On first blush it seems idiotic to draft a running back.

But on closer inspection, it is the right choice.

First, let me not fight TWO battles. Those who think that there is a better running back than Best or that Best simply is not that good are arguing a different point right now. This post is mainly directed toward not so much Best himself but drafting a great running back if he is available as opposed to a great linebacker.

It is a risk to draft any heralded college player. After watching drafts since 1967, I have seen many drafts from many positions which were supposed to be hits become misses.

But I'd rather risk, at this point, trying to get an all-pro running back than an all-pro linebacker.

What were the TWO things that had us playing decently this year when we did?

Answer: Ricky and Ronnie and the running game and Henne's passing.

Now, with Henne and Thigpen, we won't miss the quarterbacking.

However, Ricky is old and Ronnie is injury prone.

Let's suppose we do draft McClain and he is a great linebacker. What good would if do us if we have no running game? The opposing defenses stuff our run and we will see the type of Henne we saw when Ronnie went down at the end of the year.

My argument is that not JUST ANY RUNNING BACK WILL DO. You need a great running back. You need a Ronnie or Ricky.

I think that in the later rounds, you can pick up not one but two linebackers. By later, I mean 2nd or 3rd.

Which brings me to my main thesis. That thesis is that the difference between a great running back and a good running back is far wider than the difference between a great linebacker and a good linebacker.

I think that we owe a responsibility to the long term, as well as the short term, future of this team to get that great running back now if we can.

I don't think we lose a hell of a lot of drop off if we content ourselves with second and third round linebackers but it makes more sense to gamble with linebackers in the second or third round than to try to get the future of our running back corps in those rounds.

If we were where we were two or three years ago, I would say the same thing about quarterbacks.

I disagree with you. First, the basis of your thesis is that we need a GREAT RB. This has not been true for some years, and it won't be true again this year. In today's NFL, the primary offensive weapon is a passing offense. Three of the remaining teams on championship weekend were passing teams, and the one running team used several backs and did not rely on one great RB. As we saw, a good running team can't keep up with the prolific passing teams anymore-as we saw repeatedly during the Dolphins's season. OLs these days must be able to spring a back occasionally, but must protect the passer always. Middle round RBs have been quite successful, but not so much middle round LBs. Guys that can stop the mostly diminished running games across the league and still have the speed to cover TEs and backs to take some of the pressure off the secondary are worth their weight in gold, and go early in the draft. There is a huge gulf between this type of LB and LB's like Channing Crowder who can play the run well but are a liability in the passing game. MY argument is that any sufficiently good RB will do, as long as there is a good passing game.

Rick



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/25/2010 11:04AM by dolphan4545.

Neither the colts nor saints has a great RB and they are in the SB. The teams last year didn't have one either (Tim Hightower?). of the teams in the final 4, only the Vikes had a superstar RB. The Pats have had a dominant offense with only journeyman RBs.

It doesn't make any sense for us to take a RB at 12--even assuming the RB you are targeting is not deemed a late 1st/early 2d round type, which he is.

I agree that a great running back is not mandatory...it is a very nice luxury however. The combination of Brown, Williams, Cobbs and Hilliard is a good enough group to get us where we need to be running back wise for another year anyway.

If Williams leaves after this upcoming season then we will have to look at getting another high quality body in the rotation. Because Brown is injury prone and it remains to be seen if Cobbs will be the same player when he comes back. Hilliard is IMHO a quality #2 guy given the chance to play often.

If we take a RB at #12 then we are in store for another losing season

Several of our losses were there result of our inability to stop the other team's rushing attack.

We currently have Rick & Ronnie...so for this year drafting RB with our 1st is a luxury selection.

We need someone that will help us either:

A) stop the short runs from turning into 5 yard gains.

Get to the QB quickly and often enough that our Secondary only has to cover a guy for 3-4 seconds rather than 6-7 seconds.


We had games in which we need to stop teams from marching down the field and our Inside was incapable of stopping the plays from chewing up 5-6 yards all the way down.

We also had times where we had the opponent in 3rd and 12 or 3rd and 17 and they would find a wide open TE. I can live with a QB threading the needle or making an amazing throw which allows an otherwise covered WR to make the catch...but when you see a guy with no-one within 4 yards of him on 3rd and long? You have a problem with coverage or pressure or both.

You can find an 'effective' RB in the middle rounds and in free agancy. You can rotate RB's in the game and play RB by committee...

ILB? we don't have anybody in our committee than can do the job.

OLB? I am truly hoping that Wake will thrive once Porter is gone....if they see any sign of this not being a possibility..then OLB might be the pick.


Our 1st round WILL BE...LB ( outside/inside) or NT.

He doesnt have Spiller going until after us Phinsfan, so no...this isnt some theory I made up in my head.

If he ranks Spiller the best and has him going in the middle of the 1st round then all 3 of them are not going in the top 10.

