mrags Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 Thanks for doing the research. I stand corrected. That being said, it would be a stretch to say that most of those players were integral to their Super Bowl appearance/win. your crazy. All of those RBs were key ingredients to their SB run and SB wins.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 your crazy. All of those RBs were key ingredients to their SB run and SB wins. Turning the discussion full circle, there's no question that Rice and Gore were.
Big C Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 (edited) Turning the discussion full circle, there's no question that Rice and Gore were. As were their backups. Bernard Pierce and LaMichael James were stellar in relief. But, Rice and Gore were not first round picks. I think the point is that a great running game is crucial, but it doesn't matter how you get one. What about last year though? New England and NYG didn't have great run games. Rice and Gore were second and third rounders, respectively. Teams that draft RBs in the top ten are idiotic. First round RBs haven't made a Super Bowl in a long, long time. I laughed when Cleveland traded up for Trent Richardson. Tampa wanted to trade up to Minnesota's spot, but Cleveland "won out"; the Bucs ended up taking Doug Martin at 31, and Martin had a better season, as did Alfred Morris. Morris was a ridiculous bargain. And he was crucial to Washington's success. Without that ground game, they would not have been a playoff team. Edited April 8, 2013 by Big C
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 As were their backups. Bernard Pierce and LaMichael James were stellar in relief. But, Rice and Gore were not first round picks. I think the point is that a great running game is crucial, but it doesn't matter how you get one. What about last year though? New England and NYG didn't have great run games. True. To reach a Super Bowl it's not necessary to have a great run game just as it's not necessary to have a great defense. But having one or both is a big help.
Big C Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 We could also see it as the importance of the O-Line. San Francisco used a lot of first round picks to develop their line. Baltimore's super bowl team had a couple first rounders and an all-pro guard (3rd rounder).
OCinBuffalo Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 (edited) Terrible trolling attempt. Not so: please see page count. :edit: maybe not. people are biting. If trolling, this is true. However, it's kinda lame in that the answer is so obvious, it minimizes the lulz. Now the reeeeal trolling thread: "We should NOT take a WR in the top three, because teams that do that do not make the playoffs, and WR is a dime a dozen, look at Steve Johnson, James Hardy, etc." See? This way you could easily get 2 sides fighting each other, but say "wut? I just started a thread about football. Jeez." I am contemplating.... Edited April 8, 2013 by OCinBuffalo
Armchair GM Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 You must be "pretty high." And if, by some twist of fate, you are right and they do, they're all"pretty high" too.
KD in CA Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 Finally someone taking sense about the draft! You can't spend enough high picks on defensive backs and running backs! It's been 3 years since the Bills went #1 on a RB so I'm sure it's being strongly considered. 2013 - ?? 2010 - Spiller 2007 - Lynch 2003 - McGahee
Dopey Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 Terrible trolling attempt. Don't post anymore. You're at 4000 even. We do not even want to think about a running back during the draft, and definitely not Lattimore. ..........thank you for reminding why I stopped posting. I forgot this wasn't a place to talk Buffalo Bills football. I guess I'll head to buffalobills.com. Thanks. If we address most of our needs in rds 1-4 and if in rd 5 a RB is the BPA on our board, I'm all for taking a RB. This is Freddy's last yr and Choice is Verrryyy Avg. In rds 5-7 always take BPA on your board, regardless of postion or need.
Recommended Posts