SeldomRite




Regarding the bolded - 
While I despise the drafting of RBs in early rounds, your perspective of draft position justification is arbitrary and merely your own view. 
Etienne doesn't "need"  to achieve those numbers to justify his selection. 
That's something you've invented and I guarantee you the people that made the decision to draft him do not agree. It actually seems pretty clear they see him as a cog in a wheel of the scheme. An integral missing piece of a puzzle, but not a production workhorse.
 Lots of different ways to value players. 

It will be interesting to see if he is integral enough to "justify" the pick in the minds of fans, but I have a feeling you are going to be disappointed based on what you think "should be expected. 

Regarding the red: The pro bowl hasn't been a valid indicator of a player's worth for many, many years.

You're right, I don't cut the roster, and I have no doubt they'll talk him up until the day he's cut (it'll happen eventually one way or another), but there is a reality that cost carries expectation with it, and a first round pick is a high cost.

If your point is we have bozos running the show that don't understand value or its importance, you may be right. It may even be that you think they'll think a guy with low production is still valuable. That may be right, too, but I doubt it. The main way of measuring the value of a player is in production, though I'm sure if he's really making a difference without high production there will be some way of statistically measuring that, too.

My point was that you have a perspective of cost vs production that isn't shared by our GM and HC as well as many NFL personnel decision makers. 

Assigning expectation of top ten production numbers to draft picks is wildly unrealistic. The very nature of the draft and the high percentage of players that fall short as professionals renders your approach an exercise in disappointment. 

The Jags FO clearly has a different view of positional value than you and I, but I simply recognize that they have deemed a versatile RB to be a valuable enough piece of their scheme to spend major draft capital on it.  I wouldn't do it, but I get why they did it and I don't necessarily think high production numbers are what will justify the pick if it does turn out to be successful. 
If Etienne is able to emerge as a big play threat as many anticipate in this suspected scheme, the respect he'll get from opposing defenses will be valuable whenever he's on the field whether he touches the ball or not.

---

Just curious to poll the group.  Do you feel that our offense in 2021 is worse than the Chargers 2020 group?  I agree their defense is/ was better, but I would think our offense is actually more talented around the rookie QB than their's was.

Great question. Depth wise, I think the Jags may have them but top end talent, Chargers win that one.

Keenan Allen is better than any WR the Jags have. Hunter Henry is absolutely better than any TE the Jags have and Eckler is one of the best receiving backs in the league.

Agreed, and would add that in comparing the two, the Jags would be better suited to rely on the run game than SD (yes, I know) was. I am not expecting TLaw to replicate Herbie's season. That's setting yourself up to be disappointed.

---

Ekler played in 10 games last season due to injury and had 930 combined rushing and receiving yards..... For a 16 game season, that's 1480 yards from scrimmage. Ekler is pretty special regardless if he was undrafted or not.

I agree that Lawrence should have a season like Herbert but even if he doesn't, I'm cool with it.

Ekeler is a good player, though I think you may think he's better than I think he is. However, if you take a running back in the first round he needs to come out of the gate as a top ten back in the league. Etienne needs to have a 1500 yards 10 TD type of season (rushing and receiving combined for both of those stats) to justify that kind of draft position. If Etienne is just a decent back, and not a great running back then then Meyer made a really stupid pick.

Oh boy, imagine the fallout if he has TJ Yeldon type of numbers.  Ooof.

(I think Etienne is miles better than Yeldon ever promised to be)

---

You're right, I don't cut the roster, and I have no doubt they'll talk him up until the day he's cut (it'll happen eventually one way or another), but there is a reality that cost carries expectation with it, and a first round pick is a high cost.

If your point is we have bozos running the show that don't understand value or its importance, you may be right. It may even be that you think they'll think a guy with low production is still valuable. That may be right, too, but I doubt it. The main way of measuring the value of a player is in production, though I'm sure if he's really making a difference without high production there will be some way of statistically measuring that, too.

My point was that you have a perspective of cost vs production that isn't shared by our GM and HC as well as many NFL personnel decision makers. 

Assigning expectation of top ten production numbers to draft picks is wildly unrealistic. The very nature of the draft and the high percentage of players that fall short as professionals renders your approach an exercise in disappointment. 

