History has shown if you give 2nd/3rd/4th round backs the same amount of volume as a 1st round back that their production is near identical.    

"But you have to consider how many backs taken in that range ended up as busts" Well yes but the same is true for every single position in the draft. The difference being that it's much rarer to find upper tier QBs, pass rushers, corners etc etc in rounds 2, 3 , 4. Where as with running backs it's fairly common.  

I think Fournette is a good back and not a "bust". I also think his injury history is worrying and that taking a back like him that high in the draft is always a bad move. Even more so when you consider we could have drafted someone like Watson there.

That is misleading IMO.  2nd/3rd/4th round backs only get that amount of volume if they are good.  We couldn't have just taken any RB and expect him to be as productive as Fournette.  There's a reason Yeldon wasn't getting that volume and that he's probably gone in 2019.

It's not misleading if you read the second paragraph.  All of the above is a given.    

The reality is there are a ton of backs not drafted in the first round who can put up similar production when given the opportunity. The running game is an opportunity based enterprise. You give a lot of RBs 300+ carries behind a very good run blocking line and they will put up numbers. You don't need a first round back to do it. He'll Yeldon isn't good and he would have put up 1,400 yards from scrimmage behind a bad line his rookie year if he didn't get hurt.

---

History has shown if you give 2nd/3rd/4th round backs the same amount of volume as a 1st round back that their production is near identical.    

"But you have to consider how many backs taken in that range ended up as busts" Well yes but the same is true for every single position in the draft. The difference being that it's much rarer to find upper tier QBs, pass rushers, corners etc etc in rounds 2, 3 , 4. Where as with running backs it's fairly common.  

I think Fournette is a good back and not a "bust". I also think his injury history is worrying and that taking a back like him that high in the draft is always a bad move. Even more so when you consider we could have drafted someone like Watson there.

Watson will be dog doo next year.

This might be your best piece of analysis yet.

---

History has shown if you give 2nd/3rd/4th round backs the same amount of volume as a 1st round back that their production is near identical.    

"But you have to consider how many backs taken in that range ended up as busts" Well yes but the same is true for every single position in the draft. The difference being that it's much rarer to find upper tier QBs, pass rushers, corners etc etc in rounds 2, 3 , 4. Where as with running backs it's fairly common.  

I think Fournette is a good back and not a "bust". I also think his injury history is worrying and that taking a back like him that high in the draft is always a bad move. Even more so when you consider we could have drafted someone like Watson there.

Watson will be dog doo next year.

I don't think I would go that far.

I think a lot of his game is predicated on his escapability, and that is a question in the aftermath of his ACL surgery.

But people have come back from ACLs and have been productive.

My belief is that their OL may be his undoing.  I'm not sure Seantrel Henderson and rookie Martinas Rankin will be the answer at T for them.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

That is misleading IMO.  2nd/3rd/4th round backs only get that amount of volume if they are good.  We couldn't have just taken any RB and expect him to be as productive as Fournette.  There's a reason Yeldon wasn't getting that volume and that he's probably gone in 2019.

It's not misleading if you read the second paragraph.  All of the above is a given.    

The reality is there are a ton of backs not drafted in the first round who can put up similar production when given the opportunity. The running game is an opportunity based enterprise. You give a lot of RBs 300+ carries behind a very good run blocking line and they will put up numbers. You don't need a first round back to do it. He'll Yeldon isn't good and he would have put up 1,400 yards from scrimmage behind a bad line his rookie year if he didn't get hurt.

---

I get it that you have better odds at hitting on a RB than other positions in later rounds, but that still doesn't mean never to take a RB high.  Plenty of people bust at other positions with high picks and it's impossible to predict which RBs will fall to you in those later rounds.

