Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Still don't want a RB in round 1 for a number of reasons


Ricky Spanish

Recommended Posts

It's looking more and more likely that RB will be the position we take in round 1. I for one, won't be thrilled for a number of reasons, but I'll still cheer for the guy and hope for the best. For those who are excited about the prospect of having our first pick be a RB, temper that excitement for a number of reasons:

  1. RBs have the shortest careers in the NFL. Spending a first round pick on a RB is not a long term solution.
  2. On average, they are most productive at age 26, decline for two years, and then drop off a cliff soon after. Imagine if we got the best years out of Cam or TD up to age 26 and it was all downhill from there. I'd be pretty pissed if we wasted a first round pick on that length of production.
  3. RBs are the most often injured position in the NFL. No, Seriously. You are essentially accepting that your first round pick will miss substantial amounts of time  throughout their career. You're basically drafting a guy with an injury history, even if he doesn't have one. We all love Stewart, but the biggest knock against him is that he can't stay on the field.
  4. The teams with the best records in the league tend to spend the least amount of money on the RB position. The outlier in this situation would be the Panthers last year, but then again, we've never had back to back winning seasons and we spend the second most on the position in the league.
  5. Similar production at the position can be had at a fraction of the cost, and a first round RB will be expensive down the line when his career is most likely on the downswing because if you remember, they peak at age 26, roughly around when our 1st round RB's first contract will be up. You can do more with solid production at the RB position with your money allocated elsewhere, than you can with elite production and money invested at RB

So all in all, I'm not thrilled if wel spend a high first round pick on a RB. As awesome as it would be to have Fournette on our team, I don't think it would help us out long term. Fournette's running style all but confirms to me that he will hit the injury report multiple times throughout his career. Guys who look for contact at that position tend to not last long, or aren't always available. Gun to my head, I'd rather have McCafferey based on injury risk alone, not pure talent. While Fournette is the more impressive sports car, it's hard to enjoy it when it's constantly in the shop. CMC doesn't have the injury history/risk that Fournette does, and he doesn't take the hits that Fournette does, so I believe he'll be on the field more often than Fournette, and therefor, will prove to be more valuable. 

This is of course, just my glass half empty perspective on drafting a RB in the first round. I was alright with it at the beginning of the offseason, but the closer we have gotten to the draft the less I like the idea. I'd rather spend our pick on a DE, Safety, or TE, and then take a RB in the second. Hell, I'd be alright if we traded back into the late first to take one, just not 8 overall, and especially not trading up before 8 to take one. It would be a waste of multiple picks.

Regardless of who we pick, I will not be actively rooting against the guy and will hope that my pessimistic outlook on the position is proven wrong 100 times over because I don't want to be right about all of this if we take a RB.

Just my two cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, nctarheel0619 said:

Doubtful, going to be at the bar with one of my best buds grabbing beers.  Plus, my classes are over for the semester.  

just saying you ain't gonna be happy with McCaffrey. Starting to feel like it's likely he ends up being the pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand where you're coming from.But maybe this will make you feel better if you look at it this way.  

 

Deangelo was drafted in 06 and is still productive in the league. Stewart 2 years after him and still a huddle favorite. So those 2 kind of go against points 1 and 2 that you made. 

3. Injury concern is valid and a higher risk but as we saw with Benjamin and Butler early, injuries can happen at any position.

4. The common denominator in consistent playoff teams is there head coach and QB combo. Steelers and Seahawks have always boasted a good run game a defense in their most consistent years and those pop in to mind immediately. Sure there's more.

5. I don't think it's fair to worry about Fournettes 2nd contract when we have him for 4 years under a rookie deal and a 5th year option that will be reasonable as well. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • The reset worked with proton.me.. wouldn’t work with my Gmail, Yahoo or Verizon email accounts 
    • Wish they started at 5:30 or 6 at the latest so I can watch it. I have to be in bed by start time.
    • okay I found this and it sounds like my hopes for the first surgery being not such a great job seems like it could be actual reality.  I only hoped because that would give a better chance for recovery and ia a possible scenario so I just thought it could be possible. Had no real evidence of it. But I’ll be damned.    This is a detailed report of Brooks’ surgery and the condition of his knee after the failed repair.     https://x.com/jmthrivept/status/2055743129408704806?s= Sparked by some very good questions by @CoachspeakIndex, here’s some info on Jonathon Brooks: 1. Speculation that the first graft/ACLR by Dr. Cooper didn’t “take” or at least was too lax, leading to failure and re-tear. Brooks dealt with issues cutting, progressing in his rehab into the early stages of 2024 and then re-tore it late 2024, requiring a second ACLR in January 2025 (essentially revision). Notably, CAR prolonged Brooks’ rehab process through Sept-Oct due to issues progressing into the next stages of rehab. 2. Second surgery performed by Dr. Neal ElAttrache, who has extensive experience with revisions. He did a double bundle technique, harvesting graft from Brooks’ left patellar tendon and a strip of his right IT Band (his right patellar tendon had been utilized for the prior graft in 2023. The double bundle technique significantly increases rotational stability of the knee, leading to a stronger and more secure graft/reconstruction. Also to note, Brooks’ surgery wasn’t significantly delayed, meaning that the tunnels from his prior ACLR were in good shape and they didn’t need to perform bone grafts to fill in (would have delayed 2nd surgery by 5-6 months). Essentially, reading the tea leaves tells me that everything else except for the graft itself was still in good quality within his knee. Good sign for future.  3. Typically, you see a performance increase anywhere from 16-20 months post-revision. Brooks will be ~21 months out from his second surgery by the time Week 1 hits. His knee should be more stable and stronger this time around, with adequate time for healing and return to all movement patterns. I’m not viewing this situation as a typical “Player __ had TWO ACL tears, he’s cooked” situation. Rather, I’m viewing it as the first procedure failed, but the second procedure is significantly stronger and should allow him to return to form this time around. I don’t know why it posted as a link but there it is.  
×
×
  • Create New...