Todd Gurley says he’s done after 6 years in the NFL

[GreggTX]

Sad to hear it, but at least he had some great success and made some money for his future.

[Thurman#1]

16 hours ago, BuffaloBills1998 said:

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2022/10/21/todd-gurley-hasnt-officially-retired-but-says-hes-most-definitely-done/ only 28 years old. Seeing this makes me glad that Beane passed on trading for CMC. This is why the RB position is a dime a dozen position.

 

 

It is not a dime a dozen position, that's a great overstatement.

 

But yeah, it's a better idea these days to get one a bit later, particularly in an offense like ours that just doesn't run a ton.

30 minutes ago, GreggTX said:

Sad to hear it, but at least he had some great success and made some money for his future.

 

 

Yes. He was absolutely great to watch those first few years.

[Thurman#1]

14 hours ago, FireChans said:

Instead Beane keeps spending 2nds and 3rds drafting lesser RB’s. Is that better?

 

 

So far, yeah, virtually without question.

 

And it's just plain dumb implying Cook is a lesser RB. We don't know what he is yet, but he could very easily be worth a 2nd and Singletary is overproducing for a 3rd.

 

So far in the last four years, since they got Allen and Edmunds, they've picked up Oliver, Rousseau and Elam where they would have drafted an RB in the first. Three players who look excellent so far, though the last couple of years you really can't be sure yet. And all at players of much more need than RB.

 

And we have a decent productive RB group so far.

 

So far this year, without Allen included they're averaging 4.55 YPC behind an OL that was really having problems early.

 

 

[Chicken Boo]

16 hours ago, BuffaloBills1998 said:

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2022/10/21/todd-gurley-hasnt-officially-retired-but-says-hes-most-definitely-done/ only 28 years old. Seeing this makes me glad that Beane passed on trading for CMC. This is why the RB position is a dime a dozen position.

 

I don't know of too many RBs that have scored 79 TDs in 6 seasons.  

[djp14150]

12 hours ago, BuffaloBills1998 said:

Would it be better that we waste 4-5 picks on a washed up injured prone RB??

 

not correct huh?? 

 

i agree 

 

any offer I made would have been tied to his health and playing games.

 

i can see SF interest in his full contract.  Assume next year  Lance is QB and Garapolo is gone. They sign someone like Trunisky for back up.  So they would have the cap space for his contract because QB is lower

[FireChans]

37 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

So far, yeah, virtually without question.

 

And it's just plain dumb implying Cook is a lesser RB. We don't know what he is yet, but he could very easily be worth a 2nd and Singletary is overproducing for a 3rd.

 

So far in the last four years, since they got Allen and Edmunds, they've picked up Oliver, Rousseau and Elam where they would have drafted an RB in the first. Three players who look excellent so far, though the last couple of years you really can't be sure yet. And all at players of much more need than RB.

 

And we have a decent productive RB group so far.

 

So far this year, without Allen included they're averaging 4.55 YPC behind an OL that was really having problems early.

 

 

??

 

James Cook hasn't seen the field yet in any significant capacity. We can't pretend he's anything besides a question mark. 

 

Singletary maximizes his production well in this offense, but he's still a limited RB.

 

IRT the bolded, NO ONE has wanted them to draft an RB in place of Oliver. First round RB's are poison. The debate is not "first round vs multiple second or third rounders."

[Thurman#1]

14 hours ago, djp14150 said:

RBs are very common high athletic positions so they are easily replaceable.

 

assuming no injuries sone will say that a RB might have only about 1500 rush attempts in them. 20 a game means 75 games which is about 4.5 seasons.  
 

this is why many teams don’t draft a RB with a top 20 pick.  You want your top 20 pick to last for 8+ years ( assuming you resign them)

 

there are RB who can last longer if they stay healthy like Gore or Adrian Peterson.

 

if the back is good they are generally turning pro st earliest time so they start at 20 or 21 yrs old instead of 23 yr old so in theory you should be able to get more out of them.

 

it’s the big unknown…what separates a RB who only lasts 4 yrs vs one that has a 8+ yr career that isn’t a role/ back up

not a big deal.  You are likely not going to see them get resigned after their 4 yr team control is completed.  Expect  every other year a late 1st-4th used on a RB

 

13 hours ago, FireChans said:

That's legitimately the worst team building strategy ever.

 

 

The evidence shows differently.

 

Belichick followed it, never using a top 20 pick on an RB and never giving an RB a big 2nd contract. Yet he's the best team builder in the last 20 years. 

 

Where are all the SB winning teams recently that have spent top-20 picks on RBs or given them big 2nd contracts and then not regretted it?

