first round, the second best running backs are taken in the second round, and so forth.  Of course you can find a running back in a later round, just like you can find any position in a later round, but doesn't logic dictate, the best ones tend to get drafted first and the worst ones tend to get drafted last?  

Would you take Barry Sanders in the first round?  How about Walter Payton? 

Tom Brady got drafted in the 6th round, but somehow, people didn't start waiting until the 6th round to draft quarterbacks.  Why running backs?  It doesn't make any logical sense.  If you want to get the best running back, take the one you like the most.  And take him before he gets taken by anyone else.  

I heard Pete Prisco one time say, "Don't draft a guard early.  You can find guards in later rounds."  So where was Quentin Nelson drafted?  6th overall.  It applies to any position.  The best ones go early.  If you want the best ones, take them early.

Now in our case, we have a new head coach who says, "In order to run my offense, I need an elite, home-run-hitting running back."  And it just so happens there's a running back that scored 78 touchdowns in a major college program, and ran a 4.4 40 at his pro day.  Top 5 pick?  Hell, no.  25th pick?  Hell yes.

---

I don't remember it being passed.  But I think the paradigm started changing with Mike Shanahan and Terrell Davis.

Terrell Davis was lowly drafted but had success in Shanahan's system.  Then other lowly drafted guys had success in Shanahan's system.

Then Arian Foster had success in Houston.

I think somewhere in there is when the mindset started to change.

Yes, but it's so much BS because history shows, the best running backs are taken in the first round, the second best running backs are taken in the second round, and so forth.  Of course you can find a running back in a later round, just like you can find any position in a later round, but doesn't logic dictate, the best ones tend to get drafted first and the worst ones tend to get drafted last?  

Would you take Barry Sanders in the first round?  How about Walter Payton? 

Tom Brady got drafted in the 6th round, but somehow, people didn't start waiting until the 6th round to draft quarterbacks.  Why running backs?  It doesn't make any logical sense.  If you want to get the best running back, take the one you like the most.  And take him before he gets taken by anyone else.  

I heard Pete Prisco one time say, "Don't draft a guard early.  You can find guards in later rounds."  So where was Quentin Nelson drafted?  6th overall.  It applies to any position.  The best ones go early.  If you want the best ones, take them early.

Carolina could have drafted Mahomes and then Cook round 2 instead of McCaffery..... Which do you think they prefer? Heck... Even Lattimore and Cook is better than McCaffery.

McCaffery is a great player but the RB itself is less important than the Oline or QB. It's why in really good systems, you can just plug in random RBs and they still produce.

---

I don't remember it being passed.  But I think the paradigm started changing with Mike Shanahan and Terrell Davis.

Terrell Davis was lowly drafted but had success in Shanahan's system.  Then other lowly drafted guys had success in Shanahan's system.

Then Arian Foster had success in Houston.

I think somewhere in there is when the mindset started to change.

Yes, but it's so much BS because history shows, the best running backs are taken in the first round, the second best running backs are taken in the second round, and so forth.  Of course you can find a running back in a later round, just like you can find any position in a later round, but doesn't logic dictate, the best ones tend to get drafted first and the worst ones tend to get drafted last?  

Would you take Barry Sanders in the first round?  How about Walter Payton? 

Tom Brady got drafted in the 6th round, but somehow, people didn't start waiting until the 6th round to draft quarterbacks.  Why running backs?  It doesn't make any logical sense.  If you want to get the best running back, take the one you like the most.  And take him before he gets taken by anyone else.  

I heard Pete Prisco one time say, "Don't draft a guard early.  You can find guards in later rounds."  So where was Quentin Nelson drafted?  6th overall.  It applies to any position.  The best ones go early.  If you want the best ones, take them early.

Yep.

Position does not necessarily dictate the talent level of the person playing it.  Tackles are considered to be better athletes than guards as a general rule.  But as you observed, what are we to make of Quentin Nelson?  Was Joeckel a better player or more talented than Quentin Nelson because Joeckel played T and Nelson G? 