FWIW, Fournette was a guy I wanted but my dream scenario was taking Solomon Thomas, Adams, or Hooker then getting Mixon in the 2nd round.  I tend to lean towards other positions also (outside RB) in the top 5 picks, but I can't ding them for taking Fournette there.  He was a great prospect and I expect that if he and our line stays healthy, he's going to have a huge year.  It's quite possible they would have went with Foreman, Connor, or Perine as their mid round pick and likely would have been disappointed.  Our offense wouldn't have been as good.

---

That is misleading IMO.  2nd/3rd/4th round backs only get that amount of volume if they are good.  We couldn't have just taken any RB and expect him to be as productive as Fournette.  There's a reason Yeldon wasn't getting that volume and that he's probably gone in 2019.

It's not misleading if you read the second paragraph.  All of the above is a given.    

The reality is there are a ton of backs not drafted in the first round who can put up similar production when given the opportunity. The running game is an opportunity based enterprise. You give a lot of RBs 300+ carries behind a very good run blocking line and they will put up numbers. You don't need a first round back to do it. He'll Yeldon isn't good and he would have put up 1,400 yards from scrimmage behind a bad line his rookie year if he didn't get hurt.

---

Watson will be dog doo next year.

This might be your best piece of analysis yet.

He has a noodle for an arm. Those guys get exposed after a season.

When I am right I won't gloat, don't worry.

---

It's not misleading if you read the second paragraph.  All of the above is a given.    

The reality is there are a ton of backs not drafted in the first round who can put up similar production when given the opportunity. The running game is an opportunity based enterprise. You give a lot of RBs 300+ carries behind a very good run blocking line and they will put up numbers. You don't need a first round back to do it. He'll Yeldon isn't good and he would have put up 1,400 yards from scrimmage behind a bad line his rookie year if he didn't get hurt.

---

I get it that you have better odds at hitting on a RB than other positions in later rounds, but that still doesn't mean never to take a RB high.  Plenty of people bust at other positions with high picks and it's impossible to predict which RBs will fall to you in those later rounds.

FWIW, Fournette was a guy I wanted but my dream scenario was taking Solomon Thomas, Adams, or Hooker then getting Mixon in the 2nd round.  I tend to lean towards other positions also (outside RB) in the top 5 picks, but I can't ding them for taking Fournette there.  He was a great prospect and I expect that if he and our line stays healthy, he's going to have a huge year.  It's quite possible they would have went with Foreman, Connor, or Perine as their mid round pick and likely would have been disappointed.  Our offense wouldn't have been as good.

When you combine that with the fact RB is the least valuable non special teams position (bar full back) you have a strong case for not taking one that high.   

Remember volume behind very good run blocking lines almost always breeds production from RBs. Even if our offense wouldn't have been quite as good talent wise, I'd be confident it still would be good enough.

I'm more worried about Fournettes health than I am of any lost value though. Big bellcow backs with chronic ankle issues is a nightmare. Hopefully he gets them sorted.

---

This is why I don't bother with bad opinions (like the insert running back in place of Fournette.) There is an infinite amount of spin and mental gymnastics that can be done to try to sell it.

When in reality, it simply doesn't pass the smell test. An argument like that dies on it's face, regardless of spin. But continue on...

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

I get it that you have better odds at hitting on a RB than other positions in later rounds, but that still doesn't mean never to take a RB high.  Plenty of people bust at other positions with high picks and it's impossible to predict which RBs will fall to you in those later rounds.

FWIW, Fournette was a guy I wanted but my dream scenario was taking Solomon Thomas, Adams, or Hooker then getting Mixon in the 2nd round.  I tend to lean towards other positions also (outside RB) in the top 5 picks, but I can't ding them for taking Fournette there.  He was a great prospect and I expect that if he and our line stays healthy, he's going to have a huge year.  It's quite possible they would have went with Foreman, Connor, or Perine as their mid round pick and likely would have been disappointed.  Our offense wouldn't have been as good.

When you combine that with the fact RB is the least valuable non special teams position (bar full back) you have a strong case for not taking one that high.   