 

The Rams picked Gurley before McVay, under Fisher, and giving him a big 2nd contract was a massive mistake. Edwards-Helaire was picked way after 20th and if they had that to do over again, they likely wouldn't have picked him at all. You have to go back to the Seahawks, who gave Lynch a big contract and were happy about it, though the team that drafted him above #20 lived to regret it. The Saints picked Reggie Bush #2, and he was still on their roster the year they won the Super Bowl, giving them 390 yards that year.

 

After the Seahawks, I didn't check every single year but I think you have to go back to the 2000 Ravens to find a team that had a high draft pick or high second contract RB running on a Super Bowl winners.

 

In fact, it's the strategy used by most SB winners which makes it very very far from the worst team building strategy ever. Closer to the best, actually.

[FireChans]

4 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

 

The evidence shows differently.

 

Belichick followed it, never using a top 20 pick on an RB and never giving an RB a big 2nd contract. Yet he's the best team builder in the last 20 years. 

 

Where are all the SB winning teams recently that have spent top-20 picks on RBs or given them big 2nd contracts and then not regretted it?

 

The Rams picked Gurley before McVay, under Fisher, and giving him a big 2nd contract was a massive mistake. Edwards-Helaire was picked way after 20th and if they had that to do over again, they likely wouldn't have picked him at all. You have to go back to the Seahawks, who gave Lynch a big contract and were happy about it, though the team that drafted him above #20 lived to regret it. The Saints picked Reggie Bush #2, and he was still on their roster the year they won the Super Bowl, giving them 390 yards that year.

 

After the Seahawks, I didn't check every single year but I think you have to go back to the 2000 Ravens to find a team that had a high draft pick or high second contract RB running on a Super Bowl winners.

 

In fact, it's the strategy used by most SB winners which makes it very very far from the worst team building strategy ever. Closer to the best, actually.

No he's not.

 

No one wants to draft an RB high in the first. 

[djp14150]

16 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

 

The evidence shows differently.

 

Belichick followed it, never using a top 20 pick on an RB and never giving an RB a big 2nd contract. Yet he's the best team builder in the last 20 years. 

 

Where are all the SB winning teams recently that have spent top-20 picks on RBs or given them big 2nd contracts and then not regretted it?

 

The Rams picked Gurley before McVay, under Fisher, and giving him a big 2nd contract was a massive mistake. Edwards-Helaire was picked way after 20th and if they had that to do over again, they likely wouldn't have picked him at all. You have to go back to the Seahawks, who gave Lynch a big contract and were happy about it, though the team that drafted him above #20 lived to regret it. The Saints picked Reggie Bush #2, and he was still on their roster the year they won the Super Bowl, giving them 390 yards that year.

 

After the Seahawks, I didn't check every single year but I think you have to go back to the 2000 Ravens to find a team that had a high draft pick or high second contract RB running on a Super Bowl winners.

 

In fact, it's the strategy used by most SB winners which makes it very very far from the worst team building strategy ever. Closer to the best, actually.

 

to add…I wonder what the top 10 in the league for players on their UFA who are RBs look like.

[Thurman#1]

43 minutes ago, FireChans said:

No he's not.

 

No one wants to draft an RB high in the first. 

 

 

Another purely wack-a-doo comment.

 

Yes, his Super Bowl wins absolutely show Belichick is the best team builder in the last 20 years. Hate him as I do, it's still not close. 

 

Not to mention that you're dead wrong in your other contention there as well. Quick, find a spot where six times in the last ten years shows "no one" wants to do that. Six top 20 RBs chosen in the last ten years and a bunch more back to 2000. So, wrong again. Oh, and how many of those six teams won the Super Bowl? Yup, exactly.

 

Not to mention that you just got finished making the argument that not picking an RB in the top 20 was half of what you called "legitimately the worst team building strategy ever." A genuinely ridiculous argument, granted, but it's what you said.

 

 

Edited October 22, 2022 by Thurman#1

[FireChans]

3 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Another purely dumb comment.

 

Yes, his Super Bowl wins absolutely show Belichick is the best team builder in the last 20 years. Hate him as I do, it's still not close.

You're flailing so much, I'm not sure who you're responding to.

 

BB is not some mastermind "team builder" because he won a lot. He is not a transcendent GM, he's the best coach of all time and was paired with the best QB of all time.  He didn't win because they drafted Stevan Ridley in the third round.

 

Also you changed your argument to suit your BB point.

1 hour ago, Thurman#1 said:

 they've picked up Oliver, Rousseau and Elam where they would have drafted an RB in the first.

 

Now it's not RB in the first, it's "top 20."  Is that because BB drafted an RB in the first and won the Superbowl with him starting in 2018?

 

8 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

Not to mention that you're dead wrong in your other contention there as well. Quick, find a spot where six times in the last ten years shows "no one" wants to do that. Six top 20 RBs chosen in the last ten years and a bunch more back to 2000. So, wrong again.