If you have a superior talent playing a position, you invest in that talent as early as advisable.  If that means taking a RB in the first...so be it.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Yes, but it's so much BS because history shows, the best running backs are taken in the first round, the second best running backs are taken in the second round, and so forth.  Of course you can find a running back in a later round, just like you can find any position in a later round, but doesn't logic dictate, the best ones tend to get drafted first and the worst ones tend to get drafted last?  

Would you take Barry Sanders in the first round?  How about Walter Payton? 

Tom Brady got drafted in the 6th round, but somehow, people didn't start waiting until the 6th round to draft quarterbacks.  Why running backs?  It doesn't make any logical sense.  If you want to get the best running back, take the one you like the most.  And take him before he gets taken by anyone else.  

I heard Pete Prisco one time say, "Don't draft a guard early.  You can find guards in later rounds."  So where was Quentin Nelson drafted?  6th overall.  It applies to any position.  The best ones go early.  If you want the best ones, take them early.

Yep.

Position does not necessarily dictate the talent level of the person playing it.  Tackles are considered to be better athletes than guards as a general rule.  But as you observed, what are we to make of Quentin Nelson?  Was Joeckel a better player or more talented than Quentin Nelson because Joeckel played T and Nelson G? 

If you have a superior talent playing a position, you invest in that talent as early as advisable.  If that means taking a RB in the first...so be it.

So I guess the question becomes, how elite is the talent of Etienne? In terms of a prospect, where does he rank compared to RBs in the last 5 years?

---

Yep.

Position does not necessarily dictate the talent level of the person playing it.  Tackles are considered to be better athletes than guards as a general rule.  But as you observed, what are we to make of Quentin Nelson?  Was Joeckel a better player or more talented than Quentin Nelson because Joeckel played T and Nelson G? 

If you have a superior talent playing a position, you invest in that talent as early as advisable.  If that means taking a RB in the first...so be it.

So I guess the question becomes, how elite is the talent of Etienne? In terms of a prospect, where does he rank compared to RBs in the last 5 years?

That's always the ultimate question, isn't it?  I seem to have a much higher opinion of him than other people, so we will see.  And also remember, he was picked 25th, not 5th.  That's almost in the 2nd round.

---

I don't remember it being passed.  But I think the paradigm started changing with Mike Shanahan and Terrell Davis.

Terrell Davis was lowly drafted but had success in Shanahan's system.  Then other lowly drafted guys had success in Shanahan's system.

Then Arian Foster had success in Houston.

I think somewhere in there is when the mindset started to change.

Yes, but it's so much BS because history shows, the best running backs are taken in the first round, the second best running backs are taken in the second round, and so forth.  Of course you can find a running back in a later round, just like you can find any position in a later round, but doesn't logic dictate, the best ones tend to get drafted first and the worst ones tend to get drafted last?  

Would you take Barry Sanders in the first round?  How about Walter Payton? 

Tom Brady got drafted in the 6th round, but somehow, people didn't start waiting until the 6th round to draft quarterbacks.  Why running backs?  It doesn't make any logical sense.  If you want to get the best running back, take the one you like the most.  And take him before he gets taken by anyone else.  

I heard Pete Prisco one time say, "Don't draft a guard early.  You can find guards in later rounds."  So where was Quentin Nelson drafted?  6th overall.  It applies to any position.  The best ones go early.  If you want the best ones, take them early.

Now in our case, we have a new head coach who says, "In order to run my offense, I need an elite, home-run-hitting running back."  And it just so happens there's a running back that scored 78 touchdowns in a major college program, and ran a 4.4 40 at his pro day.  Top 5 pick?  Hell, no.  25th pick?  Hell yes.

Would you take Leonard Fournette in the first round? Ki-Jana Carter? Trent Richardson?