Remember volume behind very good run blocking lines almost always breeds production from RBs. Even if our offense wouldn't have been quite as good talent wise, I'd be confident it still would be good enough.  

I'm more worried about Fournettes health than I am of any lost value though. Big bellcow backs with chronic ankle issues is a nightmare. Hopefully he gets them sorted.

Our line wasn't all that great at run blocking, at least not "very good".  I'm not sure how good it would have been.  I don't think we would have won in Pittsburgh either time without Fournette and one of those guys I mentioned earlier.

Yeah, I do hope his health is good.  Ankle injuries suck.

---

If cam continues to develop and turns into a top 5 LT in the league we can just all pretend we took him in the first and Leonard in the second.

---

I didnt like or hate the pick but his ankle injury history is what i worry about. I hope he stays healthy and also he needs to not do that spin move that is straight awful.

---

No Fun

When you combine that with the fact RB is the least valuable non special teams position (bar full back) you have a strong case for not taking one that high.   

Remember volume behind very good run blocking lines almost always breeds production from RBs. Even if our offense wouldn't have been quite as good talent wise, I'd be confident it still would be good enough.  

I'm more worried about Fournettes health than I am of any lost value though. Big bellcow backs with chronic ankle issues is a nightmare. Hopefully he gets them sorted.

Our line wasn't all that great at run blocking, at least not "very good".  I'm not sure how good it would have been.  I don't think we would have won in Pittsburgh either time without Fournette and one of those guys I mentioned earlier.

Yeah, I do hope his health is good.  Ankle injuries suck.

Eh, one of the highest %s of positive runs in the entire league. One of the highest amounts of yards before contact in the entire league. Ran more than anyone else. Ran against more 8 man boxes than anyone else (granted some of that was due to us). 

By every measurable bar YPC we were one of the best run blocking lines in the league, and YPC has long been one of the most overrated stats, particularly when measuring the effectiveness of high volume run games.  

This all backs up what the eyes saw too. Our line dominated Pittsburgh both games.

---

Instead of looking at the 4 or 5 games he went over 100 yards, go look at how many times he picked up first downs to extend drives. Or how many times we were on the goal line and he pounded the rock in. Or that 4th a 1 play against Pit where he went over the top.

Yeldon simply cant make those plays.

---

Instead of looking at the 4 or 5 games he went over 100 yards, go look at how many times he picked up first downs to extend drives. Or how many times we were on the goal line and he pounded the rock in. Or that 4th a 1 play against Pit where he went over the top.

Yeldon simply cant make those plays.

Or the 11 yd run on 3rd and 9 to ice the game vs Seattle when they had all the momenentum. I really wonder what the Fournette haters were watching all season? Even every guy in my fantasy leagues who are fans of other teams were constantly talking about how awesome it'd be if their team had a back like Fournette. I have friends who are pretty die hard nfl fans who even think he's the best back in the league (most well rounded) and I'm not joking or lying.

---

It's not misleading if you read the second paragraph.  All of the above is a given.    

The reality is there are a ton of backs not drafted in the first round who can put up similar production when given the opportunity. The running game is an opportunity based enterprise. You give a lot of RBs 300+ carries behind a very good run blocking line and they will put up numbers. You don't need a first round back to do it. He'll Yeldon isn't good and he would have put up 1,400 yards from scrimmage behind a bad line his rookie year if he didn't get hurt.

---

I get it that you have better odds at hitting on a RB than other positions in later rounds, but that still doesn't mean never to take a RB high.  Plenty of people bust at other positions with high picks and it's impossible to predict which RBs will fall to you in those later rounds.

FWIW, Fournette was a guy I wanted but my dream scenario was taking Solomon Thomas, Adams, or Hooker then getting Mixon in the 2nd round.  I tend to lean towards other positions also (outside RB) in the top 5 picks, but I can't ding them for taking Fournette there.  He was a great prospect and I expect that if he and our line stays healthy, he's going to have a huge year.  It's quite possible they would have went with Foreman, Connor, or Perine as their mid round pick and likely would have been disappointed.  Our offense wouldn't have been as good.

