bartshan-83 Posted July 17, 2005 Share Posted July 17, 2005 First, let me say that I am happy that TD got his 3rd rounder for Travis. I think that given what is available out there right now, he got about as good a deal as he was gonna get. I like Travis and I wish him luck. My main point though is with the market and value for RBs this year. While I am happy that we got a 3rd, for the reasons I stated above, I still feel that he was worth more than that. Yes, he has his faults, but he is/was a probowl type player and a very productive rusher. I really think that it was this Edge/Alexander situation that screwed us. I remember a time where Lamar Gordon could fetch and 3rd round pick and Darrick Holmes could even fetch a 4th. Hell Ricky Williams got multiple 1sts......TWICE!! So my question is, what do you think about this current market for RBs? Do you think that top tier RBs will never again fetch 1st rounders or even....gasp....multiple 1sts? I mean Doug Jolley got a 1st rounder this year, but two of the best RBs in football can't even get a 2nd round pick. Is this the way its gonna be or was this just a weird year? peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted July 17, 2005 Share Posted July 17, 2005 The Colts couldn't get a 1st for Faulk in his prime, so I don't think the RB market is down from prior years. The one thing Faulk & Henry had in common is they both wanted out & had the contract status to pull it off. Getting a 3rd for Henry is better than keeping him as a disgruntled backup for a year & then he leaves for nothing (since we better get a FA or 2 next year which would have negated getting a comp pick for TH) Holmes was the abberation-getting a 4th in midseason for a guy on the last year of his contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrobot Posted July 17, 2005 Share Posted July 17, 2005 General managers will eye the cap (except for the no-cap season approaching which may prove interesting), and will feel that RB's are more interchangeable than some other positions (QB, MLB, CB). RB Coaches would like smart, compliant, hardy, team-first guys, and if they find that kind of player, they will want to keep them locked up. A Head Coach isn't going to put up with two RB's who perceive their abilities (ahem) disproportionately given the team's offensive philosophy. If Coach wants a between-the-tackles pounder as his feature back rather than a blocking back-go out in the flats back, or a bounce-outside waterspider back, that's who stays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 17, 2005 Share Posted July 17, 2005 I don't think it's a trend but running backs have been known forever to come out of nowhere and excel. It's the easiest position to just walk on and start playing. Your example of Doug Jolley isn't a good one because it was a late round first #26 (they already knew where it was going to be) and the Raiders sent Jolley, a #2 (the 47th pick) and two #6 picks. The Jets sent the Raiders a #1 and a #7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted July 17, 2005 Share Posted July 17, 2005 We're just in a stretch where RBs are in good supply and their values are reflecting that. If we go through another stretch of poor RB drafts similar to those of '91-'97, their value will go back up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted July 17, 2005 Share Posted July 17, 2005 Hell Ricky Williams got multiple 1sts......TWICE!! peace 383569[/snapback] As long as there are retards like Dave Wandstadt and Mike Ditka making personal decisions there will always be a market for "dry relations" in public view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cåblelady Posted July 17, 2005 Share Posted July 17, 2005 As long as there are retards like Dave Wandstadt and Mike Ditka making personal decisions there will always be a market for "dry relations" in public view. 383592[/snapback] I think SDS is sooooo dreamy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted July 17, 2005 Share Posted July 17, 2005 I don't think that Alexander/James have as much to do with the draft choice as it does with their contract demands. Each of them wants a long-term deal as the top paid at their position. I think that this has hindered their movement more than the 3rd round pick their teams are asking for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted July 17, 2005 Share Posted July 17, 2005 People are not going to like this opinion, but: I do think it is a trend. Teams are no longer beating top defenses by having a star runningback pound it down the throat. They are doing it with depth on offense in the passing game - 3 decent receivers and a catching TE/RB - forcing teams to rely on their #3+ CBs etc. (It wasn't that long ago that everyone around here was bemoaning Chris Watson as our #1 defensive weakness!) Having a star RB is still good; it's just that given the choice of a star RB and a lousy WR versus a decent RB and decent WR, the first gives the fan exciting stats, and the second gives them wins. And remember this key fact: leaguewide, yards per rush always lags yards per passing attempt. While it is true that the threat of the run is neccessary to maintain a decent passing attack, one wonders just how much you should give up to get what is essentially a diversionary player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted July 17, 2005 Share Posted July 17, 2005 I do think it is a trend. 383700[/snapback] Even if it is a trend, it may well be a trend that lasts one, year, tww years or 15 minutes. The market changes regarding the draft from year to year depending upon the perceived strength of the pool of players. The concept that a 1st round pick is worth exactly the same in 2005 or 1983, particularly if you need a QB does not make any sense. If you needed a QB and had the #2 pick in the draft, in 2005 you might be disappointed right now because Alex Smith went at #1 an you are left with Aaron Rodgers who you can trade way down and still get. If it were 1983 you have your choice of QB talent and maybe because hindsight is 20/20 you decide to trade down even further because you can get Dan Marino with a very late pick. Not only does the market vary alot from draft year to draft year, it varies a lot with a draft. Chris Kelsay was widely thought of as a first round talent, but TD was smart enough to recognize that a run on DL players allowed us to draft McGahee and still pick up Kelsay with our 2nd pick. I think one can pick some occurences and claim they are a trend, but the market changes all the time and though "trends" can be found they are an illusion. Look at the huge commitment of early draft picks in this draft to RBs and how does this match your "trend." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted July 17, 2005 Share Posted July 17, 2005 Even if it is a trend, it may well be a trend that lasts one, year, tww years or 15 minutes.... Look at the huge commitment of early draft picks in this draft to RBs and how does this match your "trend." 383704[/snapback] OK, I'll be clearer - I think the devaluing of the RB spot is a long term trend, that will last as long as the trend towards that offensive strategy. I'm guessing 5-10 years? It would be interesting to measure how long offensive styles which gain broad acceptance in the NFL (3 yards and a cloud of dust, West Coast, etc) remain dominant... I think RB's going in the early draft picks this year was more a reflection of the thinness of the draft than anything else. Last year was the year to load up on QB's and WR's, and next year on the OL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts