Todd Gurley: Would You?

[Elmgrovegnome]

I reapectfully disagree with your outlook here. While you ate cafeteria food and noodles, you chose not to work because of time constraints, and I completely understand, but it option was still there. If someone bought your dinner, or gave you a free tattoo or gave you $6 to sign your name, you wouldn't haven't it all taken from you. If you don't want to pay them, I can get that, but atleast allow them the option to work. A guy like Tim Tebow made UF MILLIONS of dollars, far more than his education cost, far more than every player that played on his teams educations costs. It, for me, comes down to quality of life for those 3-4 years I think. Even if they did as little as had private grocery stores for athletes where they were given so much to spend a day or week. I think something like that would work. I actually watched a documentary a few months back, can not remember the name, but they went deep into this. It really makes you take a step back. I used to say screw them as well. But now, I see it. They had Arian Foster on and he made no bones about it, he said he took money, he said you damn near have to.

You don't have to. Foster is playing the victim and tryongto justify breaking rules. Nobody gave me money and I lived off my student loan. College athletes are given a stipend monthly. 1500 goes a long way when you use your head. And as for not having food, do you think 240 lb kids become 290 lbs on poor nutrition. I feel no sorrow for college athletes. They all were better fed and had no debt upon leaving school. Say you block for Todd Gurley and he is allowed to make thousands and you cannot sell an autograph, how fair is that? Shouldn't he share his money because his poor teammates cannot eat? You know as well as I do that these kids don't budget their stipends and then are broke at the end of month. If it bothers them that a big school makes money off of them then they should play for a small school that won't. Tre Mason didn't suddenly cause Auburn to earn millions. They were big and making millions before he arrived.

 

[jrry32]

You don't have to. Foster is playing the victim and tryongto justify breaking rules. Nobody gave me money and I lived off my student loan. College athletes are given a stipend monthly. 1500 goes a long way when you use your head. And as for not having food, do you think 240 lb kids become 290 lbs on poor nutrition. I feel no sorrow for college athletes. They all were better fed and had no debt upon leaving school. Say you block for Todd Gurley and he is allowed to make thousands and you cannot sell an autograph, how fair is that? Shouldn't he share his money because his poor teammates cannot eat? You know as well as I do that these kids don't budget their stipends and then are broke at the end of month. If it bothers them that a big school makes money off of them then they should play for a small school that won't. Tre Mason didn't suddenly cause Auburn to earn millions. They were big and making millions before he arrived.

Auburn isn't earning anything without players on the field. These guys are dealing with significant and long lasting damage to their body...and they're not being adequately compensated for it.

I might have a little more respect for the scholarship argument if the schools actually gave a shit about educating the players. They don't. They treat them as commodities.

 

[jrry32]

You ignore that James was on a good team with two great WRs and arguably the best and smartest regular season QB ever. I could speculate that Zac Stacy could have done nearly as well in that situation. I don't think James excels on a team like SJ did over most of his career with no offensive line.

I don't ignore that because it's simply not true. Edgerrin James's peak came before Peyton Manning became Peyton Manning and before Reggie Wayne was even a Colt. Much less Reggie Wayne. Yes, he had Marvin and Peyton. Two guys who were clearly great. Peyton had not become an elite player yet. Marvin did.

That all said, the idea that Zac Stacy could have done nearly as well is laughable. Are you going to denigrate Jerry Rice for having Joe Montana? How about Marshall Faulk for having Kurt Warner, Torry Holt, and Isaac Bruce?

Surely, you cannot hold this against James and not hold it against Faulk?

James, in his peak, was better player than Steven Jackson.

You miss my point though. Teams find good running backs in later rounds all the time. The league and draft has changed. I would take Demarco Murray in round 3 over Edgerinn James in round 1.

I would take Tom Brady in the 6th over Andrew Luck at #1 overall. That doesn't make Andrew Luck a wasted pick. Nor does it make it a logical approach that we'll find a Tom Brady in the 6th or a DeMarco Murray in the 3rd.

Being bluntly honest, the HB situation is the worst it's been in a long time. There isn't a lot of talent at the position right now. But if you look at 2013, 6 of the 13 1000+ yard rushers were 1st round picks. On top of those 6, 3 were 2nd round picks. On top of those 9, an additional 3 were third round picks. That left 1 out of 13 HBs that were drafted outside the 3rd round.

