TD alt

Dude, you can probably do that with every single position. My point is that on the field, RBs play a key role. They play a vital role on every single play. The position is one of the most important in football. Generally, if you have a very good one, that puts you even more ahead of the game. You can try and argue otherwise, but anyone that knows basically anything about the game, knows that the position is vital to the game. The position is highly valued and central to the game. That's why teams try and acquire a top one via the draft, or in free agency, especially if they're on the cusp of championships. All that being said, the position has a relatively short shelf life due to the sheer physicality and centrality of it, so it takes a toll on the best of them. As such that has affected its market value as a whole--not the value that it has on Sundays--and that has caused teams to be reluctant to pay top-of-the-line money for RBs on a relative basis when it comes time to renew their contracts. Even still, the cream of crop can still make a decent payday compared to most players on the team, even though their salaries are a fraction of what some QBs, DEs, and WRs make due to the nature of those positions. But, you know what? Their skills are still coveted, and the vital roles that they play are still central to a team's success. Taking everything into account, smart GMs are always trying to balance the necessity of their play vs the brutality of the position vs what is fair pay in light of all of those realities. I can't say it any more simple than that. Hopefully you understand what I'm saying, even if you don't agree with everything (or anything). It's OK either way. We're still good.

The league says otherwise

Shall we go draft by draft? Shall we talk about Saquon, King Henry, McCaffrey and Josh Jacobs?

Give me a year and a half. I'll be able to buy it.

They're not trading XL.

You see that's where we disagree. Nearly almost every year there is at least one or two backs taken in the first round. If was as you say, then this wouldn't be. Runningbacks are very much prioritized until teams can get one better. It's just the nature of the beast, just like their wear and tear, which causes most of them to lose value by the time of their contract renewals. But the special ones still retain value, if not with their original teams with another.

Well he is 32. We need spot guys, particularly with developing rookies. He can still be effective, particularly in a rotation. He was rated in the top quarter of DEs (47th of 211) by PFF based upon his grades.

Clowney wasn't out there with his hands in his pocket. He was putting in work that allowed others, including Wonnum, to eat.

RBs have always had a lot of positional value, especially the top ones in a class. On the field, they are key. Their value only comes into question at the time of contract renewal for different reasons, but their positional value in regards to the actual dynamics of the game is as important as ever.

That's been happening since last night. Sigh.

He's been dinged for some poor tackling. He needs to stick to the fundamentals of tackling and getting his man to the ground, then hitting hard and missing. The talent and tenacity are there. Consistency in tackling is where he can become a diamond.

On that we can agree.

I don't know why people are hating. Etienne has three-down back potential.

Yeah, I know, I saw him tearing teams up with limited snaps. I'm sure that's also why Georgia helped sell him on switching sides. The talent is there.

Well, as you probably have picked up along the way, I am a Georgia alum, so I kinda have to like them. Glad you don't hate 'em. SEC rules!

Not trying to be a homer, but Georgia doesn't recruit bad backs. Anyone who knows the Dawgs' history knows that our backs will at least be solid. Etienne is that. https://youtu.be/DLMNJuNqvAU?si=0GjDoMLSI85mN5wd

Gotta have something to complain about. You know.

Didn't know anything about the guy? Are you kidding me? Go Dawgs!

I despise draft value charts.

That's easy to say because you're not privy to their boards. It's hard for me to believe that DJ Johnson was the best on our board. The higher graded LBs were running out, we felt that we had to get one, so we reached.

Ah ha, would he have been? I would say we gave them a pass on the reach even with Cam Ward because he was a QB. There were likely a handful of players whom most NFL types were generational type players during the pre draft process, and Ward wasn't one of them. That being said, we give teams a reach pass in the first round for QBs because franchise QBs are so hard to find, but also central to a team's success. But, take the Falcons, I'm pretty sure that most will say that they reached for James Pearce by giving up way too much value to jump up and get him.

Sometimes it just makes you feel better to pay, at least until you don't have to. Peace of mind in lean times until you're rich. Sure it's a mindset, but you gotta actually have to prove to yourself that you're rich first.

Well, as far as I know, teams don't publish that information, nor should they. We can only draw conclusions based on the knowledge and opinions of others. It's just the nature of the beast. For example, if Tennessee has drafted Jaxon Dart at number one, we'd all have been like WTF?

If we can keep aging veteran Clowney on a commensurate deal, I'd prefer that. It's not like he's some scrub. He can be of good value to the room.

He's been here since last spring (May), but not before the last draft.