 

Just because idiotic teams do it doesn't mean it's good strategy or that anyone on this board wants it.  Find someone who wanted an RB in the first instead of Oliver on TBD.  You can't.  Another silly strawman to win the argument you are having with no one.

 

8 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

Not to mention that you just got finished making the argument that not picking an RB in the top 20 was half of what you called "legitimately the worst team building strategy ever." A genuinely ridiculous argument, granted, but it's what you said.

I never made this argument.

 

I have stated, at least twice now, the argument is not "1st round RB's vs. 2nd/3rd round RB's."  Again, not sure who you think you are talking to.

 

What I said was that, "Expect every other year a late 1st-4th used on a RB" is the worst team building strategy ever.  Using a day 1 or 2 pick on an RB EVERY OTHER YEAR is ridiculous, because RB is the most overrated and devalued position in the NFL.  And guess what, if using a late first or second on RB's is a mistake, then you know what else is a mistake?  An early first.

 

So, as you can clearly see, you have been debating the voices in your head lmao.

[Thurman#1]

36 minutes ago, FireChans said:

You're flailing so much, I'm not sure who you're responding to.

 

BB is not some mastermind "team builder" because he won a lot. He is not a transcendent GM, he's the best coach of all time and was paired with the best QB of all time.  He didn't win because they drafted Stevan Ridley in the third round.

 

Also you changed your argument to suit your BB point.

 

Now it's not RB in the first, it's "top 20."  Is that because BB drafted an RB in the first and won the Superbowl with him starting in 2018?

 

 

Just because idiotic teams do it doesn't mean it's good strategy or that anyone on this board wants it.  Find someone who wanted an RB in the first instead of Oliver on TBD.  You can't.  Another silly strawman to win the argument you are having with no one.

 

I never made this argument.

 

I have stated, at least twice now, the argument is not "1st round RB's vs. 2nd/3rd round RB's."  Again, not sure who you think you are talking to.

 

What I said was that, "Expect every other year a late 1st-4th used on a RB" is the worst team building strategy ever.  Using a day 1 or 2 pick on an RB EVERY OTHER YEAR is ridiculous, because RB is the most overrated and devalued position in the NFL.  And guess what, if using a late first or second on RB's is a mistake, then you know what else is a mistake?  An early first.

 

So, as you can clearly see, you have been debating the voices in your head lmao.

 

 

I'd say you keep topping yourself, but it's really bottoming. You just get worse and worse. Why are you so desperate to look bad?

 

You say, "BB is not some mastermind 'team builder' because he won a lot." Do you have any idea how stupid that is. You apparently think that the way to show you're a team builder is losing? Good lord, dude. Yeah, he is a team builder, a spectacular one. And it is exactly the fact that he won more than anyone else that shows it. And who drafted Tom Brady? Oh, yeah, Bill Belichick did. While he was building a team.

 

Dude, I didn't say "top 20." Are you drunk? Seriously! 

 

Remember the post by DJP about which you said, "That's legitimately the worst team building strategy ever," remember that one? He said top 20. And you bashed him for it. That's why I responded. Get a clue.

 

He insulted teams that pick RBs in the top 20 and that you should expect us to keep picking an RB in the late 1st to 4th. Again, you told him "That's legitimately the worst team building strategy ever." Which is both wrong and dumb. The only thing wrong about what he said is that the Bills haven't picked an RB in the late 1st and there's no evidence they ever will.

 

 

Edited October 22, 2022 by Thurman#1

[LabattBlue]

Almost 1700 carries/receptions in 6 NFL seasons, and another almost 600 carries/receptions in 3 seasons in the rugged SEC…I am surprised he lasted as long as he did. 

[FireChans]

2 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

I'd say you keep topping yourself, but it's really bottoming. You just get worse and worse. Why are you so desperate to look bad?

 

You say, "BB is not some mastermind 'team builder' because he won a lot." Do you have any idea how stupid that is. You apparently think that the way to show you're a team builder is losing? Good lord, dude. Yeah, he is a team builder, a spectacular one. And it is exactly the fact that he won more than anyone else that shows it. And who drafted Tom Brady? Oh, yeah, Bill Beliochick did. 

 

Dude, I didn't say "top 20." Are you drunk? Seriously! 

 

Remember the post by DJP about which you said, "That's legitimately the worst team building strategy ever," remember that one? He said top 20. And you bashed him for it. That's why I responded. Get a clue.

 

He insulted teams that pick RBs in the top 20 and that you should expect us to keep picking an RB in the late 1st to 4th. Again, you told him "That's legitimately the worst team building strategy ever." Which is both wrong and dumb. The only thing wrong about what he said is that the Bills haven't picked an RB in the late 1st and there's no evidence they ever will.

okay lmao. 

 

Drafting an RB in the end of the 1st to 4th every other year is a good team-building strategy according to you. Your opinion is noted.

