TPS Posted September 1, 2019 Posted September 1, 2019 1 hour ago, Agent 91 said: All of our offense smells if Pats to me. WR TE RB by committee. Just seems like they really are trying to replicate what NE is doing Given Daboll's tenure there, it makes sense. Also, I don't know that there is a template other than have a lot of flexibility to do different things for different opponents. It helps to have Brady ...
GoBills808 Posted September 1, 2019 Posted September 1, 2019 Just now, thebandit27 said: 31 IIRC Also not the point. Point is, I keep hearing people say that RBs aren't worth investing in, but I see teams like NE and Seattle spending 1st rounderd on them, the Rams and Texans paying big salaries to them, etc. We aren't talking about poorly-managed bottom feeder teams here. Not going to argue this point. If you really think running backs are where teams should be investing top resources go for it. 1
thebandit27 Posted September 1, 2019 Posted September 1, 2019 1 minute ago, GoBills808 said: Not going to argue this point. If you really think running backs are where teams should be investing top resources go for it. I happen to think that there's no one way to build a winner. If you've already got a QB you can win with, and a solid OL, and you think that a breakaway RB is the final piece, then sure. If you're the 2017 Giants, and you are more or less starting from scratch, then no, you don't take Saquon #2 overall. 1
GoBills808 Posted September 1, 2019 Posted September 1, 2019 9 minutes ago, thebandit27 said: I happen to think that there's no one way to build a winner. If you've already got a QB you can win with, and a solid OL, and you think that a breakaway RB is the final piece, then sure. If you're the 2017 Giants, and you are more or less starting from scratch, then no, you don't take Saquon #2 overall. I’ll just say I think there are a lot more examples like the latter than the former.
Reed83HOF Posted September 1, 2019 Posted September 1, 2019 19 minutes ago, thebandit27 said: Point is, I keep hearing people say that RBs aren't worth investing in, but I see teams like NE and Seattle spending 1st rounderd on them, the Rams and Texans paying big salaries to them, etc. We aren't talking about poorly-managed bottom feeder teams here. FIFY
thebandit27 Posted September 1, 2019 Posted September 1, 2019 5 minutes ago, Reed83HOF said: FIFY Not when they paid Lamar Miller they weren't 1
Reed83HOF Posted September 1, 2019 Posted September 1, 2019 Just now, thebandit27 said: Not when they paid Lamar Miller they weren't I was speaking currently as in their terrible trades since firing and not hiring a GM
thebandit27 Posted September 1, 2019 Posted September 1, 2019 11 minutes ago, GoBills808 said: I’ll just say I think there are a lot more examples like the latter than the former. Maybe. But again, the blanket approach of "don't invest in RBs" is an oversimplification at best 2 minutes ago, Reed83HOF said: I was speaking currently as in their terrible trades since firing and not hiring a GM Absolutely
GoBills808 Posted September 1, 2019 Posted September 1, 2019 1 minute ago, thebandit27 said: Maybe. But again, the blanket approach of "don't invest in RBs" is an oversimplification at best But not nearly at the level of ‘look at last two teams in Super Bowl’ 1
BullBuchanan Posted September 1, 2019 Posted September 1, 2019 Great article, who wouldn't want to return to the days of Antowain Smith, Shaud Williams, Jonathan Linton, and Anthony "A-Train" Thomas? 1 1
TwistofFate Posted September 1, 2019 Posted September 1, 2019 When you don't have a Qb for 16 years, you have to invest in something to move the ball. The ground game is pretty much the only thing that worked for us, and im not complaining. We've witness a hell of a lot if RB talent over the years. Jackson, Lynch, McCoy, McGahee, etc.
row_33 Posted September 1, 2019 Posted September 1, 2019 8 hours ago, thebandit27 said: "The RB position just isn't worth investing premium assets anymore" - everyone except for the two teams that played in the Super Bowl the Pats have put lots of $$$ in RB's? seems they trot out a nobody at least 3 times a game and he plays very well oh, this was a flashback to Sam Bam Cunningham days?
Prickly Pete Posted September 1, 2019 Posted September 1, 2019 I think they were concerned with the QB situation during all those seasons, so devoted more money/high picks to RB's to compensate, until they were satisfied with their QB. They now have a QB.
stuvian Posted September 2, 2019 Posted September 2, 2019 (edited) did this schmuck just write that Gore is s a safer bet than Shady? What a deep state putz! BTW a 5' 7" rookie scatback won't replace McCoy. Worst article ever. Lynch has done nothing but go to Superbowls. McGahee is a serious career rushing leader. He confuses our QB failures with RB play Edited September 2, 2019 by stuvian
Recommended Posts