---------------------

"When you suck long enough, you get a Hickey"

BEST will NOT be the selection at 12, here's why...

RO McCLAIN, DEZ BRYANT WR, JERMAINE GRESHAM TE, EARL THOMAS FS, CJ SPILLER, JERRY HUGHES OLB, DAN WILLAIMS..should I go on?

Lol....Phinsfan, you are nit-picking here. You can definately see that all 3 of those RB's are not gonna be picked in the top 10. Come on man, its pretty obvious.

---------------------

"When you suck long enough, you get a Hickey"

Oh, by the way, I forgot to address the argument that the four teams in the championship series had no real great running back and they made it there.

How did they make it there??????? Could it be that they had arguably ALSO the FOUR BEST QUARTERBACKS IN THE LEAGUE???? Favre, Manning, Brees, and Sanchez?

Doesnt make sense at all Chyren. You title your thread "Why the best choice is Best" and then you say "not arguing the point of how good Best is as A & O is arguing".

That doesnt make sense, dude. If somebody "is the best choice", you have to get into how good that player is.

---------------------

"When you suck long enough, you get a Hickey"

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh, by the way, I forgot to address the argument
> that the four teams in the championship series had
> no real great running back and they made it
> there.
>
> How did they make it there??????? Could it be
> that they had arguably ALSO the FOUR BEST
> QUARTERBACKS IN THE LEAGUE???? Favre, Manning,
> Brees, and Sanchez?

Not exactly. Out of those teams only Indy has no great RB/running game. They were dead last in rushing.

Jets have the number one running game in the league to go with a number one defense. Sanchez is nowhere near the best of the NFL QB's. The jets as a team finished 31st in passing.

The Saints were ranked 6th in rushing.

and Minnesota (13th rushing) has Adrian Peterson. Not a real RB?

However the two teams in the SB do have the leagues best QB's.

Drafting a RB is a luxury at this point. We have more pressing needs. We still finished the season ranked 4th o/a in rushing. Not exactly a crisis.

We finished 20th in passing so its not hard to figure where we need to upgrade on offense...WR!

We finished 18th in rush defense and 24th in pass defense.

.....................................................................................
“I'm here" You're welcome!" - Kenny Powers

First, Sanchez WILL BE one of the great NFL quarterbacks. In that first half, he was moving his team better than Peyton. He was making me grind my teeth thinking that he would actually beat the Colts.

Moreover, although the Jets have a great running game, it certainly was not on display in the AFC Championship game.

To you, Aqua & Orange, when I said that Best is Best, I was assuming that he was as great as I happened to think he is. I know you and PhinFans2 have discussed this before.

Okay, so my question is suspend your disagreement with how good PhinFans2 and I believe Best to be. Assume you agree. Now argue whether we should pick him 12th (I know even PhinFans2 does not think we should).

That's why I tried to distinguish you out because most people on this board are saying that we simply should not pick a running back even conceding he would be another Larry Csonka. They argue that the day of the running back is past.

That might be true, but I disagree. I think football was built on the Jim Browns, the Gale Sayers, the Larry Csonkas and the Walter Paytons.

I think you guys are shoveling dirt on what you think is the grave of the great running back far too soon.

eesti Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Drafting a RB is a luxury at this point. We have
> more pressing needs. We still finished the season
> ranked 4th o/a in rushing. Not exactly a crisis.

RESPONSE: With Ricky showing his age and Ronnie injury prone, I would hardly call it a luxury. Jimmy Johnson (although he was wrong) tried to prepare (too early in my mind) for the day that Marino would retire. I'd say our condition with running back was considerably more dire than Jimmy was confronted with at quarterback in that day.

And our running backs behind Ronnie and Ricky, to me they have been UNDERwhelming.

Yeah, PhinFans 2 but could you really put Manny Ramirez or A-Rod in the same category with Ruth, Gehrig, Mantle or Mays? You could also say the same thing, that neither of the four I mentioned were in the last two decades.

Football, not baseball. The game of baseball hasnt changed in 100+ years. The NFL game has.

---------------------

"When you suck long enough, you get a Hickey"

Aqua&Orange Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Football, not baseball. The game of baseball hasnt
> changed in 100+ years. The NFL game has.

Except for performance-enhancing drugs.

But they had performance enhancing techniques back then that they cant get away with now....tar, vasoline, corks and a bunch of other stuff.

---------------------

"When you suck long enough, you get a Hickey"

Boxing is boxing, there is no difference, its still the same. Baseball is still the same baseball its been for 100 years.

100 years ago the forward pass was not even being played. 30 years ago if you threw 30+ passes in a game it was thought of as strange and unusual, and was mostly unheard of.

The game of football has evolved much more than any other sport.

All these sports you have named have never changed. They are still the same 50 years ago as is today.

---------------------

"When you suck long enough, you get a Hickey"

I'm curious how Jim Brown would fair in today's NFL.