Players to look out for next year in College Football... HB Edition (Part 2)

by PotM on Jul 23, 2010 11:31 AM EDT

This is the thirteenth installment of this series, and my third one on the Pats Pulpit. As a reminder:

This is just a list of top prospects, at the positions I think the pats will be in need of: 1) Pass rushing DE 2) Guard 3) RB

Instead, This is a list of prospects that can be taken with low draft pick next year. (To me, a 4th rounder is still a high draft pick.)

DISCLAIMER: These choices assume that newcomers at CB, OLB, ILB, etc. stick around. So don't blame me for not predicting that some don't pan out.

Before we get too f ar into our prospects for this installment, let's look at the Backs the Pats have currently, to see what they look for in one. I found these at the Patriots home site.

No. Name Pos Height Weight DOB

44 Eric Kettani RB 5-11 235 3/26/1987

29 Chris Taylor RB 6-0 224 11/7/1983

33 Kevin Faulk RB 5-8 202 6/6/1976

34 Sammy Morris RB 6-0 220 3/23/1977

39 Laurance Maroney RB 5-11 220 2/5/1985

21 Fred Taylor RB 6-1 228 1/27/1976

42 BenJavarus Green-Ellis RB 5-11 215 7/2/1985

35 Thomas Clayton RB 5-11 220 4/26/1984

So by look at their overall heights, we can see that most of our backs are between 6'0" and 5'10", the exception being our utility guy, Cobbs. Meanwhile, our backs tend to be on the big side, 220 lbs. or more. There is one exception, Faulk. So we should be looking for a guy that fits those descriptions. From my previous HB editions, my favorites are Bradford and Royster.

Quizz Rodgers*, Oregon State
Height: 5-7. Weight: 191.
Projected 40 Time: 4.45.
Projected Round (2011): 2-3.
3/29/10: Can Quizz Rodgers handle the load at just 191 pounds? Look at these numbers, and you tell me: 273 carries, 1,440 yards. 78 catches, 522 rec. yards, 22 touchdowns. Insanity sauce.

8/6/09: Quizz Rodgers is only 193 pounds, but considering his small height, he has the same bulk as a 6-0, 205-pound runner. Rodgers rushed for 1,253 yards and 11 scores as a freshman. He also chipped in with 29 receptions.

Daniel Thomas, Kansas State
Height: 6-2. Weight: 227.
Projected 40 Time: 4.60.
Projected Round (2011): 2-3.
3/29/10: Daniel Thomas rushed for 1,265 yards and 11 touchdowns on a 5.1 YPC. He also caught 25 balls for 257 more yards. If he can run a fast 40, he may break into the first round.

This big guy was definately the workhorse Kansas. He seems like a guy that will run over defenders in order to get to pay dirt. sounds a lot like our own Ronnie Brown. Hopefully he doesn't get taken too soon, because I really like this kid because he almost meets all the critera. The only thing he might get points off for are for: needs to be taken with a high draft pick,he might not have the neccasary speed to be a legit offensive threat at the next level. On the other hand he had a 5.1 ypc last year, which means he must have had some nice chunk yards to go along with his methodical grind it out type play his size appears to be made for.

Noel Devine, West Virginia
Height: 5-8. Weight: 175.
Projected 40 Time: 4.31.
Projected Round (2011): 2-3.
11/7/09: Someone will draft Noel Devine in Rounds 2-3 if he runs a fast 40. He's averaging 6.2 YPC and 8.2 yards per reception this year. He'll be seen as a Darren Sproles-type player.

2/6/09: There's a chance Noel Devine runs a 4.2 at the Combine. If that happens, he could be selected on Day 1. As a sophomore, Devine rushed for 1,289 yards on a 6.3 YPC. He also caught 35 balls for 185 more yards.

7/25/08: Noel Devine might be exciting to watch because of his blazing speed. His yards-per-carry average (8.6) is also astonishing. Unfortunately, he's nothing more than a third-down back and a kick returner, as his small size limits his NFL potential.