I think it's more important to look at the player selected, rather than the round they were selected. Look at the team and its makeup/roster. How many teams take a RB in the first because they have a glaring need at the position, and are taking a top prospect? How many are taking a gadget RB in the first? How many are taking the guy at the top of their board irrespective of present need? Do they have a line that caters to the player's running style? Will the passing game pull defenders out of the box?

When teams are finding guys like MJD, Aaron Jones, Alvin Kamara outside of the first, they are getting value for their pick.

That doesn't mean a guy like Saquon or CMC should fall to the third. It also doesn't mean every 3rd rounder with a fantastic 3-cone time is going to shred a D.

Ronnie Brown was the 2nd pick of the 2005 NFL draft. His best season? 1008 yards, so he fit that cherry-picked stat that has been posted ad nauseum. In a ten-year career, he never again broke 1K. Just over 5000 yards in his career. Would you consider that worthy of "best RB" billing?

---

So I guess the question becomes, how elite is the talent of Etienne? In terms of a prospect, where does he rank compared to RBs in the last 5 years?

That's always the ultimate question, isn't it?  I seem to have a much higher opinion of him than other people, so we will see.  And also remember, he was picked 25th, not 5th.  That's almost in the 2nd round.

I think if Etienne wasn’t Trevors teammate, they would have gone in another direction.

I think he’s a good football player but wish they would have gone in another direction.

However, I hope he helps the Jags have one of the best 1-2 punches in the league.

---

I read a few draft reviews and many of them stating no matter how good a player you don't take a back in the first round. When was this rule passed?

I don't remember it being passed.  But I think the paradigm started changing with Mike Shanahan and Terrell Davis.

Terrell Davis was lowly drafted but had success in Shanahan's system.  Then other lowly drafted guys had success in Shanahan's system.

Then Arian Foster had success in Houston.

I think somewhere in there is when the mindset started to change.

It appeared to me the Jags were going to get some type of offense play maker for our new QB with that pick, not a lineman.  A lot of the good linemen were already off the board too so anyone they took would have been thought of as reaching. I heard someone say taking Leatherwood was a reach for the Raiders.

Once they made that decision they watched Kadarius Toney  go then Najee Harris just before them. I believe they might have picked Toney if he had lasted to 25, not sure if they would have taken Harris over Travis or not. Clearly they wanted to get our QB some help and those were the type players.

People forget the Bronco line coach at that time was requiring the linemen to throw themselves on the back of the legs of pursuing defensive players which is now a penalty. We had a OL not make it in Denver because he didn't want to do it. Can't remember his name.

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

Yes, but it's so much BS because history shows, the best running backs are taken in the first round, the second best running backs are taken in the second round, and so forth.  Of course you can find a running back in a later round, just like you can find any position in a later round, but doesn't logic dictate, the best ones tend to get drafted first and the worst ones tend to get drafted last?  

Would you take Barry Sanders in the first round?  How about Walter Payton? 

Tom Brady got drafted in the 6th round, but somehow, people didn't start waiting until the 6th round to draft quarterbacks.  Why running backs?  It doesn't make any logical sense.  If you want to get the best running back, take the one you like the most.  And take him before he gets taken by anyone else.  

I heard Pete Prisco one time say, "Don't draft a guard early.  You can find guards in later rounds."  So where was Quentin Nelson drafted?  6th overall.  It applies to any position.  The best ones go early.  If you want the best ones, take them early.

Carolina could have drafted Mahomes and then Cook round 2 instead of McCaffery..... Which do you think they prefer? Heck... Even Lattimore and Cook is better than McCaffery.

McCaffery is a great player but the RB itself is less important than the Oline or QB. It's why in really good systems, you can just plug in random RBs and they still produce.

A few problems with this.

First, just because there were players at other positions better than the guy you drafted doesn't mean the guy you drafted was not worthy of a first round pick.  Joey Bosa, Ezekiel Elliott and Jalen Ramsey were deemed better than Tredavious White in the 2016 draft.  Does that mean White wasn't worthy of being a first round pick?  Of course not.