The Jags FO clearly has a different view of positional value than you and I, but I simply recognize that they have deemed a versatile RB to be a valuable enough piece of their scheme to spend major draft capital on it.  I wouldn't do it, but I get why they did it and I don't necessarily think high production numbers are what will justify the pick if it does turn out to be successful. 
If Etienne is able to emerge as a big play threat as many anticipate in this suspected scheme, the respect he'll get from opposing defenses will be valuable whenever he's on the field whether he touches the ball or not.

I don't think it's that they don't share my view, I think it's that they ignore the player's value and instead think they're somehow making some kind of synergistic value by taking guys they think fit what they want to do. It's a bad policy and shows someone as a bad coach/GM, but the league is full of coaches desperately trying to succeed by aping what they saw another successful coach do.

Really, though, the big question is, if Etienne is a big play threat and the defense has to respect him then he'll need to be on the field a lot, and he'll have to get his touches... So why wouldn't he be successful?

If he's a change of pace guy that's not on the field much then it's an even stupider pick.

If he's actually good, then unless Lawrence somehow turns out to be terrible, Etienne should have success from a production standpoint. If he can't do that even with good QB play then defenses aren't going to respect him anyway. Defenses respect players that can beat them, not guys that can be easily shut down.

---

My point was that you have a perspective of cost vs production that isn't shared by our GM and HC as well as many NFL personnel decision makers. 

Assigning expectation of top ten production numbers to draft picks is wildly unrealistic. The very nature of the draft and the high percentage of players that fall short as professionals renders your approach an exercise in disappointment. 

The Jags FO clearly has a different view of positional value than you and I, but I simply recognize that they have deemed a versatile RB to be a valuable enough piece of their scheme to spend major draft capital on it.  I wouldn't do it, but I get why they did it and I don't necessarily think high production numbers are what will justify the pick if it does turn out to be successful. 
If Etienne is able to emerge as a big play threat as many anticipate in this suspected scheme, the respect he'll get from opposing defenses will be valuable whenever he's on the field whether he touches the ball or not.

I don't think it's that they don't share my view, I think it's that they ignore the player's value and instead think they're somehow making some kind of synergistic value by taking guys they think fit what they want to do. It's a bad policy and shows someone as a bad coach/GM, but the league is full of coaches desperately trying to succeed by aping what they saw another successful coach do.

Really, though, the big question is, if Etienne is a big play threat and the defense has to respect him then he'll need to be on the field a lot, and he'll have to get his touches... So why wouldn't he be successful?

If he's a change of pace guy that's not on the field much then it's an even stupider pick.

If he's actually good, then unless Lawrence somehow turns out to be terrible, Etienne should have success from a production standpoint. If he can't do that even with good QB play then defenses aren't going to respect him anyway. Defenses respect players that can beat them, not guys that can be easily shut down.

They do not share your views on "value." Obviously. And they aren't ignoring value, they just don't agree with your (arbitrary) definition.

Regarding the bolded: You're incorrect with the "he'll have top get his touches" statement and that was the point. 

Etienne could VERY easily come nowhere near the numbers you stated earlier in this thread as what would justify his selection -- but still be very valuable to the team as a big play threat who gets enough touches for defenses to respect his presence allowing other offensive players to thrive.

---

I don't think it's that they don't share my view, I think it's that they ignore the player's value and instead think they're somehow making some kind of synergistic value by taking guys they think fit what they want to do. It's a bad policy and shows someone as a bad coach/GM, but the league is full of coaches desperately trying to succeed by aping what they saw another successful coach do.

Really, though, the big question is, if Etienne is a big play threat and the defense has to respect him then he'll need to be on the field a lot, and he'll have to get his touches... So why wouldn't he be successful?

If he's a change of pace guy that's not on the field much then it's an even stupider pick.

If he's actually good, then unless Lawrence somehow turns out to be terrible, Etienne should have success from a production standpoint. If he can't do that even with good QB play then defenses aren't going to respect him anyway. Defenses respect players that can beat them, not guys that can be easily shut down.

They do not share your views on "value." Obviously. And they aren't ignoring value, they just don't agree with your (arbitrary) definition.

Regarding the bolded: You're incorrect with the "he'll have top get his touches" statement and that was the point. 

Etienne could VERY easily come nowhere near the numbers you stated earlier in this thread as what would justify his selection -- but still be very valuable to the team as a big play threat who gets enough touches for defenses to respect his presence allowing other offensive players to thrive.

In 17 games, if he's a big play threat, you think he won't get 50-60 catches and 170-200 carries?

