McCoy for Alonso

[Selassie I]

Rumor has it that Kelly wants to sign FA RB Mark Ingram.

 

[Angry Ram]

As Rams fans we should all know about guys coming off ACL injuries. And for that reason alone, I think the Bills have less of a risk. LeSean McCoy will barely be 27 when the season starts, so I'd say hee could have at least 4 or 5 more years. Sure, Kiko could have about 3 more years before he moves on. That injury tho, makes it a gamble for Philly.

 

[DaveFan'51]

Eagles are crazy. They'll probably trade all their draft picks for Mariota too.

It just looks like each year Chip Dumps an elite player for something less.
I wonder if he is capable of managing NFL Pro's, vs College Star's.
Does he want an "NFL Championship Team" or a "College Championship Team!?"

 

[ram007]

My initial reaction was really? but I am starting to think Chip Kelly might have won this trade.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

Think about this too. McCoy is in his seventh year. Most Runningbacks start to go the wrong way after 7 or 8 years. Plus he will want to get paid after next season and Kelly won't do it. So they got something for him.

Maybe for the Bills, they know something aboutAlonso's health that make them willing to give up on him.

 

[jrry32]

He did not repeat his 2013 season last year. But McCoy still rushed for 1,319 yards, third in the NFL, behind an offensive line riddled with injuries. It was decried as his worst year as a starter, however. And many noticed McCoy occasionally had trouble hitting the hole. After the trade, Sports Illustrated’s Peter King said he heard Kelly found McCoy too much of an east-west runner. McCoy struggled to start the season, even as the Eagles opened the year with a 3-1 record. In the Eagles’ three-game December losing streak that knocked the team out of playoff contention, McCoy rushed 55 times for 204 yards – 3.67 yards a carry. New Bills coach Rex Ryan is still getting a running back who has been one of the best in the league in two of the last four seasons, but it’s also a running back with a lot of mileage on the odometer.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/mar/04/eagles-coach-chip-kelly-doubles-down-with-shock-trade-of-lesean-McCoy

I guess when your the coach you see things differently than the fans.

I agree that 10 mil is a crap load for a RB. It doesn't matter who he is. RBs have short shelf lives and are always replaceable, especially on a pass heavy team. The days of running the ball 60-75 percent of the time are gone and even teams trying to feature the run cannot go back to that old formula and be competitive offensively. So the Feature RB is not as valuable of a commodity as the "Feature Oline"

Always replaceable, eh? How replaceable was 1999 to 2001 Marshall Faulk?

The simple truth is that Chip Kelly didn't get along with McCoy and is flexing his muscles with his newly gained personnel power by trading for a former player of his.

RB is a fantasy position, not an NFL position. I would never sign a RB to his free agent contract. Guys don't last long enough and demand too much money when they achieve moderate success. Younger, stronger, faster, cheaper guys in the draft every year.

Spend money on the difference makers who last: OT, QB, WR, CB. The rest take too many vicious hits game after game.

The HB position is the second most impactful position on the offense behind the QB. Nothing "fantasy" about the position. Great HBs change games and change teams. You tell me how good you think Seattle's offense would be without Marshawn Lynch. Tell me how much Marshall Faulk didn't mean to the GSOT.

Great/Elite HBs are worth every penny they want. It's the average HBs that are easily replaceable.

 

[jrry32]

People are quick to put the "system player" label on QB, but why not RB??
Prior to Kelly, Shady averaged around 1,300 total yards from scrimmage a season
Has averaged 1,800 yards from scrimmage in 2 years under Kelly.
Not saying the guy isnt a good to great RB, but the top 5 stuff really came about recently

AP and Demarco Murray out there as FA too, just sayin

He averaged 5.0 yards per carry with 1600+ yards from scrimmage in 2010 and then 4.8 yards per carry with 1600+ yards from scrimmage and 20 TDs in 2011. The top 5 HB stuff did not come around recently.

In fact, his numbers under Kelly are pretty darn similar on a per touch basis to his numbers before Kelly. Only difference is that Kelly gave him a lot more touches.