Secondly, I'm not sure it's conclusive Dalvin Cook is better than McCaffrey.  Cook has made two Pro Bowls but never made All-Pro.  McCaffrey had one Pro Bowl season but made All-Pro.  McCaffrey also has more receptions and has been more durable, even with his injury last year.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/p...CaCh01.htm

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/p...okDa01.htm

Finally, I'm unsure about the whole "random" RBs thing working.  Furthermore, what of "average" NFL running attacks?  Can a "random" RB be productive? How is productivity defined?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Carolina could have drafted Mahomes and then Cook round 2 instead of McCaffery..... Which do you think they prefer? Heck... Even Lattimore and Cook is better than McCaffery.

McCaffery is a great player but the RB itself is less important than the Oline or QB. It's why in really good systems, you can just plug in random RBs and they still produce.

A few problems with this.

First, just because there were players at other positions better than the guy you drafted doesn't mean the guy you drafted was not worthy of a first round pick.  Joey Bosa, Ezekiel Elliott and Jalen Ramsey were deemed better than Tredavious White in the 2016 draft.  Does that mean White wasn't worthy of being a first round pick?  Of course not.

Secondly, I'm not sure it's conclusive Dalvin Cook is better than McCaffrey.  Cook has made two Pro Bowls but never made All-Pro.  McCaffrey had one Pro Bowl season but made All-Pro.  McCaffrey also has more receptions and has been more durable, even with his injury last year.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/p...CaCh01.htm

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/p...okDa01.htm

Finally, I'm unsure about the whole "random" RBs thing working.  Furthermore, what of "average" NFL running attacks?  Can a "random" RB be productive? How is productivity defined?

My point wasn’t that Cook is better than McCaffery. It’s that you could have taken Lattimore in round 1 and then Cook in round 2. That RB class was LOADED and taking one in round 1 was bad value.

Good offensive schemes get RBs open. Chiefs, Ravens, Saints, 49ers.... Even the Panthers had success last year with Mike Davis once CMac went down. I think it’s easier to replace RB talent than any other position in football.

---

Yes, but it's so much BS because history shows, the best running backs are taken in the first round, the second best running backs are taken in the second round, and so forth.  Of course you can find a running back in a later round, just like you can find any position in a later round, but doesn't logic dictate, the best ones tend to get drafted first and the worst ones tend to get drafted last?  

Would you take Barry Sanders in the first round?  How about Walter Payton? 

Tom Brady got drafted in the 6th round, but somehow, people didn't start waiting until the 6th round to draft quarterbacks.  Why running backs?  It doesn't make any logical sense.  If you want to get the best running back, take the one you like the most.  And take him before he gets taken by anyone else.  

I heard Pete Prisco one time say, "Don't draft a guard early.  You can find guards in later rounds."  So where was Quentin Nelson drafted?  6th overall.  It applies to any position.  The best ones go early.  If you want the best ones, take them early.

Now in our case, we have a new head coach who says, "In order to run my offense, I need an elite, home-run-hitting running back."  And it just so happens there's a running back that scored 78 touchdowns in a major college program, and ran a 4.4 40 at his pro day.  Top 5 pick?  Hell, no.  25th pick?  Hell yes.

Would you take Leonard Fournette in the first round? Ki-Jana Carter? Trent Richardson?

I think it's more important to look at the player selected, rather than the round they were selected. Look at the team and its makeup/roster. How many teams take a RB in the first because they have a glaring need at the position, and are taking a top prospect? How many are taking a gadget RB in the first? How many are taking the guy at the top of their board irrespective of present need? Do they have a line that caters to the player's running style? Will the passing game pull defenders out of the box?

When teams are finding guys like MJD, Aaron Jones, Alvin Kamara outside of the first, they are getting value for their pick.

That doesn't mean a guy like Saquon or CMC should fall to the third. It also doesn't mean every 3rd rounder with a fantastic 3-cone time is going to shred a D.