Edited October 22, 2022 by FireChans

[Thurman#1]

 

 

13 minutes ago, FireChans said:

okay lmao. 

 

Drafting an RB in the end of the 1st to 4th every other year is a good team-building strategy according to you. Your opinion is noted.

 

 

So, you can't read either? 

 

I guess about all I can do here is give a double facepalm and move on. It's like trying to argue with my seven year-old daughter. Four years ago.

 

 

Edited October 22, 2022 by Thurman#1

[FireChans]

1 minute ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Very much agreed about your first paragraph. I never blame a player for trying to maximize his contract. You never know when things will end, particularly for an RB.

 

 

So, you can't read either? 

 

I guess about all I can do here is give a double facepalm and move on. It's like trying to argue with my seven year-old daughter. Four years ago.

You took issue with me calling it a terrible strategy and engaged me.

 

Do you think it's a good strategy or a bad strategy? 

[RocCityRoller]

Solid career. Came off the ACL in college. Knew it was bad when they found out about his knees.

 

If I'm not mistaken Rashaad Penny and Sony Michel were supposed to have issues that cold shorten their careers. Not sure if I am remembering that correctly.

[Thurman#1]

15 minutes ago, FireChans said:

You took issue with me calling it a terrible strategy and engaged me.

 

Do you think it's a good strategy or a bad strategy? 

 

 

Yeah, I took issue with you calling not drafting any RBs in the top 20 and not giving any big second contracts a terrible strategy. DUH!! It's a terrible strategy.

 

As for picking guys late in the first, again, go back and read what I wrote about drafting in the late 1st round in the post just above, the one, the one you just responded to. Again, you seem to have this inability to successfully read before you respond.

 

Being strict about his exact words, no, it's not a good idea to decide to draft something precisely every two years. I'd have thought that was obvious. You seriously think he meant "every other year," literally? If that's the core of your argument, I feel even sorrier for you.

 

But drafting an RB around the 2nd to 4th round when you need one? Yeah, that's good strategy. I'd allow the 5th as well, probably, but yeah. I wouldn't mind picking up the occasional low to mid-priced FA (Yeldon and Antonio Williams, for example) to fill in the cracks either. 

 

Yeah, good strategy.

Edited October 22, 2022 by Thurman#1

[FireChans]

1 minute ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Yeah, I took issue with you calling not drafting any RBs in the top 20 and not giving any big second contracts a terrible strategy. DUH!! It's a terrible strategy.

 

As for picking guys late in the first, again, go back and read what I wrote about drafting in the late 1st round in the post just above, the one, the one you just responded to. Again, you seem to have this inability to successfully read before you respond.

 

Being strict about his exact words, no, it's not a good idea to decide to draft something precisely every two years. I'd have thought that was obvious.

 

But drafting an RB around the 2nd to 4th round when you need one? Yeah, that's good strategy. I'd allow the 5th as well, probably, but yeah. I wouldn't mind picking up the occasional low to mid-priced FA (Yeldon and Antonio Williams, for example) to fill in the cracks either. 

 

Yeah, good strategy.

I bolded the part of his post I was responding to.

 

 

And you responded with this.

 

2 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

 

The evidence shows differently.

 

Belichick followed it, never using a top 20 pick on an RB and never giving an RB a big 2nd contract. Yet he's the best team builder in the last 20 years. 

 

Where are all the SB winning teams recently that have spent top-20 picks on RBs or given them big 2nd contracts and then not regretted it?

 

The Rams picked Gurley before McVay, under Fisher, and giving him a big 2nd contract was a massive mistake. Edwards-Helaire was picked way after 20th and if they had that to do over again, they likely wouldn't have picked him at all. You have to go back to the Seahawks, who gave Lynch a big contract and were happy about it, though the team that drafted him above #20 lived to regret it. The Saints picked Reggie Bush #2, and he was still on their roster the year they won the Super Bowl, giving them 390 yards that year.

 

After the Seahawks, I didn't check every single year but I think you have to go back to the 2000 Ravens to find a team that had a high draft pick or high second contract RB running on a Super Bowl winners.

 

In fact, it's the strategy used by most SB winners which makes it very very far from the worst team building strategy ever. Closer to the best, actually.

 

Maybe it's not me who needs to work on reading before responding.

[Thurman#1]

5 minutes ago, FireChans said:

I bolded the part of his post I was responding to.

 

 

And you responded with this.

 

 

Maybe it's not me who needs to work on reading before responding.

 

 

Remind me, did you say "The bolded is legitimately the worst team building strategy ever"?

 

Or did you say, in total ....

 

15 hours ago, FireChans said:

That's legitimately the worst team building strategy ever.

 

Exactly.

 

And for the second time, you seriously think he meant "every other year," literally? That he really meant only exactly every two years, whether you needed an RB or not? Seriously, that's what you thought? If that's the core of your argument, I feel even sorrier for you.