Sure. 

You've seen me use the terms "gamble, crapshoot, risk, etc" over and over again in these RB value debates. 

They pay an entire scouting dept. and a number of execs big bucks to determine which of those early round RBs are that rare talent that trumps the lopsided positional valuation of selecting a RB early. 

And they still get it wrong half of the time. Because that's the nature of the draft. I don't like rolling the dice like that on backs until other spots I've already outlined are secured. 

The Jaguars literally chose Leonard Fournette over McCaffery. 
 Just because you are bold enough to take a highly touted back early - you aren't guaranteed to totally screw yourself and your franchise. 

I love ETN. So glad he's a Jag. 
But if he'd turned out to be like Najee Harris it would be a real shame to our roster development and that could easily have happened.

It could just as easily happen with any other position.

The replacement cost for a running back is negliable, they are mostly interchangable and you can find one on Draft Saturday or on the street if needed. Get an offensive tackle off the street and you get Guy Whimper-level bad. The Risk/Reward plus Replacement Cost make it very easy to see how draft capital should be allocated.

---

It sure is a lot of "lucky" lately from you lol, everything is lucky lol.  CMC absolutely helped the Panthers and all their wins when he was there and he was their best player.  If they ever had a QB they would of made some noise in the playoffs

I'm pretty sure your comment is the point NYC is getting at with his drafting position. 

If they had a QB...
If they had edge pressure...
If they had better blocking line...
If they had a RB...
etc

How many times do you think its been said for each position to make the playoffs? I'm guessing the amount of times for a RB is quite a bit less than some of these other positions. Hence the reason they aren't given as much value.

If a team like KC needs a running back they draft one in the 7th and he performs as well as those taken on Day 1. If a team like the Falcons needs a running back they take him on Day 1 and keep losing.

---

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

It sure is a lot of "lucky" lately from you lol, everything is lucky lol.  CMC absolutely helped the Panthers and all their wins when he was there and he was their best player.  If they ever had a QB they would of made some noise in the playoffs

"All their wins"? Yeah, the Carolina Panthers were the offensive juggernaut of the NFL and made opposing D coordinators quake in their khakis. If you can't see that having the absolute best running back in the League did nothing for that terrible franchise then I can't help you. Just look at CMC's stats by year and compare it to their record. The numbers will smack you right in the face; when he was just ok in 2017 they won 11 games, when he was really good the next seasons they were middle of the pack to bad. Without him their 6-10 would'e been 4-12? Get out of here with that garbage. Just accept that running backs are low value players who's contributions are pretty much interchangeable for teams both bad and good, it's clear in the stats and clear in the behavior of good NFL franchises.

And just about everything about ETN for this team is flat out lucky: lucky that we got TLaw, lucky that K Toney wasn't the pick, lucky that ETN's foot injury wasn't career ending, lucky that Urban didn't get the chance to ruin him that season , lucky that Urbz got fired, lucky that our free agent class of skill players turned out so well, lucky that we got Doug. We've had an amazing streak of fortune and it's showing on the field...but luck isn't a long term strategy for success either. I fear that our GM is going to eventually be the impediment that holds us back from being really great, and this string of luck and really good coaching/play will come to an end without achieving the success we could've otherwise enjoyed.

Meanwhile, we're 6-2 and I'd rather savor this moment, so carry on.

---

I mean just look at the playoff teams from last year.

In the AFC, the only 1st rounder to start in the playoffs was ETN.

In the NFC, it was CMC, Zeke (with Pollard really as the dude) and Saquon (who they likely regret taking).

*CMC was on his second team, so that is really a different than the other 3 listed.

It's called not having a QB.  If your team doesn't have a QB your not going to be very good.  They had a really good WR as well in Moore amd pass rusher in Burns but it didn't matter without the QB.  He didn't have a very good team around him either which is why their record was bad most years.  You could use your shtick for every team.  Chiefs are luckybthey got Mahomes, lucky they got Kelce in the 3rd, lucky Andy Reid.  You could use that stupid excuse for every team.

---

It could just as easily happen with any other position.

The replacement cost for a running back is negliable, they are mostly interchangable and you can find one on Draft Saturday or on the street if needed. Get an offensive tackle off the street and you get Guy Whimper-level bad. The Risk/Reward plus Replacement Cost make it very easy to see how draft capital should be allocated.

