Todd Gurley: Would You?

[Sum1]

It's easy to look good when your entire offensive line is going to the NFL though. Georgia has a good line, but it wasn't anything like Alabama's when Trent played. They could have fielded a better offensive line then some NFL teams.

I like Gurley...all I'm saying is don't get too caught up. Afterall, there's a lot of people here that don't want to see Tre Mason get a shot on the field and look how dominant he was at times last season.

On the other hand...a group of RBs for the Rams that include Stacy, Mason, and Gourley potentially would be about as nasty as it could possibly get.

 

[TheDYVKX]

I like Gurley...all I'm saying is don't get too caught up. Afterall, there's a lot of people here that don't want to see Tre Mason get a shot on the field and look how dominant he was at times last season.

On the other hand...a group of RBs for the Rams that include Stacy, Mason, and Gourley potentially would be about as nasty as it could possibly get.

I agree that we probably shouldn't get too caught up in Gurley hype, but he's the best prospect since Adrian Peterson in my opinion as of right now.

As for Mason, he's another example of a back that's numbers was inflated by his offensive line and system. He's damn good himself and I think he can a top back in the league, but he's not Bo Jackson level (who's numbers he broke). The only reason why we don't want to see him get a shot is because he can't pass block. Once he gets that sorted out, I'd love to let him play.

That backfield could potentially be one of the best ever if the RBs all reach their potential.

 

[Sum1]

I agree that we probably shouldn't get too caught up in Gurley hype, but he's the best prospect since Adrian Peterson in my opinion as of right now.

As for Mason, he's another example of a back that's numbers was inflated by his offensive line and system. He's damn good himself and I think he can a top back in the league, but he's not Bo Jackson level (who's numbers he broke). The only reason why we don't want to see him get a shot is because he can't pass block. Once he gets that sorted out, I'd love to let him play.

That backfield could potentially be one of the best ever if the RBs all reach their potential.

It's going to be pretty hard learning to pass block on the bench.

 

[TheDYVKX]

It's going to be pretty hard learning to pass block on the bench.

An RB not able to pass block can single handedly cause you to lose by forcing consistent negative plays, all the team needs to do is blitz. Unless you want our QB to be hit time and time again and for us to lose over and over again, it's a bad idea. It's probably easier to learn playing yes, but we're not going to waste games for 1 rookie to learn how to do something.

 

[LACHAMP46]

Who says we have to take a QB in the first?

If the objective is to resign Sam at a reduce price, and draft a guy to compete, do you spend a first on the guy you are having a competition with? If we are doing this I'd draft a guy in the second.

This leaves Cooper and Gurley still on the table, and we still get a talented QB who can develop, or step in if Sam goes down again. Or we could trade a 3rd or 4th for Murray, Mccarron, Mettenberger. All three of these SEC guys will have one year in the NFL, and might be better than any of the second round guys this year. Perhaps a 3rd of 4th is too high for one of them though....but you get the idea.

I love that Mettenberger.....But Gurley in the 1st and a QB/OL in the 2nd & 3rd works too...These young QB's are getting better and better.

 

[Sum1]

An RB not able to pass block can single handedly cause you to lose by forcing consistent negative plays, all the team needs to do is blitz. Unless you want our QB to be hit time and time again and for us to lose over and over again, it's a bad idea. It's probably easier to learn playing yes, but we're not going to waste games for 1 rookie to learn how to do something.

You don't have to have Mason in on every single pass play. Getting a RB reps is different than relying on him to be a pass blocker.

I'm sure the Rams knew he wasn't a polished pass blocker when they drafted him in the 3rd round. Hardly a reason to not let the kid get some work. His main role will never be to block, it'll be to run.

 

[TheDYVKX]

You don't have to have Mason in on every single pass play. Getting a RB reps is different than relying on him to be a pass blocker.

I'm sure the Rams knew he wasn't a polished pass blocker when they drafted him in the 3rd round. Hardly a reason to not let the kid get some work. His main role will never be to block, it'll be to run.