This guy looks good in these highlights, but doesn't fit the team mold of what a HB is. I would be very surprised if this FO drafted him, because (if you haven't noticed yet) this coaching staff believes in getting bigger, meaner, and stronger. If we did draft him, he would be the fastest guy on an offense that is pretty average when it comes to speed (not including Sheets). He has a lot of highlights, which means he produced at a high level since his freshman year. He is very small, but is also very elusive.

My favorites at this point are D. Thomas and Evan Royster for the go ahead for a high draft pick by this FO.

Well there it is the second HB edition. Ask me to do more prospects per position if you want me to, I'd be happy to do so. Oh, and I will do more, check the top of the post for the other Editions. I've already have done SS, click here for that edition. Here is the TE Edition. The first HB Edition. Remember, I am open to suggestions and the like.

The views expressed in these FanPosts are not necessarily those of the writers or SBNation.

Tweet Comment 119 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Oh snap. I never saw Devine's freshman highlights. I didn't think others really compared to him to Sanders.

I'm also a Raider Fan dammit!!! RAIDER NATION!!!!

Down with Big Brother!

by patriotguy2 on Jul 23, 2010 1:33 PM EDT reply actions

If a good to great scat back comes out, they will say he has the potential to be

him. It’s called hype

Note to self: Read the fanshots!
-Pulse of the Maggots- P.o.t.M.
Driving the Evan Royster and Allen Bradford Rock 'N Roll Train!
Mosul, check it out! http://www.mosuldolfan.blogspot.com/
The "pm striker king"- WZB

by PotM on Jul 23, 2010 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions

I know. -_-

I wouldn’t be surprised if they did that with Reggie Bush when he was in college. I for one, am not trying to hype him up. I don’t watch college football. I just looked at highlights, and I saw that he has great balance, speed, and quickness. In terms of scat back, those are very important. I am a big fan of balance when it comes to RBs. I think balance is the most important thing next to vision.

I'm also a Raider Fan dammit!!! RAIDER NATION!!!!

Down with Big Brother!

by patriotguy2 on Jul 23, 2010 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions

And given how Darren McFadden has shown neither at this point...

(oopsies)

The REAL steal of Oaklands last few drafts: Michael Bush. WTF?

by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Jul 23, 2010 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions

No one in oakland really wanted him. We knew he was too much of a risk to take.

We weren’t following the hype, because we looked up videos of him, and gave our not-so-satisfactory opinion.

I'm also a Raider Fan dammit!!! RAIDER NATION!!!!

Down with Big Brother!

by patriotguy2 on Jul 23, 2010 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions

So McFadden was another insane high first round pick?

At least you guys picked up Asomugha before all the craziness started anew…

by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Jul 23, 2010 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions

At the time McFadden was drafted, I was just getting into the draft.

So I don’t exactly know who all the raider fans wanted to pick. But when I got on the forums, not many were excited. Can he become a great weapon when used correctly(ie. pitching the ball to him, screen passes, lining up at WR)? Sure he can. But we all feel that he was not the right pick at the right spot.

WE HAVE MICHAEL BUSH!!! I think he is our starter now. :) :) :)

I'm also a Raider Fan dammit!!! RAIDER NATION!!!!

Down with Big Brother!

by patriotguy2 on Jul 23, 2010 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions

also Jacob Ford

he should be our Kevin Faulk of the group. IN fact, he reminds me of a lot of Faulk, although faster, but not as “reliable” I should say. Reason why I say this is because he hasn’t played an nfl snap, an I don’t exactly know how the coaches will use him. Hopefully as a 3rd own back. :)

I'm also a Raider Fan dammit!!! RAIDER NATION!!!!