So like any other position, your best shot of finding a game changer in the first round. Sure, we could try to find a DeMarco Murray in the 3rd round but that's far from likely.

Interestingly enough, if you look at the top 16 starting QBs in Passer Rating last year, 9 of the 16 were drafted in the first round. That's not significantly higher than the % of 1000 yard rushers at HB drafted in the first round. But I don't think anyone would advocate passing on a QB in Round 1 because you might find one later. Obviously, there are other variables at play here such as positional value but I think people have some misconceptions when it comes to HB success vs. other position outside the first round.

On a final note, I think the tide might be changing when it comes to HB talent in the NFL. These things tend to be cyclical. We saw a dearth of talent at QB in the late 90s and early 2000s. Now we have arguably the strongest group of QBs in NFL history. I think we're about to see the HB position infused with young talent in the next few years. You have guys like Todd Gurley, Melvin Gordon, Ameer Abdullah, Mike Davis, Tevin Coleman, James Conner, etc. set to enter the league soon along with young HBs like LeVeon Bell, DeMarco Murray, Gio Bernard, etc. Things might just be changing at the HB position.

I also said that if you have Gurley rated far ahead of any other players on your board then sure, take him.

But if the Rams are staring at a great LB, FS, OG and C all rated in the same range as Gurley, taking the RB seems like it wouldn't be the best use of the first round pick, especially when they have three good RBs on the roster and teams find good RBs that fit their system all over the draft. San Diego signed a good one as an UDFA this year.

Teams find good LBs, FS, OG, and Cs that fit their system all over the draft. Take the best value.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

I don't ignore that because it's simply not true. Edgerrin James's peak came before Peyton Manning became Peyton Manning and before Reggie Wayne was even a Colt. Much less Reggie Wayne. Yes, he had Marvin and Peyton. Two guys who were clearly great. Peyton had not become an elite player yet. Marvin did.

That all said, the idea that Zac Stacy could have done nearly as well is laughable. Are you going to denigrate Jerry Rice for having Joe Montana? How about Marshall Faulk for having Kurt Warner, Torry Holt, and Isaac Bruce?

Surely, you cannot hold this against James and not hold it against Faulk?

James, in his peak, was better player than Steven Jackson.



I would take Tom Brady in the 6th over Andrew Luck at #1 overall. That doesn't make Andrew Luck a wasted pick. Nor does it make it a logical approach that we'll find a Tom Brady in the 6th or a DeMarco Murray in the 3rd.

Being bluntly honest, the HB situation is the worst it's been in a long time. There isn't a lot of talent at the position right now. But if you look at 2013, 6 of the 13 1000+ yard rushers were 1st round picks. On top of those 6, 3 were 2nd round picks. On top of those 9, an additional 3 were third round picks. That left 1 out of 13 HBs that were drafted outside the 3rd round.

So like any other position, your best shot of finding a game changer in the first round. Sure, we could try to find a DeMarco Murray in the 3rd round but that's far from likely.

Interestingly enough, if you look at the top 16 starting QBs in Passer Rating last year, 9 of the 16 were drafted in the first round. That's not significantly higher than the % of 1000 yard rushers at HB drafted in the first round. But I don't think anyone would advocate passing on a QB in Round 1 because you might find one later. Obviously, there are other variables at play here such as positional value but I think people have some misconceptions when it comes to HB success vs. other position outside the first round.

On a final note, I think the tide might be changing when it comes to HB talent in the NFL. These things tend to be cyclical. We saw a dearth of talent at QB in the late 90s and early 2000s. Now we have arguably the strongest group of QBs in NFL history. I think we're about to see the HB position infused with young talent in the next few years. You have guys like Todd Gurley, Melvin Gordon, Ameer Abdullah, Mike Davis, Tevin Coleman, James Conner, etc. set to enter the league soon along with young HBs like LeVeon Bell, DeMarco Murray, Gio Bernard, etc. Things might just be changing at the HB position.



Teams find good LBs, FS, OG, and Cs that fit their system all over the draft. Take the best value.

*sigh*

I also said -again- if Gurley is clealy rated higher than other picks you are considering then you take him. But if it is even then you consider bigger need. With Cunningham, Stacy, Mason, Watts I consider RB more of a luxury than linebacker, Center, FS. Apparently you do. *shrug*

 

[ShaneFalco]

people keep talking about cunningham, stacy, mason and watts, like they resemble anything close to what Gurley is.

 

[jrry32]

*sigh*

I also said -again- if Gurley is clealy rated higher than other picks you are considering then you take him. But if it is even then you consider bigger need. With Cunningham, Stacy, Mason, Watts I consider RB more of a luxury than linebacker, Center, FS. Apparently you do. *shrug*

We have Laurinaitis, Ogletree, and Dunbar at LB. We have McLeod and Joyner(hopefully) at FS. We have Wells, Barnes and Jones at C.

I read what you said the first time.

 

[Ramathon]

I would venture to say Stacy won us quite a few games last season. When he became the starter, we started winning, no?

I would venture to say that Stacy was one factor in the Rams 'turnaround' (if we can call it that) last year. They changed their whole offensive approach about the time he started playing. And then Bradford went down, and half the fan base attributed the turnaround to Clemens playing better than Bradford ever did.

I like Stacy. He's a good RB. He'd be a GREAT #2. But he's dinged up with some frequency..even if he's been great at playing through most of those dings. Can't say that I'm overly enamored of his receiving skills. So, no...I don't think Stacy 'won us quite a few games'. He was one contributor.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

We have Laurinaitis, Ogletree, and Dunbar at LB. We have McLeod and Joyner(hopefully) at FS. We have Wells, Barnes and Jones at C.

I read what you said the first time.

All worse than the RB position right now. Starting for Olinemen with injury history and age? McLeod or Joyner don't equal even an 'Edgerinn James' level talent at FS. Barnes or Jones areback up material so far and probably below league average if they start. Zero quality LBer depth that could start in a few years probably is a lesser need, I give you that.

 

[Prime Time]

Lol I made my own topic and for some damn reason it got put in this thread. I was wanting a legitimate debate about the issue, now it's going to be lost to the OP topic.

How is this any different than the topic of this thread?

"In light of the Georgia RB being suspended I thought I would see where everyone stood on the subject."

Why do we need two threads on the same college RB in the NFL section? Besides you are most welcome to steer the thread into the direction of what you wanted to talk about.

 

[jrry32]

All worse than the RB position right now. Starting for Olinemen with injury history and age? McLeod or Joyner don't equal even an 'Edgerinn James' level talent at FS. Barnes or Jones areback up material so far and probably below league average if they start. Zero quality LBer depth that could start in a few years probably is a lesser need, I give you that.

I don't think any of those positions...including HB have an "Edgerrin James level talent". But I do agree that FS and C are bigger needs. OG and LB might end up being that too. That all said, need isn't something that rules for draft decisions. It has a factor but it's not overwhelming. Plus, I think HB is very important to our offense and scheme. A dominant one is a game changer for our offense. Especially if we stick with Davis and Bradford.

 

[Ramathon]

The 1st round running back is just not the way to invest picks anymore. If your team is built and missing a key component (Packers), then maybe. I just personally don't see a reason to take a RB that early. With the proliferation of the spread offense, there are just so many physical specimens out there with very little wear and tear, find a guy who measure favorably and teach him how to tote the rock.

Jerrick McKinnon would be a great example, Isaiah Crowell who the Browns are pretty excited about is another. Do they have the resume of Gurley, not even. But that might be more of a positive.

Tell that to Seattle.

The way to invest picks these days is exactly the same as it's always been.....find as many great players as you can at each and every position. If your turn to draft comes up and the best player on your board is a RB, or FS, or LB, or what-the-heck-ever, and you believe that player to be a true difference maker, you take him.

You simply can't have too many 'great' players...regardless of position, and regardless of how many 'very good' ones you may already have at that position.

And I'm not saying Gurley is that guy. I'm not fooling myself into thinking I'm a whiz bang armchair talent evaluator. But if you're doing the drafting for a team, and you think he is, and he's available when your turn rolls around, you take him...unless you've got a Jim Brown or Marshall Faulk in their prime already on the team.

 

[blue4]

Auburn isn't earning anything without players on the field. These guys are dealing with significant and long lasting damage to their body...and they're not being adequately compensated for it.

I might have a little more respect for the scholarship argument if the schools actually gave a crap about educating the players. They don't. They treat them as commodities.