The thing is, whenever Mason comes in, the other team knows it's a run. There's no point in putting him out there because it will go nowhere, teams will just stack the box. And if you do pass, your QB will get killed on any play that Mason is in the backfield. It just doesn't make sense to play Mason yet.

 

[Sum1]

The thing is, whenever Mason comes in, the other team knows it's a run. There's no point in putting him out there because it will go nowhere, teams will just stack the box. And if you do pass, your QB will get killed on any play that Mason is in the backfield. It just doesn't make sense to play Mason yet.

So I guess runningbacks never leave the backfield during pass plays and are 100% relegated to pass protection?

 

[jrry32]

So I guess runningbacks never leave the backfield during pass plays and are 100% relegated to pass protection?

The problem is if the team shows blitz, the QB has to change the protection. Mason limits his ability to do that.

 

[TheDYVKX]

So I guess runningbacks never leave the backfield during pass plays and are 100% relegated to pass protection?

Obviously they do, I never said they don't, but you can't only have Mason catch passes and take carries. It just doesn't work, an RB needs to be able to pass protect as well or an offense is one dimensional.

Speaking of catching passes, Mason needs work in that area as well, it's not like he's some kind of wizard there either, he's not that good in the receiving game, he never had to do it.

Another thing that Mason is bad at: Ball security. The guy can't hang onto the ball. If a coach can't trust a guy to hang onto the ball, why put him out there?

There's tons of reasons why Mason isn't out there. It's a terrible idea to put him out there when he can't catch passes well, he can't pass block, and he can't hang onto the ball. I don't see why you don't get that. 1-2 snaps maybe, but anything more than that is a bad idea. And unless he plays ST, no reason to activate him for 2 snaps. It will come in time once he learns, but he hasn't yet.

 

[Sum1]

Obviously they do, I never said they don't, but you can't only have Mason catch passes and take carries. It just doesn't work, an RB needs to be able to pass protect as well or an offense is one dimensional.

Speaking of catching passes, Mason needs work in that area as well, it's not like he's some kind of wizard there either, he's not that good in the receiving game, he never had to do it.

Another thing that Mason is bad at: Ball security. The guy can't hang onto the ball. If a coach can't trust a guy to hang onto the ball, why put him out there?

There's tons of reasons why Mason isn't out there. It's a terrible idea to put him out there when he can't catch passes well, he can't pass block, and he can't hang onto the ball. I don't see why you don't get that. 1-2 snaps maybe, but anything more than that is a bad idea. And unless he plays ST, no reason to activate him for 2 snaps. It will come in time once he learns, but he hasn't yet.

I get all of the inefficiencies...but he's a very talented runner and sitting him on the bench does absolutely nothing. The Rams could utilize him as a kick returner, something Givens has looked pretty mediocre at best at.

Steven Jackson was atrocious as a pass blocker in his first few years...he got much better at that as time went on.

 

[TheDYVKX]

I get all of the inefficiencies...but he's a very talented runner and sitting him on the bench does absolutely nothing. The Rams could utilize him as a kick returner, something Givens has looked pretty mediocre at best at.

Steven Jackson was atrocious as a pass blocker in his first few years...he got much better at that as time went on.

We already have talented runners. Stacy and Cunningham already comprise of a pretty great backfield as is. Mason isn't THAT big of an upgrade rushing over the other two guys to justify losing their pass catching, pass blocking and ball security.

I agree with kick returner though. Anybody but Givens. I don't think they like him at KR though, otherwise he'd likely be in.

 

[jrry32]

We already have talented runners. Stacy and Cunningham already comprise of a pretty great backfield as is. Mason isn't THAT big of an upgrade rushing over the other two guys to justify losing their pass catching, pass blocking and ball security.

I agree with kick returner though. Anybody but Givens. I don't think they like him at KR though, otherwise he'd likely be in.

My guess would be that they don't want to use an active roster spot on a guy that's solely in to return kicks.

 

[jjab360]

Todd Gurley suspended indefinitely

http://espn.go.com/college-football...urley-georgia-bulldogs-suspended-indefinitely

:eek:

 

[ChrisW]

Todd Gurley suspended indefinitely

http://espn.go.com/college-football...urley-georgia-bulldogs-suspended-indefinitely

:eek:

Hmm...wonder what rule it was. I hope it wasn't one of the stupid rules they enforce.