Down with Big Brother!

by patriotguy2 on Jul 23, 2010 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions

He just reminded me of Sanders the most. In my evaluations(which I do in the offseason)

I usually have 2-3 different type of potentials:

1: Current potential
2: Pro potential
3: HoF potential

Just like everyone else, I compare next years draft candidates, to other nfl players of this generation, decade, or present.

I'm also a Raider Fan dammit!!! RAIDER NATION!!!!

Down with Big Brother!

by patriotguy2 on Jul 23, 2010 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions

I think it goes like this for all RBs.

1) vision and patience
2) quickness
3) breaking tackles (either from power or agility) and balence
4) Catching out of the backfield
…..

by PotM on Jul 23, 2010 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions

We both have our aims on the list.

breaking tackles would also be my third, then quickness, then catching out in the backfield. But we have our opinions on the matter.

I’m not trying to be your rival you know. I like discussing potential on future players.

I'm also a Raider Fan dammit!!! RAIDER NATION!!!!

Down with Big Brother!

by patriotguy2 on Jul 23, 2010 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions

I was just making conversation.

I think balence goes hand in hand with breaking tackles for a scat back and most RBs for that matter. Explosiveness through the hole is more important IMO, because it will take advantage of the hole to the greatest extent and is underrated IMO.

by PotM on Jul 23, 2010 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions

I have explosiveness through the hole in my "vision" category.

In my breaking tackles category, I have to admit that I have balance involved in that category. Vision is very important, but I think vision can be taught with experience, but you can also say that Balance is something that can also be taught in a way.

Like when we were looking at Harvey Hunga, one thing I’ve noticed, and wasn’t sold on, was his balance. He seemed to be relying on “other bodies” to try and keep himself strait. But his vision looked good as well. Which gave me a +1 on him, but having that vision translate to the nfl, to me, might be a bit tougher than translating your balance.

I'm also a Raider Fan dammit!!! RAIDER NATION!!!!

Down with Big Brother!

by patriotguy2 on Jul 23, 2010 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions

Well, the ability to be quick and the mental aspect of it

are totally different, IMO.

by PotM on Jul 23, 2010 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions

I agree to an extent.

We all know that college and the nfl are different animals.

Taking that into account, I can say that both will be affected because players in the nfl are a lot quicker than college, and that mentally, you have to work a lot harder, and play a lot harder to be successful in the nfl, and also have to learn a larger playbook, as well as work with guys you likely haven’t worked with before.

I'm also a Raider Fan dammit!!! RAIDER NATION!!!!

Down with Big Brother!

by patriotguy2 on Jul 23, 2010 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions

Having the mental aspect perfected can make you seem quicker than

you are, but there ae limits based on how athletic you are. IMO the shuttle and cone drills are much more important than the 40, because how many times does a RB run 40 yards in one direction, or any football player for that matter?

by PotM on Jul 23, 2010 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions

I completely agree.

40 time is overrated. Like when analysts were talking about Brandon Spikes 40 time, BB stated it perfectly when he said that Brandon probably won’t be running 40 yards down the field all the time.

I'm also a Raider Fan dammit!!! RAIDER NATION!!!!

Down with Big Brother!

by patriotguy2 on Jul 23, 2010 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions

Having the mental aspect can improve your play, and make you quicker

but like you said, they are different. And I only agree to an extent.

That’s why, we need to see how quick they are initially, and try and find out how it can translate into the nfl. The mentality of it can be increased over time, thus improving your play.

I'm also a Raider Fan dammit!!! RAIDER NATION!!!!

Down with Big Brother!

by patriotguy2 on Jul 23, 2010 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions

Quick guys can traslate their skills easily

in some positions. See Bess, UDFA that came in and had an immediate impact. Wake, too.

by PotM on Jul 23, 2010 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions

Yeah, some people can do it.

Chris Johnson is a great example too. Julian Edelman on our team did as well. We saw how they translated in the nfl, and it worked. But sometimes it doesn’t. I can’t name players off the top of my head, but I can say that there players who have not translated their quickness to the nfl as expected.