An average NFL team has something like 65 offensive plays a game. We'll assume a Jaguars 50-50 run pass split for the sake of the exercise, so about 32 rushes and 32 passes a game. Since Lawrence will probably be good, and Etienne will probably be getting shorter easier passes and not running a lot of deep patterns he'll probably have a chance at a good completion rate, at least 75%, so around 4.5 passes thrown to him over Lawrence's 32 attempts per game. Then rushing around ten times out of the 32 attempts the team has.

So 3.5 pass catches a game with 11 yards per catch and 3 or 4 TDs over a season, and 10 or 11 carries a game with 4.5 yards per carry and 6 or 7 TD over a season.

Really if he can't do that I don't know how he'll be scaring defenses. But, if coach Meyer was looking for a first round change of pace player to come in and get shut down then he's clearly out of his depth.

I think they'll probably have him on the field for more than half the plays, though (at least all of the third downs, plus a lot of others) It just doesn't make sense to spend first round picks on players you don't intend to play.

---

They do not share your views on "value." Obviously. And they aren't ignoring value, they just don't agree with your (arbitrary) definition.

Regarding the bolded: You're incorrect with the "he'll have top get his touches" statement and that was the point. 

Etienne could VERY easily come nowhere near the numbers you stated earlier in this thread as what would justify his selection -- but still be very valuable to the team as a big play threat who gets enough touches for defenses to respect his presence allowing other offensive players to thrive.

In 17 games, if he's a big play threat, you think he won't get 50-60 catches and 170-200 carries?

An average NFL team has something like 65 offensive plays a game. We'll assume a Jaguars 50-50 run pass split for the sake of the exercise, so about 32 rushes and 32 passes a game. Since Lawrence will probably be good, and Etienne will probably be getting shorter easier passes and not running a lot of deep patterns he'll probably have a chance at a good completion rate, at least 75%, so around 4.5 passes thrown to him over Lawrence's 32 attempts per game. Then rushing around ten times out of the 32 attempts the team has.

So 3.5 pass catches a game with 11 yards per catch and 3 or 4 TDs over a season, and 10 or 11 carries a game with 4.5 yards per carry and 6 or 7 TD over a season.

Really if he can't do that I don't know how he'll be scaring defenses. But, if coach Meyer was looking for a first round change of pace player to come in and get shut down then he's clearly out of his depth.

I think they'll probably have him on the field for more than half the plays, though (at least all of the third downs, plus a lot of others) It just doesn't make sense to spend first round picks on players you don't intend to play.

You seem to be misconstruing the "big play threat" element of this discussion. 

He could accomplish that with a minimal amount of touches and fewer than 1500 APY. 

A big chunk yardage play every other week and a few TDs over the first half of the season could be enough to alter how some defenses scheme against formations he's run successfully from - thus opening up opportunity for other targets on those downs.

---

ETN needs to be a mismatch nightmare for opposing defenses that we are sorely lacking by not having one of the 4 or 5 unicorns (tight ends) that are a mismatch every time they step on the field. If he can be that guy, he will post good numbers and could very well make everyone around him better regardless of his final statistical tally.

---

Just curious to poll the group.  Do you feel that our offense in 2021 is worse than the Chargers 2020 group?  I agree their defense is/ was better, but I would think our offense is actually more talented around the rookie QB than their's was.

Interesting question.

At first glance I would say yes.

RB:  Chargers-Ekeler, Kelley, Jackson; Jaguars-Robinson, Etienne, Hyde  Edge: 2021 Jaguars.  Ekeler is very talented and versatile, but battled injuries last year.  Robinson was a pleasant surprise for the Jaguars and managed to turn heads nationally.  He is augmented by Carlos Hyde, a dependable if unspectacular vet who had over 900 yards last year, and Etienne, one of the most explosive rookie RBs to come out in a while Every bit as versatile as Ekeler but more big play capability.

WR:  Chargers-Keenan Allen, Mike Williams, Jalen Guyton;  Jaguars=DJ Chark, Shenault, Jones  Edge: Jaguars.  I would give Keenan Allen a slight edge over Chark.  I like Mike Williams, but Shenault out produced him last year,  Even at 32 I would say Marvin Jones is better than Guyton.