 

[dieterbrock]

He averaged 5.0 yards per carry with 1600+ yards from scrimmage in 2010 and then 4.8 yards per carry with 1600+ yards from scrimmage and 20 TDs in 2011. The top 5 HB stuff did not come around recently.

In fact, his numbers under Kelly are pretty darn similar on a per touch basis to his numbers before Kelly. Only difference is that Kelly gave him a lot more touches.

And he had 3,600 yards in 2 seasons with Kelly
He's a different player in that system.

 

[jrry32]

And he had 3,600 yards in 2 seasons with Kelly
He's a different player in that system.

I don't think he is. At all. He's a player that gets more touches in that system. But he's the same player he was with Reid. At least as a runner. Kelly does a better job of scheming him in the passing game...at least until they got Sproles but that's just different systems. In Reid's WCO, he was more of a checkdown guy whereas in Kelly's system, they specifically designed plays to get him in space.

Regardless, as a runner, he was more or less the same guy on a per carry basis(but with less TDs) as he was with Reid. Kelly just had him carry the ball A LOT more often. Which can be good and bad.

 

[dieterbrock]

I don't think he is. At all. He's a player that gets more touches in that system. .

Like the QB that gets more pass attempts in a certain system, gets labeled a "system QB", that was my point
Not worth arguing over

 

[jrry32]

Like the QB that gets more pass attempts in a certain system, gets labeled a "system QB", that was my point
Not worth arguing over

I wouldn't really call that a system QB, though. We just define it differently. You're right, not worth arguing over.

 

[Irish]

Always replaceable, eh? How replaceable was 1999 to 2001 Marshall Faulk?

The simple truth is that Chip Kelly didn't get along with McCoy and is flexing his muscles with his newly gained personnel power by trading for a former player of his.



The HB position is the second most impactful position on the offense behind the QB. Nothing "fantasy" about the position. Great HBs change games and change teams. You tell me how good you think Seattle's offense would be without Marshawn Lynch. Tell me how much Marshall Faulk didn't mean to the GSOT.

Great/Elite HBs are worth every penny they want. It's the average HBs that are easily replaceable.

Last 16 Superbowl Champions

15- New England: No dominant RB, about as committee as it gets
14- Seattle: Beast Mode is a super star
13- Ravens: Rice is above average, not a game changer
12- Giants: Ahmad Bradshaw and Brandon Jacobs split time in a tandem, no dominant RB
11- Packers: I Guess Starks?
10- Saints: Reggie Bush was decent, not game changing
09- Steelers: Davenport, Mewelde Moore, and Willie Parker
08- Giants: Brandon Jacobs and Ahmd Bradshaw
07- Colts: Addai and Rhodes
06- Steelers: Bettis last season, very pedestrian by his standards (15 for 39 in super bowl)
05- Patriots: Corey Dillon had a good season, not game changing
04- Patriots: Kevin Faulk
03- Bucs: Pittman and Alstott
02- Patriots: Kevin Faulk
01- Ravens: Lewis was good that season, rookie of the year
00- Rams: Faulk

Of that list, who on there was legitimately a game changing talent in the season in which they won? Faulk and Lynch by my estimation. RBs just haven't been as important to team success over the past 15+ years. Not to say the RUNNING GAME isn't important, you absolutely have to be able to run the ball, but you can do it with guys who have modest contracts. All I am saying is the money is better spent in other places, and i feel like this list bears that out. Get a QB, build a dominant O line, play good defense, and the running game almost works itself out in a way.