No one is stopping the student athletes from getting an education while playing. It happens all the time. It's football. It's a violent sport. Dont want to get hurt? Don't play football. You can either come away from college a pro player or a debt free college graduate. Either way you are better off than 90% of the rest of your age group. As long as they can't revoke your scholarship for injury, I don't really see what's to complain about.

 

[jrry32]

No one is stopping the student athletes from getting an education while playing. It happens all the time. It's football. It's a violent sport. Dont want to get hurt? Don't play football. You can either come away from college a pro player or a debt free college graduate. Either way you are better off than 90% of the rest of your age group. As long as they can't revoke your scholarship for injury, I don't really see what's to complain about.

They can revoke your scholarship for any reason. It's only a 1 year scholarship.

As far as your education claims go:
http://articles.philly.com/1991-09-10/sports/25803083_1_elliot-uzelac-robert-smith-football-program

It's even worse today. Athletes are pushed into certain majors and certain classes to keep them eligible. Professors are bribed and threatened to pass athletes. Tutors do their work for them.

Nobody stopping the athletes is irrelevant. The colleges aren't educating them. That's the deal. That's what they're being compensated with. If an athlete wants to get an education, they have to seek it out themselves.

And no, that's not acceptable. You can't claim players are getting fairly compensated with scholarships if they aren't receiving the education those scholarships pay for.

Your reasoning here is lacking. "Don't want to get hurt? Don't play football." Weak justification. Most of these guys want to go pro. They want to get paid. They shouldn't have to go through college and sacrifice their bodies to do that. With the money these college teams make, they should be paying these athletes.

 

[blue4]

They can revoke your scholarship for any reason. It's only a 1 year scholarship.

As far as your education claims go:
http://articles.philly.com/1991-09-10/sports/25803083_1_elliot-uzelac-robert-smith-football-program

It's even worse today. Athletes are pushed into certain majors and certain classes to keep them eligible. Professors are bribed and threatened to pass athletes. Tutors do their work for them.

Nobody stopping the athletes is irrelevant. The colleges aren't educating them. That's the deal. That's what they're being compensated with. If an athlete wants to get an education, they have to seek it out themselves.

And no, that's not acceptable. You can't claim players are getting fairly compensated with scholarships if they aren't receiving the education those scholarships pay for.

Your reasoning here is lacking. "Don't want to get hurt? Don't play football." Weak justification. Most of these guys want to go pro. They want to get paid. They shouldn't have to go through college and sacrifice their bodies to do that. With the money these college teams make, they should be paying these athletes.

Sorry don't agree at all. If the athlete wants an education they have to seek it themselves? So does the rest of the world. Try seeking your education in the military. They don't give you a pass on your duties either, and will push you to get what they want.

I think it's your reasoning that's lacking here. They want to go pro , make millions, but don't want to sacrifice their bodies? Join the rest of the world, we want to make lots of money with no sacrifice to our bodies as well.

You want to change something to help student athletes? Guarantee their scholarships if injured. Otherwise it seems a pretty good deal, esp for those kids who can barely spell their names and yet get a degree or go pro.

 

[jrry32]

Sorry don't agree at all. If the athlete wants an education they have to seek it themselves? So does the rest of the world. Try seeking your education in the military. They don't give you a pass on your duties either, and will push you to get what they want.

You've proven my point exactly. They're being COMPENSATED FOR PLAYING FOOTBALL WITH A FREE EDUCATION, right? Now, you're saying that they have to seek that education out themselves. That runs contrary to compensation. They're not being given an education. If they want the education, they have to go get it. They're no different than any other person.

And correct me if I'm wrong but you're paid while you're in the military, right? The military doesn't claim they're training you with practical skills and forgo paying you except for a stipend, right?

I think it's your reasoning that's lacking here. They want to go pro , make millions, but don't want to sacrifice their bodies? Join the rest of the world, we want to make lots of money with no sacrifice to our bodies as well.

Yea, you're not understanding my reasoning. They're willing to sacrifice their body to go pro and get paid...they're not getting paid or going pro in college. Do you think they'd be willing to sacrifice their body for free?

You want to change something to help student athletes? Guarantee their scholarships if injured. Otherwise it seems a pretty good deal, esp for those kids who can barely spell their names and yet get a degree or go pro.