TE:  Chargers-Hunter Henry  Edge Chargers.  'Nuff said

OL:  (from LT-RT)  Chargers:  Tevi, Lamp, Feeney, Turner, Bulaga.  Jaguars-Robinson, Norwell, Linder, Cann, Taylor.  Edge:  Chargers.   Not too sure I can give Cam the edge over any LT, even though the Bolts didn't think too much of Tevi.  Lamp and Feeney were popular draft prospects among posters here,  though neither turned out great for various reasons.  Looking purely at LG, Norwell would get the edge over him, though I like Lamp's versatility.  I was one of the dew who was not a huge Feeney fan pre draft.  I would easily take Linder over him.  Cann had one of his better years, though I would still prefer Turner.  At RT, I;d easily tqkr last year's Bulaga over Taylor, who has been quite disappointing for me.   Even if you sub Walker Little in for Taylor the fact Little is a rookie with three years of rust gives the presumptive edge to the Bolts.

Interesting post script:  This year, the Bolts are yet another team to dramatically revamp their OL, and will replace at least four of their starters from last year.

Only Bulaga remains on the roster from last year.

---

Ekeler is a good player, though I think you may think he's better than I think he is. However, if you take a running back in the first round he needs to come out of the gate as a top ten back in the league. Etienne needs to have a 1500 yards 10 TD type of season (rushing and receiving combined for both of those stats) to justify that kind of draft position. If Etienne is just a decent back, and not a great running back then then Meyer made a really stupid pick.

I think if Etienne has a 1500 yd 10 TD type of season, then we got a steal at pick #25.

Are you talking rushing or all purpose yards? (Nevermind. I initially responded to Marty, but then saw Seldom's post.

I could see Etienne getting about 1100-1200 combined rushing and receiving and still being a weapon.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Absolutely correct. I would pound the ball and then  pound the ball some more. EVERY defense is going to be gunning for Tlaw. Protect him by RUNNING THE DAMN BALL

I’m on the other side of the coin. I think Lawrence is a offensive coordinator’s dream. Lawrence is going to give you the luxury to do whatever you want on offense. The kid is next level.

---

Absolutely correct. I would pound the ball and then  pound the ball some more. EVERY defense is going to be gunning for Tlaw. Protect him by RUNNING THE DAMN BALL

I’m on the other side of the coin. I think Lawrence is a offensive coordinator’s dream. Lawrence is going to give you the luxury to do whatever you want on offense. The kid is next level.

If I had more faith in the OL, I could more readily endorse this.

I could easily envision a time in the not too distant future where our best chance to win games will rest on TLs passing ability.

If he only could become our Peyton Manning....but better and more successful.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Ekeler is a good player, though I think you may think he's better than I think he is. However, if you take a running back in the first round he needs to come out of the gate as a top ten back in the league. Etienne needs to have a 1500 yards 10 TD type of season (rushing and receiving combined for both of those stats) to justify that kind of draft position. If Etienne is just a decent back, and not a great running back then then Meyer made a really stupid pick.

I disagree. ETN was drafted #25 overall instead of being drafted in the top 5. With the way the draft fell he was a BAP type of pick. He could have something like 900 yards rushing with 9 Touchdowns. Return kickoffs and/or punts, and have somewhere around 300 yards receiving, and break off some huge plays and still be considered a heck of a player. 

He was the 25th pick tho, so he doesn’t have those same expectations as a rookie Ezekiel Elliot, who was picked 4th overall in 2016.

---

My point was that you have a perspective of cost vs production that isn't shared by our GM and HC as well as many NFL personnel decision makers. 

Assigning expectation of top ten production numbers to draft picks is wildly unrealistic. The very nature of the draft and the high percentage of players that fall short as professionals renders your approach an exercise in disappointment. 

The Jags FO clearly has a different view of positional value than you and I, but I simply recognize that they have deemed a versatile RB to be a valuable enough piece of their scheme to spend major draft capital on it.  I wouldn't do it, but I get why they did it and I don't necessarily think high production numbers are what will justify the pick if it does turn out to be successful. 
If Etienne is able to emerge as a big play threat as many anticipate in this suspected scheme, the respect he'll get from opposing defenses will be valuable whenever he's on the field whether he touches the ball or not.

I don't think it's that they don't share my view, I think it's that they ignore the player's value and instead think they're somehow making some kind of synergistic value by taking guys they think fit what they want to do. It's a bad policy and shows someone as a bad coach/GM, but the league is full of coaches desperately trying to succeed by aping what they saw another successful coach do.