---

I'm pretty sure your comment is the point NYC is getting at with his drafting position. 

If they had a QB...
If they had edge pressure...
If they had better blocking line...
If they had a RB...
etc

How many times do you think its been said for each position to make the playoffs? I'm guessing the amount of times for a RB is quite a bit less than some of these other positions. Hence the reason they aren't given as much value.

If a team like KC needs a running back they draft one in the 7th and he performs as well as those taken on Day 1. If a team like the Falcons needs a running back they take him on Day 1 and keep losing.

KC drafted a RB in the first a couple years ago.  It was a bad pick because they took the wrong RB.  If they took Jonathan Taylor it would of been a good pick or maybe even a great pick

---

Sure. 

You've seen me use the terms "gamble, crapshoot, risk, etc" over and over again in these RB value debates. 

They pay an entire scouting dept. and a number of execs big bucks to determine which of those early round RBs are that rare talent that trumps the lopsided positional valuation of selecting a RB early. 

And they still get it wrong half of the time. Because that's the nature of the draft. I don't like rolling the dice like that on backs until other spots I've already outlined are secured. 

The Jaguars literally chose Leonard Fournette over McCaffery. 
 Just because you are bold enough to take a highly touted back early - you aren't guaranteed to totally screw yourself and your franchise. 

I love ETN. So glad he's a Jag. 
But if he'd turned out to be like Najee Harris it would be a real shame to our roster development and that could easily have happened.

It could just as easily happen with any other position.

Man, you almost get it. 

YES!! Of course there is risk taking any position early so why not take that giant risk on the more valuable positions!!!!???????!!!!!

---

RB value and BAP...... Same thread

---

"All their wins"? Yeah, the Carolina Panthers were the offensive juggernaut of the NFL and made opposing D coordinators quake in their khakis. If you can't see that having the absolute best running back in the League did nothing for that terrible franchise then I can't help you. Just look at CMC's stats by year and compare it to their record. The numbers will smack you right in the face; when he was just ok in 2017 they won 11 games, when he was really good the next seasons they were middle of the pack to bad. Without him their 6-10 would'e been 4-12? Get out of here with that garbage. Just accept that running backs are low value players who's contributions are pretty much interchangeable for teams both bad and good, it's clear in the stats and clear in the behavior of good NFL franchises.

And just about everything about ETN for this team is flat out lucky: lucky that we got TLaw, lucky that K Toney wasn't the pick, lucky that ETN's foot injury wasn't career ending, lucky that Urban didn't get the chance to ruin him that season , lucky that Urbz got fired, lucky that our free agent class of skill players turned out so well, lucky that we got Doug. We've had an amazing streak of fortune and it's showing on the field...but luck isn't a long term strategy for success either. I fear that our GM is going to eventually be the impediment that holds us back from being really great, and this string of luck and really good coaching/play will come to an end without achieving the success we could've otherwise enjoyed.

Meanwhile, we're 6-2 and I'd rather savor this moment, so carry on.

---

*CMC was on his second team, so that is really a different than the other 3 listed.

It's called not having a QB.  If your team doesn't have a QB your not going to be very good.  They had a really good WR as well in Moore amd pass rusher in Burns but it didn't matter without the QB.  He didn't have a very good team around him either which is why their record was bad most years.  You could use your shtick for every team.  Chiefs are luckybthey got Mahomes, lucky they got Kelce in the 3rd, lucky Andy Reid.  You could use that stupid excuse for every team.

Lol, you have to dig yourself further and further in against the basic facts presented. It's clear that your position is based only on your stubbornness rather than reality, so carry on.

---

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

RB value and BAP...... Same thread

message board impasse nirvana

---

"All their wins"? Yeah, the Carolina Panthers were the offensive juggernaut of the NFL and made opposing D coordinators quake in their khakis. If you can't see that having the absolute best running back in the League did nothing for that terrible franchise then I can't help you. Just look at CMC's stats by year and compare it to their record. The numbers will smack you right in the face; when he was just ok in 2017 they won 11 games, when he was really good the next seasons they were middle of the pack to bad. Without him their 6-10 would'e been 4-12? Get out of here with that garbage. Just accept that running backs are low value players who's contributions are pretty much interchangeable for teams both bad and good, it's clear in the stats and clear in the behavior of good NFL franchises.