Solomon Thomas had 3 sacks as a rookie. I'd venture to say that Fournette's rookie season was more productive. 

---

'02

Instead of looking at the 4 or 5 games he went over 100 yards, go look at how many times he picked up first downs to extend drives. Or how many times we were on the goal line and he pounded the rock in. Or that 4th a 1 play against Pit where he went over the top.

Yeldon simply cant make those plays.

 I really wonder what the Fournette haters were watching all season?

FWIW  - I haven't seen anybody hating on Fournette in this thread. 
A few people have some doubt about drafting him so early, a few think he had a good rookie year, but not quite a "great" rookie year.  Everyone universally praises his speed, home-run ability, and hard-nosed running style. Most think he'll only improve.  
Some of us may not be as impressed as you are with the first season. That's not hating on the guy at all.

---

 I really wonder what the Fournette haters were watching all season?

FWIW  - I haven't seen anybody hating on Fournette in this thread. 
A few people have some doubt about drafting him so early, a few think he had a good rookie year, but not quite a "great" rookie year.  Everyone universally praises his speed, home-run ability, and hard-nosed running style. Most think he'll only improve.  
Some of us may not be as impressed as you are with the first season. That's not hating on the guy at all.

Actually, good point - but I just don't get it. You take studs with your high picks and Fournette is a stud so far. There are SO MANY total busts taken that high that nothing is ever guaranteed, so I'm obviously in the camp of we should be happy we got a player who had a great rookie year and shows tons of promise for this season. I don't think I could be much more excited about this squad coming into this year. This team has seriously one of the overall most talented rosters in the NFL (if not the most) and finally the coaching to handle it.

---

 I really wonder what the Fournette haters were watching all season?

FWIW  - I haven't seen anybody hating on Fournette in this thread. 
A few people have some doubt about drafting him so early, a few think he had a good rookie year, but not quite a "great" rookie year.  Everyone universally praises his speed, home-run ability, and hard-nosed running style. Most think he'll only improve.  
Some of us may not be as impressed as you are with the first season. That's not hating on the guy at all.

I'll hate on him, though it's not even as much hating on him specifically as it is hating how we play when he is in the game. It's simple to me, our offense was better when he was off the field. One of the Field Gull guys broke it down from many different angles. But the eye test showed it too. Our offense became far less predictable. We actually did crazy stuff like play 3 WRs sometimes. The middle of the field opened up (because of 11 personnel not the absence of LF) and the crosser heavy passing attack took off.

Our yards per carry were higher when Fournette was out, our actual and expected points per game/drive respectively were higher when Fournette was out. Blake's efficiency was much higher when Fournette was out. There was more in the article that I mentioned at the time but I don't care enough to go look for it again. It wasn't just pointing out the games he missed either, it was our offenses on/off splits for games he played too.

Not to mention we were 3-0 without him and only 7-6 with him. He had his moments where he was able to wear down a defense after getting a ton of carries that actively kept the game close, but more often than not all it did was leave us praying for a defensive miracle at the end of games to save our butts after he plodded to ~70 yards on ~20 carries.

And yes for the hundredth time I'll point out a lot of it was coaching (and definitely some injury too). It is dumb of us to run so much 12, 21, and 22 personnel and basically beg for the defenses to put 8 in the box and expect Fournette to shine. Spreading the field out and making nickelbacks tackle Fournette would be wise IMO. I think there is definite room for Fournette to get better, but a lot of it will depend on things out of his control. If we run essentially the same offense and hope that Norwell alone is going to drastically change things I think we're going to be disappointed.

---

FWIW  - I haven't seen anybody hating on Fournette in this thread. 
A few people have some doubt about drafting him so early, a few think he had a good rookie year, but not quite a "great" rookie year.  Everyone universally praises his speed, home-run ability, and hard-nosed running style. Most think he'll only improve.  
Some of us may not be as impressed as you are with the first season. That's not hating on the guy at all.