Really, though, the big question is, if Etienne is a big play threat and the defense has to respect him then he'll need to be on the field a lot, and he'll have to get his touches... So why wouldn't he be successful?

If he's a change of pace guy that's not on the field much then it's an even stupider pick.

If he's actually good, then unless Lawrence somehow turns out to be terrible, Etienne should have success from a production standpoint. If he can't do that even with good QB play then defenses aren't going to respect him anyway. Defenses respect players that can beat them, not guys that can be easily shut down.

(Emphasis added)

Please explain the emphasized text.

Is it your assertion that drafting players to fit your scheme is somehow bad?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

I don't think it's that they don't share my view, I think it's that they ignore the player's value and instead think they're somehow making some kind of synergistic value by taking guys they think fit what they want to do. It's a bad policy and shows someone as a bad coach/GM, but the league is full of coaches desperately trying to succeed by aping what they saw another successful coach do.

Really, though, the big question is, if Etienne is a big play threat and the defense has to respect him then he'll need to be on the field a lot, and he'll have to get his touches... So why wouldn't he be successful?

If he's a change of pace guy that's not on the field much then it's an even stupider pick.

If he's actually good, then unless Lawrence somehow turns out to be terrible, Etienne should have success from a production standpoint. If he can't do that even with good QB play then defenses aren't going to respect him anyway. Defenses respect players that can beat them, not guys that can be easily shut down.

They do not share your views on "value." Obviously. And they aren't ignoring value, they just don't agree with your (arbitrary) definition.

Regarding the bolded: You're incorrect with the "he'll have top get his touches" statement and that was the point. 

Etienne could VERY easily come nowhere near the numbers you stated earlier in this thread as what would justify his selection -- but still be very valuable to the team as a big play threat who gets enough touches for defenses to respect his presence allowing other offensive players to thrive.

(Emphasis added)

So numbers akin to say, Reggie Bush his rookie year, could render him "valuable?"

Reggie Bush Stats | Pro-Football-Reference.com

Or perhaps Christian McCaffrey?

Christian McCaffrey Stats | Pro-Football-Reference.com

I have to think somewhere between Bush and Kamara is what UM and co are thinking with the Etienne pick.

Alvin Kamara Stats | Pro-Football-Reference.com

Note: I just saw Seldom Rites expectation of 11 YPC for Etienne. However, I have noticed that none of the above mentioned backs reached that mark, despite two of those backs being drafted in the top ten.

Is there any reason for that 11 ypc standard?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

ETN needs to be a mismatch nightmare for opposing defenses that we are sorely lacking by not having one of the 4 or 5 unicorns (tight ends) that are a mismatch every time they step on the field.  If he can be that guy, he will post good numbers and could very well make everyone around him better regardless of his final statistical tally.

This is my thinking.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Ekeler is a good player, though I think you may think he's better than I think he is. However, if you take a running back in the first round he needs to come out of the gate as a top ten back in the league. Etienne needs to have a 1500 yards 10 TD type of season (rushing and receiving combined for both of those stats) to justify that kind of draft position. If Etienne is just a decent back, and not a great running back then then Meyer made a really stupid pick.

I disagree. ETN was drafted #25 overall instead of being drafted in the top 5. With the way the draft fell he was a BAP type of pick. He could have something like 900 yards rushing with 9 Touchdowns. Return kickoffs and/or punts, and have somewhere around 300 yards receiving, and break off some huge plays and still be considered a heck of a player. 

He was the 25th pick tho, so he doesn’t have those same expectations as a rookie Ezekiel Elliot, who was picked 4th overall in 2016.

(Emphasis added)

Draft position aside, Etienne and Elliott would have different expectations because they are different types of backs on different types of teams.

Etienne was drafted exactly one spot below Najee Harris, and I have different expectations for Etienne than I do Najee Harris.  Harris, being at least 15 lbs heavier is much more of a between the tackles pounder than Etienne.  Though Pittsburgh suppposedly lined Harris out wide in some mini camp formations, I expect Etienne to be utilized much more in space than Harris.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Absolutely correct. I would pound the ball and then  pound the ball some more. EVERY defense is going to be gunning for Tlaw. Protect him by RUNNING THE DAMN BALL

I like this approach.

Under normal circumstances, I'd favor a run oriented approach.

Add in the fact we have a rookie QB behind a shaky OL, to me it's a no brainer.