And just about everything about ETN for this team is flat out lucky: lucky that we got TLaw, lucky that K Toney wasn't the pick, lucky that ETN's foot injury wasn't career ending, lucky that Urban didn't get the chance to ruin him that season , lucky that Urbz got fired, lucky that our free agent class of skill players turned out so well, lucky that we got Doug. We've had an amazing streak of fortune and it's showing on the field...but luck isn't a long term strategy for success either. I fear that our GM is going to eventually be the impediment that holds us back from being really great, and this string of luck and really good coaching/play will come to an end without achieving the success we could've otherwise enjoyed.

Meanwhile, we're 6-2 and I'd rather savor this moment, so carry on.

---

*CMC was on his second team, so that is really a different than the other 3 listed.

It's called not having a QB.  If your team doesn't have a QB your not going to be very good.  They had a really good WR as well in Moore amd pass rusher in Burns but it didn't matter without the QB.  He didn't have a very good team around him either which is why their record was bad most years.  You could use your shtick for every team.  Chiefs are luckybthey got Mahomes, lucky they got Kelce in the 3rd, lucky Andy Reid.  You could use that stupid excuse for every team.

---

The replacement cost for a running back is negliable, they are mostly interchangable and you can find one on Draft Saturday or on the street if needed. Get an offensive tackle off the street and you get Guy Whimper-level bad. The Risk/Reward plus Replacement Cost make it very easy to see how draft capital should be allocated.

---

If a team like KC needs a running back they draft one in the 7th and he performs as well as those taken on Day 1. If a team like the Falcons needs a running back they take him on Day 1 and keep losing.

KC drafted a RB in the first a couple years ago.  It was a bad pick because they took the wrong RB.  If they took Jonathan Taylor it would of been a good pick or maybe even a great pick

As I've said throughout the thread, KC could do what they want because they were coming off a Super Bowl victory. Good teams can take RBs high if they want because they aren't leaving gaping holes in their roster to do so, they can take late RBs if they want because, for them, late RBs perform not much different than Day 1 RBs. For teams like the Jaguars who (at the time) have holes everywhere, bypassing a foundational player for a final piece player is a bad use of draft capital. BTW, they didn't win the SB again with CEH, they had to draft a 7th rounder to get that trophy. Everything I'm telling you is backed up by the stats and the eye test, you just don't want to see it because you're wrong.

---

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

It's called not having a QB.  If your team doesn't have a QB your not going to be very good.  They had a really good WR as well in Moore amd pass rusher in Burns but it didn't matter without the QB.  He didn't have a very good team around him either which is why their record was bad most years.  You could use your shtick for every team.  Chiefs are luckybthey got Mahomes, lucky they got Kelce in the 3rd, lucky Andy Reid.  You could use that stupid excuse for every team.

---

KC drafted a RB in the first a couple years ago.  It was a bad pick because they took the wrong RB.  If they took Jonathan Taylor it would of been a good pick or maybe even a great pick

As I've said throughout the thread, KC could do what they want because they were coming off a Super Bowl victory. Good teams can take RBs high if they want because they aren't leaving gaping holes in their roster to do so, they can take late RBs if they want because, for them, late RBs perform not much different than Day 1 RBs. For teams like the Jaguars who (at the time) have holes everywhere, bypassing a foundational player for a final piece player is a bad use of draft capital. BTW, they didn't win the SB again with CEH, they had to draft a 7th rounder to get that trophy. Everything I'm telling you is backed up by the stats and the eye test, you just don't want to see it because you're wrong.

It's like leading a horse to water only for the horse to piss in the water, then see its reflection, get spooked, and run off of a cliff.

---

As I've said throughout the thread, KC could do what they want because they were coming off a Super Bowl victory. Good teams can take RBs high if they want because they aren't leaving gaping holes in their roster to do so, they can take late RBs if they want because, for them, late RBs perform not much different than Day 1 RBs. For teams like the Jaguars who (at the time) have holes everywhere, bypassing a foundational player for a final piece player is a bad use of draft capital. BTW, they didn't win the SB again with CEH, they had to draft a 7th rounder to get that trophy. Everything I'm telling you is backed up by the stats and the eye test, you just don't want to see it because you're wrong.

