beanfigger

It is a ridiculous haul. That's why it's impossible to believe we would actually get that kind of offer. The Titans just traded back from 1, so why would they be so desperate to trade back up for someone and give up such a lopsided trade. The question is, would you be as happy moving back for a realistic trade. 15 & 33 for six is realistic. Then we have 15, 33, 36. Certainly doesn't sound as good. Or we end up with 15, 43, 76 from them, and keep our own second and third (probably still have to give up one of our fourths for this). That's the most realistic scenario I see. So we have 15, two in the 2nd, two in the 3rd, and still 3 in the 4th. Would you make the move for that end result?

Wouldn't it be sweet if we traded back and ended up with Stanley, instead of staying put and drafting him?

In Canton?

Anywhere from 15 on, there is a legit possibility that someone we consider there actually ends up slipping to our next pick, especially if we also get 33 in the deal. Would be great to get two of these guys, and I would take that over any non-Ramsey/Bosa/Tunsil at six. Maybe even over one of those guys. Could be interesting.

At least 1/7 of closure...

According to the trade value chart, we would be waaaayyyy in the black if the gave us two second rounders to move up from 15. We would still be in the black if they gave us a second and third where they pick. Heck, the chart even says simply their 15 and 33 are worth more together than our 6th. There is no way we make it work for two seconds. Tennessee isn't that desperate or they wouldn't have traded back. 15 and 33 doesn't seem like enough. My best guess for a trade with them would be getting 15, 43 and a third, and we give them 6 and a fourth round pick.

...sigh...

Depends on the position that elite player plays.

Well, we mostly agree, on almost everything. Glad we stepped back to break it down. Only slight disagreement is how strongly I am opposed to drafting that position early on, but that has nothing to do with how well I think Elliot will be. It just reflects how much his success benefits the team in relation to a lower round pick or free agent or combination of both (still cheaper).

There you go. Sound logic from you for once, even if it it does contradict things you've stated before I still believe Bill is getting off easy, and that four games for Brady is a joke for both sides.

I'm saying that committees and injury replacements tend to lead their teams to wins and playoff success more often than star backs. Lynch is the only star back to lead his offense on a recent Super Bowl champion, and he, again, was a free agent for a team that wisely spent their top draft picks on other positions. And Bell really seems to be the only star back on a team with real championship hopes right now, and the team still makes the playoffs and wins a postseason game in a year where he barely played. This isn't even going into the fact that drafting a RB high leads to having a star. The success rate for highly drafted RBs seems very low (0% in the top six, and maybe one, Gurley, in the top ten) since AP in 2007. Going back further, there aren't any other success stories for backs drafted this high all the way to Jamal Lewis. So, I'm saying drafting a back this high is higher risk than other positions. And I'm also stating that even if Elliot becomes a star, which I have stated I believe is a good chance, the reward is not worth it because team success is not dependent on a star back. Rushing success isn't even dependent on that. Those are my points boiled down. I think Elliot is a high, unnecessary risk for us, but if we were to draft him, I would love him and root for him and hope that our team's perceived lack of huge needs means his success will go hand-in-hand with our team's success, against all odds.

You want to fact check? How many of those a) relied a heavy percentage on one RB who was not injured and had to be replaced by a non-high draft pick, b ) featured a high pick RB still on the team that picked him highly, c) rode a high-picked RB to the playoffs? You clearly were not paying attention to my point because you have spent all this time arguing a point I never made or implied, which you admitted in the previous post.

Couple problems with your argument. You keep talking about the "real world", but bosses are held accountable for the actions of their subordinates in almost every profession all the time. That argument goes against your point. Also, if Bellichick is being punished by losing drafts picks, Lewis is being "punished" the exact same way by losing his star player via suspension, so those points contradict each other. If you disagree with the Bountygate punishments and think the NFL simply changed its mind about punishing teams and coaches that way, that's fair, but I'll just say that I disagree. No need to go any further their. It's just conflicting opinions, which is fine.

What part of anything I said makes you think I'm "so far stuck on my side" that I don't see the value in the running game? The running game is of vital importance. It always has been, and most likely will be for as long as the game exists. What I'm saying, and I guess I haven't been clear, is that having a premium running back is NOT of vital importance, and hasn't been for some time. In fact, it seems to be in contrast with team success nowadays. Teams that succeed have rotations and solid backups that almost inevitably get called upon to carry the load for significant portions of every season. I don't even need to read your entire posts anymore because you are reiterating this point yourself repeatedly with every example you give. Taking Elliot at six, or anywhere in the first round, is not cost-effective in the long run (going by value of first round picks, not salary). Viable rushing attacks are acquired through free agency and later round picks far more often than via stars picked early on. That's a fact. I never, ever devalued the running game. It's a system and team thing now more than it has ever been, not a premium star thing. Passing attacks (offensively and defensively) are much more dependent on star players. That's where picks in the first round should be spent. Maybe you can use this post to find something to argue with because you haven't paid attention to the actual point I've been making up until now.

