WrigleyField 22
-
Posts
19,067 -
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
-
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.
-
So spend your 3rd - 7th picks on "sufficient coverage" players. Use the 11th pick in the draft for the biggest difference maker. That also why they went out and signed three free agents. I dont even disagree with this philosophy, so I'm not sure what we're going back and forth about, lol.
-
I'd say sufficient coverage in football meanseason a lot. Merely not sucking at every spot is a pretty big deal. Then you play to the strengths of whoever your star players are. They've done quite a bit already to improve O and D, but a third CB and S, and probably a DL (depending on your view of the 2014 guys) are pretty big needs to meet the sufficient threshold on D. Or OLB because while Houston and Young areaders sufficient they'll be gone soon. Yes, it means a lot. It's why the Bears were a respectable 6-10 and not a pitiful 4-12. But they weren't a good offense and need lots of help. They have coverage, but they need impact on both sides of the ball. This offseason has had a lot of people obsessed with defensive improvements and ignoring the offense and it is baffling to me. The offense needs better players. I've been pretty concerned about the offense, but think they've already done a pretty good job of improving and stabilizing the line. And they should hopefully get like 20+ extra games from Jeffery, White, and Royal. They gave lost a bit, including Gase, but the D has always hado a longer way to go than the O.
-
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.
-
Of course if the argument is just that they still need a lot either way to be SB contenders, they are more than a year away no matter what, so that just goes back to BPA, which I support.
-
I'd say sufficient coverage in football meanseason a lot. Merely not sucking at every spot is a pretty big deal. Then you play to the strengths of whoever your star players are. They've done quite a bit already to improve O and D, but a third CB and S, and probably a DL (depending on your view of the 2014 guys) are pretty big needs to meet the sufficient threshold on D. Or OLB because while Houston and Young are sufficient they'll be gone soon.
-
Blackhawks playoffs 2016: The games finally mean something
WrigleyField 22 replied to bukie's topic in Other Sports
the league's reaction to hossa styled contracts was to install some sort of penalty for guys that do retire, so it doesn't help at all if he retires early. I thought that didn't effect deals signed before that rule was in place. -
that's just crazy talk why are people pretending the offense doesn't have glaring needs? Alshon is the only thing resembling an offensive difference maker and he's as unreliable as such a player gets. I wouldn't call any of the offensives needs glaring. They can't ignore it, but they have pretty sufficient coverage everywhere but TE, which obviously has no one worthy at 11. A day two pick at a skill position and some day three depth would be sufficient as coverage for 2016 and development pieces beyond that. That said, I'm not really a needs type. Give me BPA, offense or defense. Either can be improved still.
-
Elliott isn't really a normal RB though. He could be a top 5 RB which is still worth a first rounder, and a top 10 pick. The one thing I would say is next year is supposed to be a great RB year. You could try and committee it and see if Langford proves his worth as the top dog this year. If not you have a good opportunity to fill the hole next draft. I definitely wouldnt trade up for him thoigh, and taking him at 11 depends on who else is there. I feel like after QB, RB has the biggest miss rate at the top of the draft. If they are a great RB, you get amazing production over a 5-6 year period if there are no injuries, but the risk of having the next Cedric Benson/Curtis Enis is there and the Bears cannot afford to miss badly on a 1st rounder right now (I guess no team can really afford to but with the pieces starting to come together for the Bears it would be great time to hit on your 1st) Well I imagine QB has the biggest miss rate in general. RB, I don't know. Even your example with Benson, who only went that high because it was a shitty draft, ended up being a fairly productive lead back when put in a better situation than Chicago. Definitely have a point about their shelf life though. If they can produce through their entire second contract like Forte did, you are in the 90th percentile of results.
-
Elliott isn't really a normal RB though. He could be a top 5 RB which is still worth a first rounder, and a top 10 pick. The one thing I would say is next year is supposed to be a great RB year. You could try and committee it and see if Langford proves his worth as the top dog this year. If not you have a good opportunity to fill the hole next draft. I definitely wouldnt trade up for him thoigh, and taking him at 11 depends on who else is there. I just think there are bigger needs than RB. I'd much rather improve the line, which can make an average rb look like a great one. A great RB can also make up for a lines weaknesses. I really wouldn't complain about any position at 11, but I think RB is a bigger overall need than OL at this point, though neither are true Round 1 needs, IMO. If we're going true need based, 11 can only be a defensive pick.
-
Agree. Too easy to find RB's later on. Elliott isn't really a normal RB though. He could be a top 5 RB which is still worth a first rounder, and a top 10 pick. The one thing I would say is next year is supposed to be a great RB year. You could try and committee it and see if Langford proves his worth as the top dog this year. If not you have a good opportunity to fill the hole next draft. I definitely wouldnt trade up for him thoigh, and taking him at 11 depends on who else is there.
-
Blackhawks playoffs 2016: The games finally mean something
WrigleyField 22 replied to bukie's topic in Other Sports
Stupid St Louis. I gotta stay off Facebook now.