That's a pretty awful deal. If a kid graduates while being able to barely spell his name, you failed to compensate him. You didn't educate him. That degree is worthless. So if he doesn't go pro, that kid beat his body to hell for nothing.

Guaranteeing their scholarships if injured isn't doing anything. If they're badly injured, they can usually get a medical hardship waiver. That's not a major issue here. That's admitting you think there is a problem and doing next to nothing to solve it.

 

[Mister Sin]

How is this any different than the topic of this thread?

"In light of the Georgia RB being suspended I thought I would see where everyone stood on the subject."

Why do we need two threads on the same college RB in the NFL section? Besides you are most welcome to steer the thread into the direction of what you wanted to talk about.

My intention wasn't to talk about Gurley. It was to discuss opinions on the pay to play. Ive watched coaches discuss it in a round table session, I've seen the documentary and I've had discussions with a few fans I know. It's something that truly interest me and I like to get opinions. I don't care what so ever that it was Gurley, he was merely the gateway to get the conversation going. I feel like it's a topic deserving of attention, not to be muddled by a separate conversation which is good on its own. I don't want to take away from the OP. I even posted in the off topic because I feel likes it's not so much a sports topic as a topic about athletes, if that makes since lol.

As far as would I take Gurley...hell yea.

 

[Athos]

When I see Gurley, imo, I see Lynch. But I guess you could see James as well.

Considering Stacy can't stay healthy, heck yes I'd take Gurley. He's stout. Can get in the face of a DE for pass blocking. Can catch out of the backfield, and as shown by KR TDs, can take it to the house at any time.

We don't really have a back right now that can take it to the house on any play. Maybe that's Mason. Not convinced.

 

[Prime Time]

My intention wasn't to talk about Gurley. It was to discuss opinions on the pay to play. Ive watched coaches discuss it in a round table session, I've seen the documentary and I've had discussions with a few fans I know. It's something that truly interest me and I like to get opinions. I don't care what so ever that it was Gurley, he was merely the gateway to get the conversation going. I feel like it's a topic deserving of attention, not to be muddled by a separate conversation which is good on its own. I don't want to take away from the OP. I even posted in the off topic because I feel likes it's not so much a sports topic as a topic about athletes, if that makes since lol.

As far as would I take Gurley...hell yea.

If you want, start another thread on that topic in the General Sports Talk section.

 

[blue4]

You've proven my point exactly. They're being COMPENSATED FOR PLAYING FOOTBALL WITH A FREE EDUCATION, right? Now, you're saying that they have to seek that education out themselves. That runs contrary to compensation. They're not being given an education. If they want the education, they have to go get it. They're no different than any other person.

And correct me if I'm wrong but you're paid while you're in the military, right? The military doesn't claim they're training you with practical skills and forgo paying you except for a stipend, right?



Yea, you're not understanding my reasoning. They're willing to sacrifice their body to go pro and get paid...they're not getting paid or going pro in college. Do you think they'd be willing to sacrifice their body for free?



That's a pretty awful deal. If a kid graduates while being able to barely spell his name, you failed to compensate him. You didn't educate him. That degree is worthless. So if he doesn't go pro, that kid beat his body to hell for nothing.

Guaranteeing their scholarships if injured isn't doing anything. If they're badly injured, they can usually get a medical hardship waiver. That's not a major issue here. That's admitting you think there is a problem and doing next to nothing to solve it.

Well, I can't say I agree with you. I don't see it as a huge problem. What is the difference between a stipend and being paid? I wrote out a much longer post, but just cut it. I doubt we are going to agree. Suffice it to say, they're getting a stipend and a free education (yes you might actually have to crack a book or try to learn something.) No one forces anyone to play football, and if they are concerned about the quality of their education they are free to either go to college like everyone else, or choose a school maybe outside of the SEC or the semi-pro conferences that will educate you.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

Some colleges honor scholarships even for an injured player and some have higher standards than others when they recruit. Look up John Urshel G at PSU. The guy is a math genius and is in the NFL. He was teaching courses in his Senior year.

The real answer is not to pay college athletes, it is to have two avenues to the pros. College and an NFL minor league for kids that don't care about scholarships and education, or cannot get accepted. They can get paid to play, and some of the extra schollies could be turned into academic scholarships.