Some fun here. Edwards-Helaire rushed for 1,415 yards and 16 touchdowns as a junior .. all-purpose yards -- receiving (55 receptions, 453 yards) and kick returner (KEY) 10 returns, 214 yards pic.twitter.com/3Duq1jjy6J
Holy offense Bat Man. I love Clyde Edwards-Helaire. He is best Rb in the draft. Watkins and Hill deep. Kelce in the middle. And Edwards-Helaire underneath. Good Luck defenses.
Brett Veach told Andy Reid to watch some Clyde Edwards-Helaire film and told Reid you’ll see Brian Westbrook. Reid watched. Then got back to Veach and said he’s better than Westbrook.
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
Who on my list isn't generational? Okay, Curtis might be on the fence there, and maybe Ricky, but they're right there. But look at their stats; they both were pretty damned good running/receiving backs for most of their careers. They'd be a plus on nearly any team, certainly most any team in 2020.
I would never put Watters in the same group with Bo, LT, Sanders, Smith, Brown, etc
And I really wouldn't put Martin in that group either.
Now, Bo didn't have the career of Sanders, Smith, Brown, etc. but I think it's undeniable that he was a generational runner back, even with his limited body of work.
But, I don't think Watters or Martin belong in the conversation about generational running backs, and I don't care what stats they accumulated. Because if those two were on that level, then Frank Gore would be too, and while he is a freak of nature still playing RB after all these years, he is just not on those others player's level.
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
In this day and age, I would NEVER take a RB in the top 15.
Look at Saquon Barkely. He's now missed 8 games in 2 seasons, after making it through his rookie year.
As much as we lamented RBBC back in the 1990's, the NFL has changed. Feature backs just aren't worth it anymore. You need a couple of guys that can present matchup problems all over the field.
Name a RB drafted in the top 10 in the last 10 years that actually ended up being worth the pick. McCaffrey was 8th overall, that might be it.
Leonard Fournette? Meh. As good as Ezekiel Elliott is, you can't win playoff games feeding him the ball like that.
Trent Richardson was a complete bust.
I mean, I'm probably missing a few but other than McCaffrey, who is the real difference maker on that list?
The top of the draft is for DE, DT, OT, and QB. That's where championship teams are built when it comes down to it.
Never was that high on Fournette. Zeke in his prime was pretty damned good, his weird personality aside. McCaffrey is a no-brainer.
Saquon is stuck with the 2nd worst team in the league three years running. Pretty tough to evaluate him right now.
If the Chiefs could've taken him, you wouldn't have taken him? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
If the Chiefs could've taken him, you wouldn't have taken him?
Not in the top 5, no. I would have taken Chubb, Nelson, and/or McGlinchey over Barkley myself. Maybe even Denzel Ward, so I could get the 5-year contract to control his cost since CB's get so expensive.
I would never take a RB in the top 10. Ever. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ChiefsFanatic:
I would never put Watters in the same group with Bo, LT, Sanders, Smith, Brown, etc
And I really wouldn't put Martin in that group either.
Now, Bo didn't have the career of Sanders, Smith, Brown, etc. but I think it's undeniable that he was a generational runner back, even with his limited body of work.
But, I don't think Watters or Martin belong in the conversation about generational running backs, and I don't care what stats they accumulated. Because if those two were on that level, then Frank Gore would be too, and while he is a freak of nature still playing RB after all these years, he is just not on those others player's level.
But, it's just an opinion.
Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk
Okay, yeah I agree that Curtis and Watters aren't on the same level as the others, but they were among the best backs of their generation surely. So while I'll give you that they might not be "generational" in the strictest sense of the word, they definitely were among the best backs during their time. Which is what I was trying to get at with that list. Any one of those guys would be a welcome addition on just about any team right now (assuming they were in their prime years of course), whether you care to label them with the "generational" tag or not. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
Not in the top 5, no. I would have taken Chubb, Nelson, and/or McGlinchey over Barkley myself. Maybe even Denzel Ward, so I could get the 5-year contract to control his cost since CB's get so expensive.
I would never take a RB in the top 10. Ever.
Whoa, I didn't say top 5, did I? I thought I said somewhere in the top 20. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
The answer is still no.
I'm not taking an ILB or RB in the top 20.
In the top 10: DE/Edge, DT, OT, QB
In the top 20/borderline top 10: CB, S, OG/C, WR, TE
Anywhere else: RB, ILB
Well then I guess I'm on the other side of the fence. Because if I had a top 10 pick and Marshall Faulk/Barry Sanders/LT/Bo Jackson falls to me (and I needed a RB), I'd take him instantly. [Reply]
Just keep that same energy if a damn good fatty is there at 32. A lot of times 32 is no mans land kind of like this year. Nobody really sexy was available except at a position that’s discounted.