 

[jrry32]

Last 16 Superbowl Champions

15- New England: No dominant RB, about as committee as it gets
14- Seattle: Beast Mode is a super star
13- Ravens: Rice is above average, not a game changer
12- Giants: Ahmad Bradshaw and Brandon Jacobs split time in a tandem, no dominant RB
11- Packers: I Guess Starks?
10- Saints: Reggie Bush was decent, not game changing
09- Steelers: Davenport, Mewelde Moore, and Willie Parker
08- Giants: Brandon Jacobs and Ahmd Bradshaw
07- Colts: Addai and Rhodes
06- Steelers: Bettis last season, very pedestrian by his standards (15 for 39 in super bowl)
05- Patriots: Corey Dillon had a good season, not game changing
04- Patriots: Kevin Faulk
03- Bucs: Pittman and Alstott
02- Patriots: Kevin Faulk
01- Ravens: Lewis was good that season, rookie of the year
00- Rams: Faulk

Of that list, who on there was legitimately a game changing talent in the season in which they won? Faulk and Lynch by my estimation. RBs just haven't been as important to team success over the past 15+ years. Not to say the RUNNING GAME isn't important, you absolutely have to be able to run the ball, but you can do it with guys who have modest contracts. All I am saying is the money is better spent in other places, and i feel like this list bears that out. Get a QB, build a dominant O line, play good defense, and the running game almost works itself out in a way.

This argument gets more and more frustrating the more people use it. I've seen it used against WRs, HBs, LTs, OGs...pretty much every offensive position but QB.

Would any of these teams have been worse off with a dominant HB? The fact that you won a Super Bowl without one is meaningless. As I have said a million times over, there are a lot of different ways to build a successful team. IMO, the best way to do it is with a strong defense and a franchise QB. From there, you can choose anything you like offensively. You can choose a strong running game or a strong OL or strong weapons in the passing game...or all of the above or two of the above.

But since we're setting the record straight:
Seattle - Marshawn Lynch carried that team to back to back Super Bowls...winning one and losing one. They could have won both if Carroll would have ridden Lynch at the goal-line rather than letting Wilson throw it. And their team that lost to the Steelers had a record breaking Shaun Alexander at HB.

St. Louis - Faulk helped us reach two Super Bowls in 3 years, we won one and lost one. We would have likely won against New England if Martz had ridden Faulk in that game.

Ravens - They won in 2000 and 2012...in both years, they had great HBs and a strong running game. Ray Rice had established himself as a top 5 HB in the NFL(above average...come on...the dude was coming off a season with 15 TDs and 2000+ yards from scrimmage...both him and Pierce were extremely effective that year) and they had Jamal Lewis AND Priest Holmes in 2000.

Saints - Payton has always been a committee guy but the Saints had one of the best rushing attacks in the NFL that year(#7 or better in every category). Bush and Thomas were super effective all around HBs and Mike Bell was solid in his role as the bruiser.

Giants - The 2007 Giants had the best rushing attack in the NFL. They had a three headed monster of Jacobs, Ward, and Bradshaw. All three averaged 5.0+ yards per carry, Ward and Jacobs both ran for 1000+ yards, and Jacobs had 15 TDs.

Patriots - You're seriously claiming that Corey Dillon wasn't a game changing HB? He was one of the NFL's best HBs in his prime in Cincy and ran for 1600+ yards and 12 TDs in his first year with New England in 2004. There is no argument that 2004 Corey Dillon was not a game changing HB.

Steelers - The 2005 Steelers had Willie Parker as their lead back and Jerome Bettis as their bruiser and goal-line HB. They were #5 in rushing yards in the NFL that year, Parker ran for 1200+ yards and then ran for 1400+ yards and 13 TDs the next year without Bettis. This team undoubtedly had a great ground game with a great lead HB.

By my count, we have 8 Super Bowl winners with strong rushing attacks, 7 of them had great lead HBs(Saints were the one who didn't), and then we also have 3 Super Bowl losers with great lead HBs and running games. And I didn't even go down the list of Super Bowl losers, those were just teams I remembered based on the teams you named.

I don't see a valid point here. The running game is plenty important and great HBs can have a major impact. As I already showed using the Adrian Peterson example.

You seemed to overlook a lot of guys who were great in the years their team played in the Super Bowl.

 

[Mojo Ram]

I think the Eagles did Ok if this trade goes thru / you just can't tie up that much $$ in the RB position.

