Why Eddie Lacy fits even @ 16.

[bluecoconuts]

All the notion of super bowl, or don't take RB's in the first round or any of that nonsense is just that, nonsense. If there's a AP or another Jackson or something like that, you take him every time. But I don't see Lacy as a back like that, I don't really see any of the running backs in this draft as a home run type prospect, which is why I don't really want one, especially not early.

The NFL has changed, instead of a feature back that does it all, offenses have shifted to several players sharing the load, which has devalued the position, so these later picks can do much more. Again, if you can see one of those every down backs then you take him.

But our offense isn't going to be that next year. Pead and Richardson are going to get carries. I don't want to spend a high draft pick on someone who'll be splitting snaps that much.

Last year we had 410 rushing attempts, 365 by running backs. Lets say they split them equally, that's roughly 121 attempts per rusher (Richardson had 98 last year for comparison, Jackson 257). I don't want to spend a first round pick on that. If I'm picking a RB in the first round he better be able to carry the ball 250 times. We don't need a back that can carry the ball 250 times though, we need a back who can carry it 100-150 times. Those guys can be grabbed later in the draft.

 

[CGI_Ram]

I just don't see the need to invest a 1st on a RB.

Look no further than the decision to draft Pead with an "expensive pick" last year.

I am certain the Rams plan to surround Pead with competition, but the job is his.

Not to mention; unless its a Peterson or Jackson type of player... the day of the high first round RB is gone.


Sent from my mom's basement using Tapatalk HD

 

[-X-]

All the notion of super bowl, or don't take RB's in the first round or any of that nonsense is just that, nonsense. If there's a AP or another Jackson or something like that, you take him every time. But I don't see Lacy as a back like that, I don't really see any of the running backs in this draft as a home run type prospect, which is why I don't really want one, especially not early.

The NFL has changed, instead of a feature back that does it all, offenses have shifted to several players sharing the load, which has devalued the position, so these later picks can do much more. Again, if you can see one of those every down backs then you take him.

But our offense isn't going to be that next year. Pead and Richardson are going to get carries. I don't want to spend a high draft pick on someone who'll be splitting snaps that much.

Last year we had 410 rushing attempts, 365 by running backs. Lets say they split them equally, that's roughly 121 attempts per rusher (Richardson had 98 last year for comparison, Jackson 257). I don't want to spend a first round pick on that. If I'm picking a RB in the first round he better be able to carry the ball 250 times. We don't need a back that can carry the ball 250 times though, we need a back who can carry it 100-150 times. Those guys can be grabbed later in the draft.

Precisely. The return on the investment would be too little, and that pick can be used on a player who could contribute much more than that. I'm also in agreement that whether or not a RB was picked in the first round is irrelevant as it relates to teams that have won a Superbowl. That 'formula' can be used a 100 different ways.

 

[A55VA6]

I wouldn't be opposed to drafting him. But with Pead and Richardson, do we need to get him rather than another RB in a later round?

 

[jrry32]

I agree with the point you're making but your evidence is just as much of a reach as the one Angry Ram made.

So 11 out of the past 12 Super Bowl Champions isn't enough evidence for you? What is the old saying? One is an accident. Two is a trend. And the trend shows you don't draft RB's in the first round anymore and win Super Bowls. No matter how good that RB is.

No, it's not enough. The 2009 Steelers went to the Super Bowl and lost to Green Bay Packers. Their starting HB was 1st rounder Rashard Mendenhall...unless you're attempting to claim that they lost BECAUSE they had a first round HB...you aren't able to prove causation.

Better yet, coming off their Super Bowl victory, the New York Giants picked a HB in the 1st round last year. So they obviously disagree with you about drafting HBs and winning Super Bowl...but what would their FO know? They just built a Super Bowl winning team...

 

[Lesson]

I think drafting a 1st round QB is much more towards the right step to building a SB winning team than it is to draft a RB in the 1st. I can't remember off the top of my head, but just to give an example, since the 2000 season, only 2 QBs not drafted in the 1st round were picked in other rounds or undrafted(Brad Johnson and Tom Brady). I think a RB in the 70's-80's would have been a much more difficult position to fill adequately than it is now. The way the game is played now, it's a pro-passing league. I think a RB not being drafted in the 1st round for all but 1 of the last 12 SB winners shows that a 1st round RB isn't needed to win, but it definitely couldn't hurt.

 

[Angry Ram]

Angry Ram......That is a REEEEEEEAAAAAAACCCCCHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

Name the last time a team won a Super Bowl where their starting RB was a former first round pick that they chose?

Answer: Joseph Addai (Colts) 2006

Name how many teams have won a Super Bowl since the 2001 season where their starting RB was a former first round pick that they chose?

Answer: Joseph Addai (Colts) 2006

Saying something is a "reach" is nothing more than putting a label.

There are more factors going into a Super Bowl team than just a 1st round RB, BTW. Every Super Bowl team didn't have a 1st round LT, or a 1st round gaurd, QB, etc.

Damn, now that I think about it and use your logic...no player is worth taking in the 1st b/c there's been a Super Bowl with a starter taken in another round!

I wouldn't be opposed to drafting him. But with Pead and Richardson, do we need to get him rather than another RB in a later round?

The thing with Isaiah Pead is college graduation, late start...I get all that, but for a RB, the transition to the pros isn't as hard as say, WR. He only got 10 touches! And half of those came week 17. For all the late round RBs being thrown around, Isaiah Pead was a fairly early pick that didn't amount to much his rookie year. I think Eddie Lacy and Isaiah Pead is better than Isaiah Pead and Daryl Richardson and whoever.

Angry, I'm fucking with you. I know it's an unpopular view and honestly, I trust the judgement of our brain trust so i wknt be pissed if they dont take my guy. But if it were ME making the pick...? Lacy over Austin every day.

Word. Eddie Lacy would see the field much more.

I don't understand what you're trying to prove. Are you saying those teams wouldn't have won the SuperBowl if their starting RBs WERE first rounders? You've identified a trend, but it's irrelevant. You've just called me hindsight guy, isn't looking at past trends being that guy too?

 

[iced]

would rather stick with what we got and improve the line, receiver, or safety position