It's like leading a horse to water only for the horse to piss in the water, then see its reflection, get spooked, and run off of a cliff.

You and flsprtsgrl is that horse.  It's about the player not the position

---

It's like leading a horse to water only for the horse to piss in the water, then see its reflection, get spooked, and run off of a cliff.

You and flsprtsgrl is that horse.  It's about the player not the position

It's about both, Trigger.

---

It could just as easily happen with any other position.

Man, you almost get it. 

YES!! Of course there is risk taking any position early so why not take that giant risk on the more valuable positions!!!!???????!!!!!

All other things being equal, of course you would take a great LT or a great CB over a great RB.  But you have to evaluate the players' talent levels as well as the position they play.  If you have the opportunity to draft a great player at a devalued position or a mediocre player at a more valued position, you have to add it all up and see if it makes sense.  The whole idea that one would never take a RB in the first round, no matter what, is not smart at all.  Etienne was taken with the 25th pick in the draft.  That is not where you would normally get a star player.  Normally, at the end of the first round, you get solid players, but not star players.  But we arguably got a star player.  In this instance, talent level factored into the choice and when we added it all up, talent level plus positional value, we got a great player.  I really don't get this continuing argument about whether we should have drafted him or not.

---

Sure. 

You've seen me use the terms "gamble, crapshoot, risk, etc" over and over again in these RB value debates. 

They pay an entire scouting dept. and a number of execs big bucks to determine which of those early round RBs are that rare talent that trumps the lopsided positional valuation of selecting a RB early. 

And they still get it wrong half of the time. Because that's the nature of the draft. I don't like rolling the dice like that on backs until other spots I've already outlined are secured. 

The Jaguars literally chose Leonard Fournette over McCaffery. 
 Just because you are bold enough to take a highly touted back early - you aren't guaranteed to totally screw yourself and your franchise. 

I love ETN. So glad he's a Jag. 
But if he'd turned out to be like Najee Harris it would be a real shame to our roster development and that could easily have happened.

It could just as easily happen with any other position.

Exactly, you trust your board and if you don't trust your board then what are you doing?

---

Man, you almost get it. 

YES!! Of course there is risk taking any position early so why not take that giant risk on the more valuable positions!!!!???????!!!!!

All other things being equal, of course you would take a great LT or a great CB over a great RB.  But you have to evaluate the players' talent levels as well as the position they play.  If you have the opportunity to draft a great player at a devalued position or a mediocre player at a more valued position, you have to add it all up and see if it makes sense.  The whole idea that one would never take a RB in the first round, no matter what, is not smart at all.  Etienne was taken with the 25th pick in the draft.  That is not where you would normally get a star player.  Normally, at the end of the first round, you get solid players, but not star players.  But we arguably got a star player.  In this instance, talent level factored into the choice and when we added it all up, talent level plus positional value, we got a great player.  I really don't get this continuing argument about whether we should have drafted him or not.

LOL

I've stated multiple scenarios in which taking one early makes sense??? Holy hell. 

We were not in one of scenarios and we took one anyway and got lucky. A few years prior the same bad decision bit us squarely in the backside.

---

All other things being equal, of course you would take a great LT or a great CB over a great RB.  But you have to evaluate the players' talent levels as well as the position they play.  If you have the opportunity to draft a great player at a devalued position or a mediocre player at a more valued position, you have to add it all up and see if it makes sense.  The whole idea that one would never take a RB in the first round, no matter what, is not smart at all.  Etienne was taken with the 25th pick in the draft.  That is not where you would normally get a star player.  Normally, at the end of the first round, you get solid players, but not star players.  But we arguably got a star player.  In this instance, talent level factored into the choice and when we added it all up, talent level plus positional value, we got a great player.  I really don't get this continuing argument about whether we should have drafted him or not.

LOL

I've stated multiple scenarios in which taking one early makes sense??? Holy hell. 

We were not in one of scenarios and we took one anyway and got lucky. A few years prior the same bad decision bit us squarely in the backside.

And a few years ago we drafted a guy in the first round who played the most valuable position of all of them- QB.  Blake Bortles!  Or Blaine Gabbert!  How'd that work out?  You don't pick players solely by position.  And you should never rule out a player because of his position.  You have to evaluate the individual player.  Not just the position he plays.

And as far as your rule- only good teams should draft RBs in the first round- we drafted one anyway and now we're a good team.  So what good was that rule?   We broke that rule and it worked out to our benefit.  So I'm glad we didn't follow such a stupid rule.  Aren't you?

---

It's pointless to argue. Especially on where Etienne was selected in his class and the impact he's continued to make after missing his entire rookie season. There was nobody else remotely close to him in that RD or after really that would have made the impact he's made on this football team at the moment.

Positional value changes in every draft class based on the players abilities in said draft class. Do you think Atlanta and Detroit give a [BLEEP] where they drafted Robinson and Gibbs respectively?

They're playing good enough football right now. Atlanta is playing better than most expected and that's with piss poor QB play. Detroit is probably fixing to pistol whip the Raiders tonight to shake off their bad loss to arguably the best team in the AFC at the moment in Baltimore.

Fournette was not the best pick at that time. McCaffrey would have offered more value at their respective position. However, that 2017 team does not make the post season without his efforts. So, for better or worse. He was the right pick at that time. We can also argue that, had we taken Wirfs over Henderson and Jefferson over Chaisson?

We're probably not seeing Lawrence in Jacksonville with Pederson as our head coach at the moment. Things happen the way they happen. It's far too easy to play revisionist but Etienne, again, was the right pick at the right time in that particular draft class. Period.

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

It's pointless to argue. Especially on where Etienne was selected in his class and the impact he's continued to make after missing his entire rookie season. There was nobody else remotely close to him in that RD or after really that would have made the impact he's made on this football team at the moment.

Positional value changes in every draft class based on the players abilities in said draft class. Do you think Atlanta and Detroit give a [BLEEP] where they drafted Robinson and Gibbs respectively?

They're playing good enough football right now. Atlanta is playing better than most expected and that's with piss poor QB play. Detroit is probably fixing to pistol whip the Raiders tonight to shake off their bad loss to arguably the best team in the AFC at the moment in Baltimore.

Fournette was not the best pick at that time. McCaffrey would have offered more value at their respective position. However, that 2017 team does not make the post season without his efforts. So, for better or worse. He was the right pick at that time. We can also argue that, had we taken Wirfs over Henderson and Jefferson over Chaisson?

We're probably not seeing Lawrence in Jacksonville with Pederson as our head coach at the moment. Things happen the way they happen. It's far too easy to play revisionist but Etienne, again, was the right pick at the right time in that particular draft class. Period.

Oh, no.  We broke a rule.  We should never pick a RB in the first round.  No matter what.  Not even Eric Dickerson.  Or Fred Taylor.  No.  We'd rather have Taven Bryan.  Or K-Lavon Chaisson.  Those guys play more valuable positions.

---

LOL

I've stated multiple scenarios in which taking one early makes sense??? Holy hell. 

We were not in one of scenarios and we took one anyway and got lucky. A few years prior the same bad decision bit us squarely in the backside.

And a few years ago we drafted a guy in the first round who played the most valuable position of all of them- QB.  Blake Bortles!  Or Blaine Gabbert!  How'd that work out?  You don't pick players solely by position.  And you should never rule out a player because of his position.  You have to evaluate the individual player.  Not just the position he plays.

And as far as your rule- only good teams should draft RBs in the first round- we drafted on anyway and now we're a good team.  So what good was that rule?   

Literally no one is saying anything contrary to the bold. 

Yes, yes, yes you evaluate players. (can't believe I just typed that obvious [BLEEP]) 

Positional value is real. It isn't some mystical boogeyman I made up to mess with you guys. 
You act like it isn't a major determinant in draft strategy for NFL GMs but it is. 

Spending premium draft capital on positions of lesser value when you aren't set at the more valuable ones is unwise. 
You can argue that until you are blue in the face but 90% of GMs around the league are gonna side with me. 

Yes, yes, rare talents can create exceptions to the rule but it still presents a major gamble. Roll the dice at your own peril.

---

And a few years ago we drafted a guy in the first round who played the most valuable position of all of them- QB.  Blake Bortles!  Or Blaine Gabbert!  How'd that work out?  You don't pick players solely by position.  And you should never rule out a player because of his position.  You have to evaluate the individual player.  Not just the position he plays.

And as far as your rule- only good teams should draft RBs in the first round- we drafted on anyway and now we're a good team.  So what good was that rule?   

Spending premium draft capital on positions of lesser value when you aren't set at the more valuable ones is unwise. 
You can argue that until you are blue in the face but 90% of GMs around the league are gonna side with me. 

Yes, yes, rare talents can create exceptions to the rule but it still presents a major gamble. Roll the dice at your own peril.

No, a major gamble is spending premium draft capital on a guy because of the position he plays without factoring in the talent levels of the choices you have.  

It's positional value plus talent level.  Every NFL GM in the league is going to side with me on that one.  And it's not a rare event when talent level trumps positional value.  It happens all the time.  Otherwise, the entire first round would be nothing but Quarterbacks.

---

Spending premium draft capital on positions of lesser value when you aren't set at the more valuable ones is unwise. 
You can argue that until you are blue in the face but 90% of GMs around the league are gonna side with me. 

Yes, yes, rare talents can create exceptions to the rule but it still presents a major gamble. Roll the dice at your own peril.

No, a major gamble is spending premium draft capital on a guy because of the position he plays without factoring in the talent levels of the choices you have.  

It's positional value plus talent level.  Every NFL GM in the league is going to side with me on that one.  And it's not a rare event when talent level trumps positional value.  It happens all the time.

Wow.

You really aren't reading half of the stuff I'm typing. You're kinda saying some of the same things that I am. 

To your final two sentences - talent trumping positional value at the RB position is more rare in the modern NFL than it used to be and for good reason. 

2023 - 2  - 1st round RB
2022 -  ZERO - 1st round RB
2021 - 2 - 1st round RB
2020 - 1 - 1st round RB
2019 - 1 - 1st round RB

That's 6 RBs in the 1st round in 5 years. 

---

2008 - 5 - 1st round RB
2007 - 1 - 1st round RB
2006 - 4 - 1st round RB
2005 - 3 - 1st round RB
2004 - 3 - 1st round RB

That's SIXTEEN RBs selected in the first round over 5 years. 

---

GMs are wise to no longer risk so many early picks on running backs. And this ^  should make the trend very obvious for you.  It has to be a special talent to lead you to exception and about half of those exceptions fail.

This tectonic shift in drafting strategy did not happen by accident. The game has changed, the rules have changed, the RB position is devalued. The GMs have adjusted. 

You just aren't hip to it yet.

---

No, a major gamble is spending premium draft capital on a guy because of the position he plays without factoring in the talent levels of the choices you have.  

It's positional value plus talent level.  Every NFL GM in the league is going to side with me on that one.  And it's not a rare event when talent level trumps positional value.  It happens all the time.

Wow.

You really aren't reading half of the stuff I'm typing. You're kinda saying some of the same things that I am. 

To your final two sentences - talent trumping positional value at the RB position is more rare in the modern NFL than it used to be and for good reason. 

2023 - 2  - 1st round RB
2022 -  ZERO - 1st round RB
2021 - 2 - 1st round RB
2020 - 1 - 1st round RB
2019 - 1 - 1st round RB

That's 6 RBs in the 1st round in 5 years. 

---

2008 - 5 - 1st round RB
2007 - 1 - 1st round RB
2006 - 4 - 1st round RB
2005 - 3 - 1st round RB
2004 - 3 - 1st round RB

That's SIXTEEN RBs selected in the first round over 5 years. 

---

GMs are wise to no longer risk so many early picks on running backs. And this ^  should make the trend very obvious for you.  It has to be a special talent to lead you to exception and about half of those exceptions fail.

This tectonic shift in drafting strategy did not happen by accident. The game has changed, the rules have changed, the RB position is devalued. The GMs have adjusted. 

You just aren't hip to it yet.

If we follow your rule, never draft a RB in the first round (unless he's a "special talent," which is vague enough to get you off the hook), who would you have drafted instead of Travis Etienne?

---