My thoughts in a nutshell.
RB's these days are young turks who you draft in the 2nd to mid rds and plug in and out of your lineup for the most part. You keep the stable full of young, competitive guys who just want to play. As a team you get the most out of them while you can and move on to the next kid in line.
RB's are like the whores of the NFL.

 

[jrry32]

Think about this too. McCoy is in his seventh year. Most Runningbacks start to go the wrong way after 7 or 8 years. Plus he will want to get paid after next season and Kelly won't do it. So they got something for him.

Maybe for the Bills, they know something aboutAlonso's health that make them willing to give up on him.

McCoy has three years left on his contract.

As for him going into his 7th year, he's going into his 7th year without having a ton of carries. In his first 6 years, he only has 1461 carries. For reference, Steven Jackson had 1548 carries after his first 6 years. And he had 3 more 1000+ yard seasons left in him. LaDainian Tomlinson had 2050 carries after his first 6 years and he had 2 more 1000+ yard seasons left in him. Marshall Faulk had 1642 carries after his first 6 years and he still had 2 1000+ yard seasons left in him, one of which being his MVP year.

Basically, if you base it on history, McCoy very likely has 3 1000+ yard seasons left in him as long as the Bills don't run him into the ground(basically, keep him around 250 to 275 carries). And his contract just happens to have three years remaining on it.

 

[jrry32]

My thoughts in a nutshell.
RB's these days are young turks who you draft in the 2nd to mid rds and plug in and out of your lineup for the most part. You keep the stable full of young, competitive guys who just want to play. As a team you get the most out of them while you can and move on to the next kid in line.
RB's are like the whores of the NFL.

Again, JMO, but this is what teams who don't have great HBs do. When you have a great HB, you stick with him as long as you can. Because they're extremely valuable and impactful players.

But sure, if you have average HBs...you can continually replace them.

 

[PhxRam]

I dont know why I thought you were talking about this guy

 

[Mojo Ram]

Again, JMO, but this is what teams who don't have great HBs do. When you have a great HB, you stick with him as long as you can. Because they're extremely valuable and impactful players.

But sure, if you have average HBs...you can continually replace them.

I get what you're saying but i'm not a believer in your supply and demand theory. Teams just aren't "looking" for those great franchise RB's like they used to. In years past everyone had to have that feature back that you draft, sign as a free agent(where are those guys?), or trade for and build around. You just don't see that anymore.
Teams don't want to put a premium at that position anymore. We're seeing teams praying to obtain(and pay) the big strong armed QB, the big #1 WR, the strong, athletic TE who can create mismatches. A fresh young cheap RB who can pass protect and catch the ball out of the backfield seems to be the trend.

Of course there are exceptions...M.Lynch comes to mind, but it seems to me that the teams with good to excellent QB/WR play aren't looking to lock themselves down to one RB that will break the bank.

 

[Mojo Ram]

@jrry32
Would you consider DeMarco Murray, Marshawn Lynch, Adrian Peterson and LeSean McCoy the closest the NFL has to offer today in terms of being superstar RB's?

 

[jrry32]

I get what you're saying but i'm not a believer in your supply and demand theory. Teams just aren't "looking" for those great franchise RB's like they used to. In years past everyone had to have that feature back that you draft, sign as a free agent(where are those guys?), or trade for and build around. You just don't see that anymore.
Teams don't want to put a premium at that position anymore. We're seeing teams praying to obtain(and pay) the big strong armed QB, the big #1 WR, the strong, athletic TE who can create mismatches. A fresh young cheap RB who can pass protect and catch the ball out of the backfield seems to be the trend.

Of course there are exceptions...M.Lynch comes to mind, but it seems to me that the teams with good to excellent QB/WR play aren't looking to lock themselves down to one RB that will break the bank.

I disagree. Seattle is doing it with Lynch. Minnesota did it with Peterson. It appears that Murray is about to get paid in FA. Chiefs are doing it with Charles. Texans did it with Foster. The Bills appear to be ready to do it with McCoy. Bears did it with Forte. Panthers are doing it with Stewart.

Teams are still willing to pay a premium for good, great, and elite HBs. They just aren't willing to pay for average HBs anymore.