Ronnie Brown was the 2nd pick of the 2005 NFL draft. His best season? 1008 yards, so he fit that cherry-picked stat that has been posted ad nauseum. In a ten-year career, he never again broke 1K. Just over 5000 yards in his career. Would you consider that worthy of "best RB" billing?

Ki-Jana Carter?  Yes, without hesitation.  He was an absolute STUD until he blew out his knee on astroturf behind a horrid OL in Cincy.    Fournette?  Maybe.  He flamed out here in a dysfunctional organization with no QB and a poor OL, but Tampa picked him up and he was a major contributor in their Super bowl run, and they re-signed him.

Yes, look at the player selected.  That applies across the board.  Joeckel played a premium position-LT.  Was HE worth the investment?  Does it change even though there have been plenty of tackles that have been found in later rounds (Michael Roos, Erik Williams, David Bakhtiari, Jon Runyan)?  Jamarcus Russell played QB-the most important position.  There have been great QBs found in later rounds (Brett Favre, Drew Brees and Boomer Esiason in the 2nd round, Joe Montana and Russell Wilson in the 3rd round, etc.)  Does that mean you should never draft a QB high?  Of course not! 

First round busts happen in every position, as do later round successes.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

I think for the draft, you have to look for the future rather than immediate impact. I think Campbell, Little and Cisco (plus Lawrence obviously) have the best shot at making an impact this year. Little may have a little rust, but if he's been training then by the time regular season comes around, he might not be so rusty. Depends on what his training consisted of, I guess.

The real question is: How much impact will free agents like Marvin Jones, Shaquill Griffin, and others have on a 1-15 team. And perhaps more importantly, how our younger players will develop. If Henderson and Chaisson take a step forward, that could be a big impact on our team this year.

Also as far as RB's go, imagine if we had an extra pick to take Derrick Henry in 2016. Forget what he could do for this team, and think about what he's done to this team and imagine not having to deal with that ever again.

---

I don't remember it being passed.  But I think the paradigm started changing with Mike Shanahan and Terrell Davis.

Terrell Davis was lowly drafted but had success in Shanahan's system.  Then other lowly drafted guys had success in Shanahan's system.

Then Arian Foster had success in Houston.

I think somewhere in there is when the mindset started to change.

People forget the Bronco line coach at that time was requiring the linemen to throw themselves on the back of the legs of pursuing defensive players which is now a penalty. We had a OL not make it in Denver because he didn't want to do it. Can't remember his name.

I can only recall two OL we got who played in Denver at some point before playing with usL  Dave Widell and Zane Beadles.  I'm thinking it had to be Beadles, because Widell had the reputation of being a dirty player.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Yes, but it's so much BS because history shows, the best running backs are taken in the first round, the second best running backs are taken in the second round, and so forth.  Of course you can find a running back in a later round, just like you can find any position in a later round, but doesn't logic dictate, the best ones tend to get drafted first and the worst ones tend to get drafted last?  

Would you take Barry Sanders in the first round?  How about Walter Payton? 

Tom Brady got drafted in the 6th round, but somehow, people didn't start waiting until the 6th round to draft quarterbacks.  Why running backs?  It doesn't make any logical sense.  If you want to get the best running back, take the one you like the most.  And take him before he gets taken by anyone else.  

I heard Pete Prisco one time say, "Don't draft a guard early.  You can find guards in later rounds."  So where was Quentin Nelson drafted?  6th overall.  It applies to any position.  The best ones go early.  If you want the best ones, take them early.

Now in our case, we have a new head coach who says, "In order to run my offense, I need an elite, home-run-hitting running back."  And it just so happens there's a running back that scored 78 touchdowns in a major college program, and ran a 4.4 40 at his pro day.  Top 5 pick?  Hell, no.  25th pick?  Hell yes.

Would you take Leonard Fournette in the first round? Ki-Jana Carter? Trent Richardson?