This is the exact opposite of what was said about Payton when he got a year for Bountygate. Exact opposite. Ignorance is not innocence. That is what was said.

This is the first thing you said I agree with completely. It, again, raises the question of why Bill got off scott free this time around. Sean Payton is probably scratching his head about this, as well. Tom should be suspended for cheating, but isn't shown to be a repeat offender of anything.

You can absolutely count on that. Probably my least favorite team in all of sports, including Steelers and Patriots.

I would certainly get on board with it. I'd rather not considering the RBs besides Peterson that started in the playoffs were ALL either late round picks or free agent pickups (cheap ones, too), but I will support him and cheer for every touchdown and game-changing play he is sure to make every week.

You just listed a bunch of backs not taken in the top ten, some of which were picked up in free agency, and then listed a bunch of teams and how they ranked near the top of the league in rushing after NOT picking a RB in the first round. It's like you're making my point for me. If you missed my response to the other guy, I did agree that we are in better shape than most of the teams in the top ten, so it's not like any pick will crush us. I still believe picking a premium back with an early pick is completely unnecessary, irresponsible really if a team is in bad shape already. Paying top dollar for a back is also a no-no, as we found out with Rice. I am in no way doubting how good Elliot will be. I think he'll be awesome. I just completely disagree with any in his position being "worth" the pick it would take to get him. Maybe we have the luxury of making a pick like that because we aren't starving for a million pieces, but taking a RB in the first round, to me, is just slightly better than taking a kicker. Nothing anyone has said has even come close to making valid points to counter that.

I agree. This is why I wouldn't give up on the team's chances of anything if we did draft Zeke. I still wouldn't believe that a stud RB is worth the sixth pick, and I'm hoping this sixth pick is a once in a decade thing for us and not a trend, but considering we have a lot of pieces in place already unlike most teams picking this high, it is harder for us to completely "waste" the pick. Any good player will help; I just believe many, many players would help us more than a RB, even if that RB is "better" than those other players. I'm looking at the historical impact of RBs drafted this high, and it isn't great. However, if we do draft him or some other back early, I will root for them, maybe even get their jersey, and continue to believe our team is capable of winning each week.

Let me stop you right there. Yes, injuries were rampant. And guess what, all the playoff contending teams that had top backs go down (Lynch, Charles, Bell, even Chris Johnson, etc.) still made the playoffs and had solid run games. In fact, the Vikings were the only playoff team that simply relied on one starting running back the whole year. Peterson was the ONLY running back to gain 1000 yards and have his team make the playoffs last year. The elite, workhorse running back is not essential, and it is not worth a top pick to get one. And I never said one player turned things around (maybe Andrew Luck), but the teams that add a RB in the top ten NEVER turn things around anymore, unless they then go out and sign Drew Brees as a free agent. That is not a piece that helps them solve the turnaround puzzle. They all end up rebuilding again, or in the case of the Vikings, they get the best RB in a couple decades and end up stuck drafting in the middle of round one ever single year.

I'm just saying find me an example where taking a RB high resulted in that team turning things around and truly contending the way taking other positions (you mentioned Cam, and wasn't there a pass rusher taken just after him at 2...just a few years ago...?) have. It does not happen, at all. It just doesn't. And when Bell went down, didn't some cast off, cheap free agent step in and finish about 8th (I believe) in the league in yardage. They were fine. Bell doesn't beat the Broncos for them. It didn't really hurt them in terms of wins/losses/playoffs.

Bell was not picked at the top of round one. AP has led his team to ONE playoff win in 9 years. They have been stuck in mediocrity with him, not bad enough to continue to rebuild. The Rams were staring at the same fate, but they decided to trade it all in for a QB to try and avoid that. We will see if it works, and I'd rather not be faced with the same choice next year.

I know his sad story. Anyway, the Bills drafted an RB in the top ten, and their team continued to struggle for many years. Seattle drafted players at other positions, built a team, then found a great RB through free agency. Just like we picked up a good back a couple years ago that they drafted, dirt cheap, and he ended up leading the conference in yards and our team to the playoffs.

This guy writing this sentence has been considering that for some weeks now. Maybe not that bad. Maybe McFadden. Or Bush. Or...Lawrence Phillips, who was supposed to be our franchises first ever pick. Boy do we blow it by taking JO over him... In all seriousness, I think Zeke will be a good RB, perhaps even great. My argument is that this does not translate into team success as much as having great talent in other areas (passing! Offensively and defensively).