I'll hate on him, though it's not even as much hating on him specifically as it is hating how we play when he is in the game. It's simple to me, our offense was better when he was off the field. One of the Field Gull guys broke it down from many different angles. But the eye test showed it too. Our offense became far less predictable. We actually did crazy stuff like play 3 WRs sometimes. The middle of the field opened up (because of 11 personnel not the absence of LF) and the crosser heavy passing attack took off.  

Our yards per carry were higher when Fournette was out, our actual and expected points per game/drive respectively were higher when Fournette was out. Blake's efficiency was much higher when Fournette was out. There was more in the article that I mentioned at the time but I don't care enough to go look for it again. It wasn't just pointing out the games he missed either, it was our offenses on/off splits for games he played too.

Not to mention we were 3-0 without him and only 7-6 with him. He had his moments where he was able to wear down a defense after getting a ton of carries that actively kept the game close, but more often than not all it did was leave us praying for a defensive miracle at the end of games to save our butts after he plodded to ~70 yards on ~20 carries.

And yes for the hundredth time I'll point out a lot of it was coaching (and definitely some injury too). It is dumb of us to run so much 12, 21, and 22 personnel and basically beg for the defenses to put 8 in the box and expect Fournette to shine. Spreading the field out and making nickelbacks tackle Fournette would be wise IMO. I think there is definite room for Fournette to get better, but a lot of it will depend on things out of his control. If we run essentially the same offense and hope that Norwell alone is going to drastically change things I think we're going to be disappointed.

Two of the teams we played were two of the worst defenses in football last year and the Bengals were one of the worst run stopping teams in the league.  

Of course Blake and our offense as a whole is gonna play better against them. We weren't a better team or offense without Fournette, just played weaker teams.  Even though the Bengals had a good pass defense. 

And I agree our play calling could be better from a personnel and philosophical standpoint. I think with more receivers and field stretchers we'll see them lineup with 3 wide a good deal more than last year.  Hopefully LF7 will make roads to get better out of shotgun and improve his vision.

---

When will people learn that football is more than just numbers. Who had better numbers between Hunt and Fournette? Who would you say played with a better qb?

If all you are looking at is the production then I agree that any back could duplicate the production. However, that 3rd and 11 at the end of the game against the Seahawks, I don’t think any back can replicate that. Same goes for icing the first pitt game then dominating them in the playoffs.

I agree with the idea of just not taking certain positions high in the draft ( rbs, safeties, wr etc...) unless they are a game changers. He is a game changer. He impacts the actual strategy of the game. That is worth a high pick in my eyes. When he’s on the feild teams have to key in on him period. He saw more stacked box’s then anyone in the league and still was top 8 in rushing yards and tied 3rd for rushing tds. He produces but has game impacting moments and players that can do that are worth high draft picks even at non premium positions.

---

I think one thing that is often not contemplated is the opposite argument of the "Bortles Garbage Time Stats" deal.

There were 7 games they won by 2 TD's or in many cases far more.

Those games it was even more obvious they were going to run, even if they didn't care if they got more than a yard or 2. It was clearly "run the clock out mode" many times going into the 4th quarter.

Either way, the acquisition of him specifically let the team change their approach, their mindset, and he played to that, and the rest of the players tended to follow suit.

---

his impact was felt because people had to respect the run game and even if they stacked the box(which people did frequently)we would still gain positive yardage. which is more than we did when had only ivory. The people who benefited most from forentte(or maybe just how we used him) were the young wide outs. Between the play actions and lack of coverage schemes that they faced when other D's stacked against 4nette, they got alot more open looks than they would have if say drob was in the back field IMHO.

One could speculate that had Arob stayed healthy and teams had to focus on him, leonard would have a much bigger year than he did. Either way he still lived up to the hype in my books whether MSM thinks this way or not.

---