I think it's more important to look at the player selected, rather than the round they were selected. Look at the team and its makeup/roster. How many teams take a RB in the first because they have a glaring need at the position, and are taking a top prospect? How many are taking a gadget RB in the first? How many are taking the guy at the top of their board irrespective of present need? Do they have a line that caters to the player's running style? Will the passing game pull defenders out of the box?

When teams are finding guys like MJD, Aaron Jones, Alvin Kamara outside of the first, they are getting value for their pick.

That doesn't mean a guy like Saquon or CMC should fall to the third. It also doesn't mean every 3rd rounder with a fantastic 3-cone time is going to shred a D.

Ronnie Brown was the 2nd pick of the 2005 NFL draft. His best season? 1008 yards, so he fit that cherry-picked stat that has been posted ad nauseum. In a ten-year career, he never again broke 1K. Just over 5000 yards in his career. Would you consider that worthy of "best RB" billing?

The position of RB has fallen back in terms of how crucial they are to the O. Back in the day, every team was run first so RB's were high priority. Sane way LT used to be the 2nd highest paid player.

I can't help but think Ezekiel Elliott and the Cowboys restarted this 1st round RB idea. Jerry fell in love with the guy and wanted to give Romo help. Romo goes down, Prescott comes in and behind the best line in football I think they won 13 games. Next draft rolled along and Fournette, Cook and McCaffrey were the next big RB's. All taken in the 1st round. With hindsight would you agree?

But as you point out, when teams are finding Kamara's and Jones' later on, the chance of using that 1st round pick to bring a quality rookie onto the roster is too much to ignore.

---

If they had the 5th pick, they don’t take Etienne. If they had the 15th pick, they don’t take Etienne. There is probably more variation in talent amongst the beginning of the first and end of the first than there is in any other round. So to compare Etienne to other first round RBs is unfair since he was drafted in the bottom quarter of the round. Maybe McCaffrey isn’t the ideal top 10 pick (although I’d argue he was) but he definitely would have at 25.

Saying all that, the expectations for Etienne should still be really high. And he shouldn’t be thought of as a pure between the tackles RB. I said earlier you don’t draft guys like James Robinson early in the draft. Was a great find for us, love that he is on the team, but he isn’t an elite gamebreaker. He is a very good between the tackles, identify / hit the hole, and consistently pick up yardage. Guys like him are easier to find. Guys that are multi-purpose threats that are real gamebreakers like Kamara are much harder to find. A guy who has 80 receptions a year, 900 yards rushing, and 20 touchdowns. Even if he has a “RB” next to his name, you draft guys like Kamara late in the 1st round but not guys like Robinson. If Etienne becomes Kamara then it’ll be a great pick.

Now will he become that guy? I don’t know. Personally I have my doubts. But the argument against Etienne shouldn’t be that he has a “RB” next to his name. That is irrelevant to the argument. The argument is whether he can be a Kamara type player. I won’t even put the expectation to McCaffery level stats which are insane. Matching Kamara is good enough.

---

________________________________________________
Scouting well is all that matters.  Draft philosophy is all fluff.

It's rumored that Meyer wanted Toney if he was there at 25, that would of nice

---

Missed the first half of Boselli on Hicken and Prosser this morning so not sure everything he said.  But he did echo the same sentiment I made above about how odd it is for a team finishing 1-15 with a bunch picks in the top 70 of the draft only walking away with one guaranteed starter.

That's pretty much how I feel too. I liked Little more than anyone else here predraft, and I like Cisco fine too...but they shouldn't be the best two non Tlaw picks in the draft. They should have been "holy cow we killed it getting two of Barmore/Moehrig/Jenkins/Moore/etc at 25/33 and now we have the luxury of taking a little extra risk with these two upside picks at 45 and 65". Not "our whole class hinges on how these two riskier than normal picks pan out."

---

It's rumored that Meyer wanted Toney if he was there at 25, that would of nice

Praise deity that didn't happen. We don't need another gata bust on this roster.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato