beanfigger

16 minutes ago, Alabama Raven said:

The only time I don't consider a trade back is if Ramsey falls and we address our biggest need - Secondary. I can't imagine the haul we could land if we're picking at #15, #36, #43, #45. That's a franchising altering opportunity.

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?

15 hours ago, ALPHA said:

So what happens if both of these guys are busts? 

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.

30 minutes ago, GrimCoconut said:

I'm so glad we finally get closure on the draft tonight. I feel like we've been anticipating the draft ever since last year early in the season when people starting saying we weren't going anywhere after the brutal, early losses. 

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. 

9 hours ago, rmw10 said:

Per Tony Pauline:

"Finally, I'm told if Laremy Tunsil does not fall into their laps, the Baltimore Ravens will consider Ezekiel Elliott with their choice unless they are able to trade down."
 

...sigh...

3 hours ago, TurkishRaven said:

We had this argument before

would you want an elite player and 2  good players or 4 good players?

Now, it also depends on the team we talking about. I think our team is getting old and they started to getting injured so I say we should trade down.

Depends on the position that elite player plays.

8 minutes ago, BmoreBird22 said:

And to be clear, I'm not even advocating to draft Elliot. I would take Bosa, Ramsey, and Tunsil first and one of those three should be there.

I just think that devaluing Elliot for being a running back is unfair to him as a player because he likely will turn out to be a damn good running back on a team that thrives on running the ball.

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).

16 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

I will say... there's pretty much no profession on the planet that is similar to the NFL or professional sports injuries in general. That includes the rules the follow and how they handle discipline.

And under that scenario, that would mean Belichick is getting punished twice... once for not having a draft pick, and once for having his HOF QB get suspended. 

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.

38 minutes ago, BmoreBird22 said:

Your argument seems to be that the value of a running back is devalued because teams can rely on just a committee and get the same results as a star running back or pick one up in free agency and get the same results as a top 10 back. Is this true?

Let's clear this up before we go any further.

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.

11 minutes ago, BmoreBird22 said:

No, I am really not, so maybe you should read the entire post. 

I have admitted finding a Justin Forsett is very viable, but you will never be getting AP by taking the castoff from other teams.

It is not a fact that free agency running backs and late round picks are better for rushing attacks than backs picked early. Eight of the top 10 rushing games this year featured a back taken in the first two rounds with seven of those eight actually featuring one that was drafted in the first round. Of those seven, five actually featured a back taken in the top 15. 

I think that depends on the team. Sure, having a Buck Allen and Forsett can make your running game viable, but you're never going to lead the league in rushing yards or even be consistently top 5 in that category. The Ravens were 21st in yards per attempt this year, but conversely teams that featured a top 15 running back pick were ranked 1, 3, 5, and 9. 

I have paid attention, but your point is wrong and again, you are very stuck in your argument to the point that I don't even think you're fact checking what you're saying. 

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.

13 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Well, they did have emails that were sent to Payton (via another party) that involved players announcing their intentions to be a part of the program and how much to wager at what time, etc. 

I didn't agree with his punishment either, but in this case they literally have nothing for Belichick. In a more reasonable World, I suppose you could say that the NFL realized how ludicrous it would be to suspend a coach for "failing to notice" that his employees were deflating footballs, but not sure they want to open that can of worms. It'd be sort of like suspending Marvin Lewis for Vontaze Burfict acting like an animal on the football field, because its technically his "job" to control his employees.

I suppose you could also argue that Belichick's "punishment" is sort of included in the decision to forfeit a 1st round pick. He's certainly one of the main people affected by that.

 

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.

2 minutes ago, BmoreBird22 said:

I was simply pointing out that a running game is extremely vital to the success of these teams and I have already said before that finding a Forsett in FA is a viable option. I'm just trying to break this down further and take it piece by piece because you are so far stuck on your side that you will not reason.

You're so stuck on this lack of value that you fail to see that 75% of playoff teams seemed to really lean heavily on their ground games for success. Sometimes that came in the form of a top 15 back  (Seahawks, Vikings, Panthers) and it shows in the amount of times they run the football and the amount of yardage they gained. I believe all three were top four in yards and attempts. Sometimes that can come in the form of a third round back, like the Cardinals got with David Johnson. However, it still stands that these teams truly value their running games.

And Ray Rice is not fair to use as an example because in 2013, the Ravens had the worst offensive line in his history and in 2014, he obviously never played. He was a dynamic threat when he signed his contract and had two seasons of 2000 scrimmage yards, so that contract wasn't that bad.

But again, I'm sure if you asked the Rams if they would take Gurley again that they would. I'm sure the Vikings would pay AP again and the Seahawks would pay Lynch again. Highly doubt the Chiefs are losing sleep over paying Charles.

You're just very stuck on your argument because no team has just turned it around from drafting a running back, but we both agreed that no player outside of Luck has actually done that alone. I'm trying to reason with you and you're not hearing it, so I am likely done arguing. 

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.

6 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Well I mean in order to punish Bill for this, you'd actually have to at least proven he knew of anything.

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.

2 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

I mean, I'd buy that... for the $1M fine and the loss of the draft pick. Have no issue with that, because thats a punishment specifically for the organization.

But this isn't about punishment for an organization. Its about punishment for an individual player. so the "repeat offender" aspect isn't applicable.

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.

8 hours ago, Tank 92 said:

Other than Schenn's crap and the end of game meltdown in Game 3 the Flyers hung tough. No shame in that performance. 

Please join in and root against the Pens!

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

2 hours ago, JoeyFlex5 said:

I agree fully. Im just saying if it we're to happen, then people should be in board with it because there is legit justification for it and people will end up very surprised at how good of a pick it would turn out to be.

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.

4 hours ago, BmoreBird22 said:

As Ravensdan pointed out, the Ravens are already an established team. many of those teams drafting a running back are frequently going through rebuilding phases and don't have an establishment of core players around them.

If you're telling me that a running back won't make a difference on a team, then you're crazy. Of the 12 teams that made the playoffs, 6 of those teams ranked in the top ten, three in the top four, and ten in the top 16. 

By the way, the Panthers pretty much featured Cam Newton and Jonathan Stewart, relying on one runner. Chris Johnson was pretty much a workhorse back for the Cardinals before going down and then David Johnson stepped in as the workhorse back. He also earned the title of "workhorse back" from Bruce Arians. Le'Veon Bell was definitely the workhorse before he went down and then DeAngelo Williams took over that role. The Chiefs had relied on two backs for their running game, but I guarantee that if Jamal Charles is healthy, they use him as the workhorse. They were all the 20 touches a game type before going down. No, not all were elite, but those teams relied heavily on them to alleviate the pressure on their passing games. 

The running back is absolutely a piece of the puzzle. Can you find me a single team that consistently wins with no running game to speak of? Even the Patriots are pretty frequently top 13, if not top 10, in rushing yards each year because they rely on the ground game. A team can go about it in tandem, similar to the Bengals with Jeremy Hill or Gio Bernard, but every single team wants to be able to run the ball.

I bet if you asked the Rams whether they're glad they drafted Todd Gurley or not last year that they would say yes. 

Hell, we can find teams that pretty much only make the playoffs because they have a strong running game to drive their offense (Seahawks, Chiefs, Vikings). Hell, four of the teams to make the playoffs were top 5 in rushing attempts and six were top 10. Nine were in the top 16 with the Broncos falling .5 attempts per game (literally 8 rushing attempts) from being in the top 16 as well. 

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.

3 minutes ago, ravensdan said:

The difference is. Unlike these other teams picking at the top of the draft we already have the QB needed to win. 

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.

2 minutes ago, BmoreBird22 said:

DeAngelo Williams ranking is very misleading because the usual suspects, like Marshawn Lynch, LeSean McCoy, and Jamal Charles, amongst others, were injured, so a lot of players were able to get into the top 10 rankings.

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.

8 minutes ago, BmoreBird22 said:

I know Bell was a second round pick, but that's still what I would consider a high pick. No, it isn't top 10 high, like Gurley or AP, but it's high.

And I'mnot going to say that simply drafting a running back will lead a team to the playoffs, but neither will simply drafting a pass rusher or a quarterback. Prior to this year, Cam Newton had led the Panthers to one playoff win. Has Andy Dalton even won one yet? 

It's a team sport and takes a collective team effort. A running back can go a long way in helping change the complexion of your offense if you so choose to be a team that attacks defenses that way. I highly doubt the Steelers offense would be as dynamic as it is without Bell and I doubt the Seahawks even win the Super Bowl without Lynch.

I'm not writing off Elliot because he's simply a running back. On paper he is the best skill position player outside of Ramsey and offers running, blocking, and pass catching skills. His running and blocking are the best in the class and his pass catching is probably easily top 5, if not top 3. That's going to change an offense.

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.

7 minutes ago, BmoreBird22 said:

CJ Spiller... what could have been if that dude could simply remain healthy. Electric talent, just too many injuries.

I would argue Seattle was really still building the team, but saw the opportunity to continue to build their team by adding a great player to a stagnant positional group and it really worked out in their favor with that Beastmode quake run against the Saints.

I won't argue that you can't find a Justin Forsett in free agency or in later rounds, but if you want that AP, Gurley, Bell type, you're usually going to be spending a very high pick.

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.

8 minutes ago, BmoreBird22 said:

Yeah, this isn't really true. He actually had really strong rookie and second year seasons. In his third year, he was suspended by the NFL for three games and dealt with nagging injuries to the point that Fred Jackson was able to secure the starting spot on the offense. Jackson had been with the team since 2006, a year prior to Lynch's arrival. 

In 2010, Marshawn Lynch sprained his ankle, yet again dealing with injuries. The Bills were in clear rebuilding mode and decided to flip an oft injured player for picks.

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.

5 minutes ago, rossihunter2 said:

they drafted one that we then took (via a few other clubs) justin forsett

also no one considers that zeke might be the next trent richardson lol

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).