AFC East draft outlook

[KB21]

With all due respect.... dated thinking.

With all due respect, history repeats itself. The NFL is not a game where you can simply pass the ball and win. If it were, then Spurrier's system would have worked in the NFL. This is a league where balanced teams win.

 

[@@@]

The fact serviceable backs can be picked up later as well doesn't change the fact every succesfull receiver in the past 20 years not named keyshawn johnson was taken outside of the top 5

 

[thedayafter]

I don't think its just about the ability to replace a player, I think its more about finding a playmaker.

I do think its easier to find a playmaker at runningback in the third or fourth rounds than it is to find a playmaker at wide receiver in those rounds.

I also think due to the punishment they receive taking a runner with a top two pick should be reserved for a truly rare player, I don't see that in any of these runners, they all have flaws.

"Playmakers" today.... right now.... the "playmakers" are WR's and QB's.... RB's are commodities for all the reasons you listed.....

 

[thedayafter]

With all due respect, history repeats itself. The NFL is not a game where you can simply pass the ball and win. If it were, then Spurrier's system would have worked in the NFL. This is a league where balanced teams win.

History does repeat.... and the history we are in the process of repeating for the next season or two is wide open high scoring, quick strike football... think old AFL.... the NFL changed the rules to make this happen... teams are adapting... it changes the landscape of "playmakers"...... eventually the defenses will catch up and the RB position will come back into power.... the cycle (and rules) are clearly slanted towards WR's at this time....

 

[thedayafter]

The fact serviceable backs can be picked up later as well doesn't change the fact every succesfull receiver in the past 20 years not named keyshawn johnson was taken outside of the top 5

too broad of statement.....

 

[thedayafter]

With all due respect, history repeats itself. The NFL is not a game where you can simply pass the ball and win. If it were, then Spurrier's system would have worked in the NFL. This is a league where balanced teams win.

C'mon KB your better than that..... "Spurrier's system"..... I agree balance is and always will be important over time.... but right now the cycle is clearly dictating WR's and even TE's are becoming dominate.....

 

[rafael]

I disagree with this, basically because it is completely false. Let's take a look at the running backs that were drafted in the top 5 since 1989:

1989: Barry Sanders, #3
1990: Blair Thomas, #2
1993: Garrison Hearst, #3
1994: Marshall Faulk, #2
1995: Ki-Jana Carter, #1
1998: Curtis Enis, #5
1999: Edgerrin James, #4
1999: Ricky Williams, #5
2000: Jamal Lewis, #5
2001: LaDainian Tomlinson, #5

Ten runners taken with top five picks over that time span. Out of those ten, only three are considered busts. The only thing this tells me is to not drat running backs from Penn State, because the three busts played for Penn State.

Now, let's take a look at the receivers taken with top 5 picks over that same time span:

1992: Desmond Howard, #4
1995: Michael Westbrook, #4
1996: Keyshawn Johnson, #1
2000: Peter Warrick, #4
2003: Charles Rogers, #2
2003: Andre Johnson, #3
2004: Larry Fitzgerald, #3

Seven receivers were taken with top 5 picks over that same time span. Out of these seven, two were flat out busts. One can be considered a bust for how high he was taken (Warrick). One definitely has not performed up to #1 overall pick standards (Johnson). One has been an injury bust so far (Rogers).

Only Andre Johnson is a complete stud on the field at this point, though Fitzgerald should get better as he gains experience.

The problem I see with taking a RB is that the bar is higher. For Brown (whom I love) to be a good pick he pretty much has to be LT. If he ends up being Chris Brown (who is a good RB) then we wasted our #2 pick and we are overpaying (salarywise) for production we could get in the third round of the draft. A QB is different. If Smith (for example) becomes Pennington (which I see as a worst case) then I'm dissappointed but we still at least got a 1st round player.

 

[@@@]

too broad of statement.....

well since andre johnson is the only other receiver taken in the top 5 in the last 20 years to post a 1000 yard season i'd say it was pretty accurate

 

[HybridPHIN 23]

Thomas, Hearst, Carter, Enis, and Williams were definitely not worth the pick they were drafted at.

Ricky Williams was most certainly worth the #5... he ran for around 7500 yrds in his first 5 seasons, with a rushing title. The guy was an elite specimen. Also got New Orleans TWO first rounders when they traded him.

 

[thedayafter]

well since andre johnson is the only other receiver taken in the top 5 in the last 20 years to post a 1000 yard season i'd say it was pretty accurate

See rule changes.....

 

[@@@]

See rule changes.....

didn't help larry fitzgerald

 

[Dredd1050]

Ricky Williams was most certainly worth the #5... he ran for around 7500 yrds in his first 5 seasons, with a rushing title. The guy was an elite specimen. Also got New Orleans TWO first rounders when they traded him.

I thought we were using hindsight here? How many yards and TD's did he rush for last year? How many do you think he'll rush for this year? Do you think Ditka drafted him at 5 for 4 years? HE WASN'T WORTH THE PICK. Plain and simple.

 

[thedayafter]

Look at it this way..... you have 2-4 WR/TE positions on the field that can make plays... you have 1 RB...... with the new bump rule the playmakers are these positions.... this is especially true because hardly ANY team has a shut-down CB.... the odds AND rules now favor these position's.... get the ball out in quick fashion... open up the defense.... hurt them with play action.... hurt them on top.....

 

[afishfan]

I would agree with the premise about replacement value, but then he says that Braylon Edwards would be the logical choice. If the argument against taking a running back is replacement value, then what is the argument for taking a wide receiver? A wide receiver is just as replaceable as a running back, if not more so. Plus, everyone knows that rookie wide receivers rarely ever make the type of impact you want them to make early in their careers.

Regardless of who I think is the better player, if the argument against taking a running back is the idea that you can get 90% of the production at a much cheaper rate, then that argument should apply to the wide receiver position as well.

If this were a draft where there was a legitimate top flight left tackle prospect or a stud defensive lineman, then the pick would be easy to make because those are two of the four positions that carry the most value. This is not the case in this draft, so unless you are completely sold on the quarterback prospects in the first round, you have to base this on a best player basis. The player rankings I did over a month ago for this website have the top two players as Edwards and Benson, and it's because I think they are the two best football players in this draft. They just happen to play the positions that are considered to be the most replacealbe positions on the team, outside of safety and linebacker.

O.K. I guess YOU missed the point. It DOES NOT apply to wide reciever as well. And that is why he says Edwards is the guy. We don't need a rookie wide receiver to put up huge numbers we have Booker and Chambers, but need a good 3rd option.

 

[Dbergan]

If it were, then Spurrier's system would have worked in the NFL. This is a league where balanced teams win.

I don't agree at all. Spurriers system failed because he didnt account for the NFL defense ref speed, performance...period. Anyone who ever watched Florida ball knows that Steve always had a solid running game..... :shakeno: