WrigleyField 22
-
Posts
19,041 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
16
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by WrigleyField 22
-
God forbid he smoked pot years ago and someone filmed it. Seriously, the dude was hacked (possibly his personal cell in addition to his twitter) and is losing millions, but he deserves it cuz he took a bong hit in a gas mask.
-
Yea this is definitely hurting Tunsil. Another team that could have used a OT.
-
Uh yea.
-
Whoa.
-
Jerry Jones stuff.
-
We have Dallas on our schedule this year don't we? We gonna be run over.
-
Good for defensive players falling hopefully.
-
First (mild) surprise.
-
Will this man be the newest/sexiest Chicago Bear?
-
Catching depth is now an issue
WrigleyField 22 replied to jersey cubs fan's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
Thanks for nothing Theo! -
I'm still a little scared of Jack's knee and wavering on Stanley, but I feel about the same.
-
I don't think low ceiling is that fair of an assessment.
-
Depends if Jerry's underlings convince him otherwise or not.
-
Eh depends how good you are at evaluating talent, Jankowski was probably one of the Raiders better picks for many years, lol.
-
I can't find it, but there was a recent article finding that RBs aren't that much different than every other position in that the elite are typically found in the first round and there's not a lot of value in RBs taken in the middle rounds (although there's value in the 6/7 round and UDFA). Teams should never be afraid to take the best player available regardless of position. Yea about the only exception is a QB if you already have a long term established guy and its an early (1st or high second) pick, then you better be shopping that pick.
-
This about sums up the anti-RB argument and is just meaningless. Sure, you can find it in a 3rd - 4th round guy. You can find a Hall of Fame QB in the 6th and HOF defensive end in the 8th if it still existed. You can find pro bowl qbs in grocery store aisles as well. It's not about whether or not you can theoretically get the same production later. Your list is an argument against taking multiple RBs in the first round every year. It's not an argument against a RB being worthy of the 11th pick of the draft. The only real RB of impact I could find the past several years past Rd 3 is Freeman, who's done it for a year, and an undrafted Foster who ended up in a great RB system. Few other flash in the pan guys who did it for a year or two at best. RB is probably closer to QB than other positions where you have to draft high if you want a good player, Tom Bradys and Arian Fosters and Jamarcus Russels and Trent Richardsons, notwithstanding.
-
Now do that for every position and also for the rest of the draft rounds. Also, yea add Wisconsin to the list with Bama.
-
Looking at the past 7 years or so, it's mostly just a bunch of RB busts from Alabama in the first round. Non Alabama RB in the first are probably out performing many other positions like DE or CB. So don't draft Henry. 2007 had AP, and 2008 had a ton of the rest of the good RB over the past few years, all before pick 73. 2009-2015, most good backs came from round 1 or 2. Just stay away from the Bama guys, they can't handle running behind a worse line and better competetion.
-
Well, you've had Peterson, Forte, Gore and Williams all being some sort of useful to excellent into their 30s. Marshawn Lynch had 8 badass seasons, after being drafted 12th. Jamaal Charles has basically lost two seasons to injury in his 8 seasons in the NFL, but has been badass when healthy. There are very good running backs that last more than 3-4 years. For years running backs were over drafted. You can find useful ones later in the draft. And there has since been what I consider an over correction in how teams draft RB. But the top of the draft is littered with busts from every position, a lot that people simply forget if they weren't QB or RB. And you can and should consider taking the best RB at 11. Yea I think overcorrection is the right way to look at it. There were just a couple weak RB classes in a row during the same time that teams were correcting the RB valuation and suddenly "no first round RB ever" became a thing. But really a lot of the top backs during that time were among the top rated in their respective classes, they were just going in the second or third round, meanwhile out producing many first round busts at DE, CB, QB, etc.
-
Yeah. To me, for the most part, you get a guy who is NFL caliber and you hand him the ball and stuff happens and mostly success depends on the scheme and blocking and complimentary talent, with some being a bit better than others. Which could probably be said of every position outside of QB. And yet some players at every position transcend scheme.
-
That has been rumored? Yea apparently Gase has offered up the Dolphins 4th. Or discussed the idea at a high level. Of course there's rumors they want to move back up in the top 10, which probably won't both happen.
-
That's not true at all, or if it is it describes every position but QB. There are plenty of difference makers at RB. The bigger issue with the investment is probably this shelf life issue. Where a lineman, QB, or WR can dominate into their 30s, RB as a while will give you less years on average. without even getting into shelf life, i think we have enough weak spots that adding a 1st round talent at one of them will have much more of an impact than taking snaps from langford and carey and giving them to zeke elliot will. or maybe PFF is right and langford sucks ass and then i'm completely wrong. I don't think Langford sucks ass, but do think his impact was overrated. He's a nice rotational piece.
-
I think left tackle is a huge hole and Slauson is now on the wrong side of 30. I think the line is short-term stable, but very thin and nowhere near a strength. If your line isn't a strength then your skill positions players have to be if you want to actually be good. LT is not a huge hole. Leno was basically an average LT, and that was as a second year 7th rounder. Not that he couldn't fall off, of course, but LT is no more important than any other individual line spot, IMO. Slauson is aging, and like I said I always want to see them investing in the OL development, but crossing the 30 threshold for a OG/C isn't the same as a RB. But the "need" philosophy is okay with short term stable anyways. Which neither of us seems to support anyways. So yea. Whatever. Give me Conklin. Trade Slausson for a 4th rounder as has been rumoured. I'd be happy.
-
That's not true at all, or if it is it describes every position but QB. There are plenty of difference makers at RB. The bigger issue with the investment is probably this shelf life issue. Where a lineman, QB, or WR can dominate into their 30s, RB as a while will give you less years on average.
-
That's a weird reason. That's why you pick a guy in the third round, not the first round. The persuasion should be that he has as good a chance as anyone in the past 9 years to be the next Adrian Peterson. I guess I haven't paid enough attention - is he really rated that highly? Depends on the evaluator obviously, but he is at least on par with Gurley who looks to have been worth his slot last year. So I'm not saying he was the prospect AP was, but he's the next best thing.