I don't think this OL will be that shaky. Batch and Little are pushing the starters. We have some depth and the OL was decent in the run game. Cam will either up his game or Little will replace him early in the season.
Batch will be pushing for a starter job.  I think 38 TD's and 8 to 12 interceptions.

---

I like this approach.

Under normal circumstances, I'd favor a run oriented approach.

Add in the fact we have a rookie QB behind a shaky OL, to me it's a no brainer.

I don't think this OL will be that shaky. Batch and Little are pushing the starters. We have some depth and the OL was decent in the run game. Cam will either up his game or Little will replace him early in the season.
Batch will be pushing for a starter job.  I think 38 TD's and 8 to 12 interceptions.

I hope you are right about the OL being better.

I am cautiously optimistic about Little, but you have more faith in Batch than I have.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

I like this approach.

Under normal circumstances, I'd favor a run oriented approach.

Add in the fact we have a rookie QB behind a shaky OL, to me it's a no brainer.

I don't think this OL will be that shaky. Batch and Little are pushing the starters. We have some depth and the OL was decent in the run game. Cam will either up his game or Little will replace him early in the season.
Batch will be pushing for a starter job.  I think 38 TD's and 8 to 12 interceptions.

I am kind of thinking that a rookie QB kind of needs to throw interceptions.  If he's not doing that, he's not being aggressive.  It's all part of the learning curve, learning how tight the windows are, and whether he can fit the ball in in certain situations.  That's why I would be very surprised if he only has 8 to 12 interceptions with that many TDs.

---

I don't think this OL will be that shaky. Batch and Little are pushing the starters. We have some depth and the OL was decent in the run game. Cam will either up his game or Little will replace him early in the season.
Batch will be pushing for a starter job.  I think 38 TD's and 8 to 12 interceptions.

I am kind of thinking that a rookie QB kind of needs to throw interceptions.  If he's not doing that, he's not being aggressive.  It's all part of the learning curve, learning how tight the windows are, and whether he can fit the ball in in certain situations.  That's why I would be very surprised if he only has 8 to 12 interceptions with that many TDs.

Well, I think early on, he also needs to learn some things.

Often times, rookies tend to think they can squeeze passes into spots they have no business trying.  TL also had some issues with certain coverages and identifying blitzers in college..  To the degree that early mistakes leads to film study and coaching enables him to learn, he will almost need to make those mistakes early on.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

They do not share your views on "value." Obviously. And they aren't ignoring value, they just don't agree with your (arbitrary) definition.

Regarding the bolded: You're incorrect with the "he'll have top get his touches" statement and that was the point. 

Etienne could VERY easily come nowhere near the numbers you stated earlier in this thread as what would justify his selection -- but still be very valuable to the team as a big play threat who gets enough touches for defenses to respect his presence allowing other offensive players to thrive.

(Emphasis added)

So numbers akin to say, Reggie Bush his rookie year, could render him "valuable?"

Reggie Bush Stats | Pro-Football-Reference.com

Or perhaps Christian McCaffrey?

Christian McCaffrey Stats | Pro-Football-Reference.com

I have to think somewhere between Bush and Kamara is what UM and co are thinking with the Etienne pick.

Alvin Kamara Stats | Pro-Football-Reference.com

Note:  I just saw Seldom Rites expectation of 11 YPC for Etienne.  However, I have noticed that none of the above mentioned backs reached that mark, despite two of those backs being drafted in the top ten.

Is there any reason for that 11 ypc standard?

To the bolded, there isn't, I just expect a guy they plan to line up wide a lot to have more yards per catch than a running back who doesn't line up outside often. Not to mention people here are arguing he's going to somehow make defenses pay attention to him, and yet not produce good stats that an undrafted guy got last year.

Either he's going to be a guy that makes explosive plays and is in the game a lot to take advantage of the defense keying on him, or he's going to be a terrible draft pick that doesn't make explosive plays and who gets some not very meaningful stats while not really putting any fear into defensive coordinators.


I actually think it's more likely to be the latter, as I don't see him as a special prospect (though we'll see) but others seem to think he'll somehow cause defensive coordinators headaches while also not producing. Seems like a really ridiculous belief to hold, but it is what it is. I just think if he's actually a good player then he'll produce like one. He's a running back, he should at least get plenty of chances to show what he can do from that position this year, and running backs generally produce far earlier in their careers than guys that play other positions.

---