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!

     

We pretty much have to take a RB on day 2 in the draft, right?


t96
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Catsfan69 said:

All of them are light years below Cmac.

 

You dump a star you have to replace him with a star or you go backwards 

CMC has 3 to 4 years left. It will take us 2 to 3 to get to a playoff caliber team. No need in paying him and him helping us for 1 year. The only people who don't like the trade are on this message board. 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, JawnyBlaze said:

Yea I agree. But the Giants, Cowboys and Chiefs are all winning right now with first round RBs. No single position is REQUIRED to win except QB, but the more weapons you give your QB the better he’ll look. 

Id agree though I think the chiefs are doing it in spite of their RB.  Giants are 100% overachieving thanks to Barkley and some really good coaching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, JawnyBlaze said:

Yea I agree. But the Giants, Cowboys and Chiefs are all winning right now with first round RBs. No single position is REQUIRED to win except QB, but the more weapons you give your QB the better he’ll look. 

Another stupid take:

The bills, jets, ravens, bengals, ravens, Colts, chargers, niners and falcons to name a few are all winning without first round rbs

 

Also the giants and cowboys are about to part ways with their first round running backs

Edited by mrcompletely11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Catsfan69 said:

Anyone that thinks he's easily replaced is insane. 

The point is we don’t have to. We’re about to get a very talented qb that we need to build around. Don’t take a rb until 4th round or later. Take positions of better value in the second or third rounds like te, lineman or wr. Build this team the correct way. 
 

it is so weird reading some of these posts. It’s like some people don’t  watch how other successful teams are built.

  • Pie 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, lightsout said:

I think Foreman could legitimately hold down the position for another year if need be, provided he protects the ball. He's a 4 ypc back I think, will never be a guy teams fear but he will do what we need him to do, which is be steady. No need to reach for a RB unless there's a can't-miss guy there.

If he can replace Henry when he was hurt, why not productive here?

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mrcompletely11 said:

Another stupid take:

The bills, jets, ravens, bengals, ravens, Colts, chargers, niners and falcons to name a few are all winning without first round rbs

Colts, ravens, niners and falcons are winning? And I never said you need one to win, I was arguing against the idea that teams that win don’t have first round RBs.  I showed that there are teams that are indeed winning with first round RBs.  Of course you can win without one, there’s plenty of teams winning by your definition without a first round QB, doesn’t mean it isn’t better to have one. Talk about a stupid take. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JawnyBlaze said:

Colts, ravens, niners and falcons are winning? And I never said you need one to win, I was arguing against the idea that teams that win don’t have first round RBs.  I showed that there are teams that are indeed winning with first round RBs.  Of course you can win without one, there’s plenty of teams winning by your definition without a first round QB, doesn’t mean it isn’t better to have one. Talk about a stupid take. 

2nd in their division just like the giants and Cowboys (3rd).  So according to you winning

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I’m not necessarily advocating sticking with Bryce. His highs show the ability is there, but there’s enough bad film out there to doubt that he can consistently enough play at a high enough level. But this video from Brett Kollman is a pretty good argument to give it a bit more time, whether that be rolling with Bryce just next year or picking up his 5th year option (not extending him).      The gist is that the structural (wider hashes) and rule (3 yd vs 1 yd thresholds for intelligible offensive lineman downfield penalties) differences in the college and NFL have led to wildly different play calling and scheme diets in college. There is much more shotgun and RPO calls in college and screen/quick throws. This simply doesn’t set up young QBs to be able to play under center, which is more preferred in the NFL due to RBs being able to more effectively run out of that formation.  They don’t know how to do it and have to learn. Yes, the NFL has trended more toward college style offense in the last decade or so, but it isn’t that pronounced and is more out of necessity than desire. And on top of all that, they ask the young QBs to do all this learning with coaching and other personnel churn going on around them.  Bad results lead to coaches getting fired and new ones with different ideas on scheme and footwork and different terminology and playbooks coming in. It makes it harder on those young QBs to learn.     So we may drop Bryce for a young QB starter in the draft and be in a similar situation. With a QB who is going to take years to learn how to operate in an NFL style offense and will struggle along the way.  So you have to weigh whether the struggles we see from Bryce are more due to this learning process vs solely physical limitations on his part. It’s almost undoubtedly a bit of both, but the answer to that question I think dictates your strategy at QB over the next few years. And of course, you have to consider what the alternatives available are.    I’m neither a Bryce hater or a Bryce Stan and I don’t have an answer to that question. But I do fear that if we move on from him, unless it’s for an established player, we’re just in for continued frustration on the QB front because it’s going to take a few years for a college QB to develop (Drake Maye’s don’t grow on trees). 
    • The defense has pulled that feat off this season though.  Multiple times. offense has not had a single good first half all season.  Only and good opening scripted drive paired with disappointing play.  defense has been the actual unit you can measure real and consistent improvement IMO.  Still holes and flaws to it that aren’t going away until new bodies get here but they really are the story of the season IMO
    • One thing about RB's and LB's is they are going to get hurt. It's inevitable. Having a fresh Chuba is not a bad thing.  My only criticism of this entire situation is that I wish our staff would adjust personnel to matchup a little better. I think Chuba is a lot better than Rico against the stacked boxes we've seen the last two weeks. They are very different backs with very different strengths, and I love them both. Rico is so good at identifying the hole early, and hitting it full speed early. He's much better at breaking the big run. Chuba is a much more patient back, and finds 3 yards when there's nothing there better than Rico.  It's in no way a criticism of either, but I think Chuba would have had more success than Rico the way the Saints and Falcons attacked us from a Defensive standpoint.  When you put 9 in the box, often times there is no hole to attack. 
×
×
  • Create New...