 

[jrry32]

Hmm...wonder what rule it was. I hope it wasn't one of the stupid rules they enforce.

Took many from boosters because they used his likeness is what I think it said when I read it elsewhere.

Might end up being good for him. Guy already has plenty of great film out there. Now he doesn't risk injury and this isn't a character concern.

 

[Tron]

If it's money from boosters or something like that I doubt it'll hurt his draft stock much. Didn't hurt Quinn much even with a brain tumor.

 

[Ramathon]

I think that would be a colossal error. Both plans. Murray, McCarron or Mettenberger? Yuck. Sorry man but that sounds like a nightmare to me.

Waiting until the second seems like the best way to miss out on your guy. If there's nobody we like in the first, fine, wait. But it's the QB position. Most important position on the field, you don't skimp on that position.

The objective is to bring Sam back so you don't have to rush the rookie in and can be competitive right away. The objective isn't that Sam is the QB of the future. I mean, I hope he is, but I can't wait around for it anymore. If you're spending a 2nd or 3rd on a QB of the future, you better be damn sure the guy you're getting is going to be good and you better have a damn good reason why he fell that far.

Because, since 2000, the only QBs who have turned into long term starters from the 2nd round are Brees, Dalton, and Kaepernick. Dalton and Kaepernick are both average to above average QBs at best. Geno Smith, Garoppolo and Derek Carr are yet to be seen. That's out of 18 QBs. Even if all three of those guys pan out as long term starters, that's still only 6 of 18(33%). And if we remove those 3 entirely, that's 3 of 15(20%).

If you look at the first round, outside of the top 10 picks(assuming we're less likely to draft a QB if we're out of the top 10), you're talking 5 of 15(33%) if you remove Manuel, Bridgewater, and Manziel. If you assume they make it, that's 8 of 18(44%).

Finally, if you look at QBs picked in the top 10, you have 9 of 18(50%) if you omit Tannehill, Locker, Griffin, and Bortles, and that's counting Bradford as not being a long term starter which would end up being wrong. If you assume all those guys make it, you have 13 of 22(59%).

So, obviously, your best bet is picking a QB in the top 10 and the further you get, the less chances are of finding one. You're talking 50% in the top 10, 33% in the first round without the top 10, and 20% in the 2nd round.

As an aside, as much as I'd hate losing LaMarcus Joyner, I really wish we would have traded up for Teddy Bridgewater. This is with some hindsight because I thought Sam could be our guy and I never expected the injury but I also believe(d) that Bridgewater is going to be a really good NFL QB if given time and developed properly. The guy falling as far as he did was a huge mistake and one we could have capitalized on. But I can't say that I didn't disagree with what they did at the time. Just some hindsight speaking here.

While I understand and agree with virtually everything you've suggested above, the one big caveat I'd add to all that is you don't take a QB in the first round just to because of all those statistics. He has to be one you have a grade on worthy of taking then. And I don't think you intended to suggest that, but some will interpret that way. For sake of discussion.....

Assume your team's FO grades potential picks on a 1-100 scale, and your pick comes around in the first round with one player graded at 92 ( but is not a position of need), and the best QB rated on your board grades out at 75, you have to take the first player.. Now, if the 2 best graded players on your board score an 83 (say DL for sake of discussion), and there's a QB you grade at 80, then yes, you have to take the QB.

You can't be so married to your grading process that numeric grades trump everything regardless of need, but if you have any confidence at all in your evaluations, you pretty much have to follow that sort of process....at least, 'IMO'.

If you don't, then there's really no point in grading players. Might just as well define your 2-3 strongest need positions and draft nothing but players for those positions and hope they'll work out.

 

[jrry32]

You can't be so married to your grading process that numeric grades trump everything regardless of need, but if you have any confidence at all in your evaluations, you pretty much have to follow that sort of process....at least, 'IMO'.

I would be. But my opinion is that the grading system should take positional value and need into account to an extent.

 

[Ramhusker]

Gurley sold his autograph