If we got an IOL who was playing as good as Osemele was for cheap for 5 years nobody here would bitch about it.
It really comes down to ensuring your pick is a hit and not another Breeland Speaks. But hey when your staff is hitting on several picks throughout the draft like we did this year you gain a lot of flexibility. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla:
Martin's 4.0 yards per carry isn't going to excite anyone enough to spend a first on him. Hell, that wouldn't be top 10 this season.
Okay, here's the stat thing again. So let's put this in a little context. That 4 yds/carry; who was he playing for, in what kind of offense, who was his QB, and how did defenses play him?
Or if we want to make this simpler: do you think CM would be more or less efficient in Andy's offense? Would CM's numbers overall be better or the same if he faced 90% light boxes like he would in the Chiefs offense? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
Well then I guess I'm on the other side of the fence. Because if I had a top 10 pick and Marshall Faulk/Barry Sanders/LT/Bo Jackson falls to me (and I needed a RB), I'd take him instantly.
Building around a RB just doesn't work in this version of the NFL. Taking a RB that high is pretty much guaranteeing you're going to have too much emphasis on running the ball. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
Building around a RB just doesn't work in this version of the NFL. Taking a RB that high is pretty much guaranteeing you're going to have too much emphasis on running the ball.
Again 'whoa,' I'm not talking about building a team from basically scratch; I'm talking you have your QB, one or two receiving weapons that are top tier or close, a decent defense. Your team is missing a RB (plus a couple holes maybe on offense/defense like most teams in the middle/lower tier). Or a good team that somehow trades their way into the top 10. Either way, you have a need at RB; I'm taking one of those guys no questions asked.
Now, if the scenario is "we're building a team from the ground up and we have a top 5 pick," then no, I don't take even a generational RB there because i don't even have an OL probably.
To take an RB in the top 5 you at least have to have an OL, at least a mid-tier QB, at least a couple decent receivers. You can build a quality defense in three years, but you'd have to have all those other things to make the RB pick make sense. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RunKC:
Just keep that same energy if a damn good fatty is there at 32. A lot of times 32 is no mans land kind of like this year. Nobody really sexy was available except at a position that’s discounted.
If we got an IOL who was playing as good as Osemele was for cheap for 5 years nobody here would bitch about it.
It really comes down to ensuring your pick is a hit and not another Breeland Speaks. But hey when your staff is hitting on several picks throughout the draft like we did this year you gain a lot of flexibility.
Yeah can’t pull a Seattle, who has cost themselves at least one more Super Bowl appearance with their shitty 1st round drafting of the past several years. I think it is costing them again as we speak with that awful defense.
Idk, I just think guys have a great chance to reach their ceiling as players in Kansas City right now, so whoever they pick, I will have confidence in said player. If its a center, awesome. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
Again 'whoa,' I'm not talking about building a team from basically scratch; I'm talking you have your QB, one or two receiving weapons that are top tier or close, a decent defense. Your team is missing a RB (plus a couple holes maybe on offense/defense like most teams in the middle/lower tier). Or a good team that somehow trades their way into the top 10. Either way, you have a need at RB; I'm taking one of those guys no questions asked.
Now, if the scenario is "we're building a team from the ground up and we have a top 5 pick," then no, I don't take even a generational RB there because i don't even have an OL probably.
To take an RB in the top 5 you at least have to have an OL, at least a mid-tier QB, at least a couple decent receivers. You can build a quality defense in three years, but you'd have to have all those other things to make the RB pick make sense.
In your scenario, I look to add a weapon like a WR or TE, or depth on the defensive line or the defensive backfield with an eye to replacing key pieces in the future, even though you may be set now.
I still wouldn't take a RB. I'd take one or even two later. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
In your scenario, I look to add a weapon like a WR or TE, or depth on the defensive line or the defensive backfield with an eye to replacing key pieces in the future, even though you may be set now.
I still wouldn't take a RB. I'd take one or even two later.
In my scenario you don't have a RB1.
I just don't see adding a depth player with a top 15-20 pick. Depth players can be found in almost any lower round. A generational/near-generational RB not so much. [Reply]
Taking an RB in round one usually is not good. They just don't affect wins and losses enough to do it. WR same thing. The best backs we have had were not 1st rounders. [Reply]