I'm also a Raider Fan dammit!!! RAIDER NATION!!!!

Down with Big Brother!

by patriotguy2 on Jul 23, 2010 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions

40 time does matter for a scatback

at least a punt/kick returning scatback of the Darren Sproles/Leon Washington type. That’s sheerly because a kick returner does get the odd opportunity to run 40 yards in a straight line, though. At least, you hope your kick returner does, hah.

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Jul 23, 2010 9:00 PM EDT up reply actions

Pass blocking is HUGE in terms of FO rating

at least for pass-first teams like the Pats and Colts. That’s a lot of where Faulk’s value comes from – not just his ability to catch out of the backfield, but his ability to jam down on an pass-rusher or choose when to chip a rusher and then run outside for a catch. That extra level of decision making and technique separates Faulk from Maroney, who’s shown a bit of talent in catching passes, but not so much of the pass-protection.

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Jul 23, 2010 8:57 PM EDT up reply actions

I've seen a play where Devine levels a DE.

Is that a +1?

I'm also a Raider Fan dammit!!! RAIDER NATION!!!!

Down with Big Brother!

by patriotguy2 on Jul 23, 2010 9:43 PM EDT up reply actions

Useful show of firepower

but I really think it’s more about the vision and decision-making. Faulk gets by without levelling pass-rushers; he spots the threat, chips them in just the right way and just the right angle and level of force to knock them out of their lane, and then can bounce out and get open himself. If he tried to clean the clock of any MLB charging through, he’d inevitably lose some contests or get levelled himsefl; by choosing to chip-and-get-open, he both buys Brady an extra second and gives Brady his outlet option. RB is one of the positions that has low Wonderlic scores; perhaps the Pats should look at the smartest RBs rather than the fastest.

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Jul 23, 2010 10:23 PM EDT up reply actions

book smart doesn't = football smart

by PotM on Jul 23, 2010 10:30 PM EDT up reply actions

Oh, sure...

but by the same token, perhaps you’d emphasise the analysis aspects and knowledge of the playbook, ability to break down pass-rush schemes, etc, instead of sheer physical stats. RBs get drafted solely on 40 times and Combine stats all the time (hello, Darren McFadden); the Pats should avoid that like the plague when grooming a Faulk replacement.

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Jul 23, 2010 11:04 PM EDT up reply actions

Well, they should look at how he runs on the field.

Bush boucned around and didn’t run forward in college, but he learned to and we saw what that did for the saints last year.

I think running style > college GPA when it comes to running backs

by PotM on Jul 23, 2010 11:14 PM EDT up reply actions

Or put him in front of videos of Faulk in the pocket

stop the tape a second after the snap, and ask the kid which guy Faulk will block. Being able to break down blocking assignments means a lot more for a 3rd down back than the difference between a 3.35 and 3.4 40 time.

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Jul 23, 2010 11:18 PM EDT up reply actions

it looks different on tape than on the field.

maybe if they out a cam on Faulk’s helmet in practice and then di that

by PotM on Jul 23, 2010 11:22 PM EDT up reply actions

I'm sure they have a system sorted out, if only for teaching

so they can turn it on its head and test the rookies based on the same evaluation system. That, and endless rolls of game-tape from college games looking for their shotgun snaps and pass-protection abilities…

Gotta love being a scout?

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Jul 23, 2010 11:42 PM EDT up reply actions

That would be an awesome job, but a lot of pressure.

by PotM on Jul 24, 2010 12:18 AM EDT up reply actions

agreed.

I'm also a Raider Fan dammit!!! RAIDER NATION!!!!

Down with Big Brother!

by patriotguy2 on Jul 24, 2010 1:04 AM EDT up reply actions

Maurice Jones-Drew strikes again!

by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Jul 23, 2010 10:50 PM EDT up reply actions

Jacquizz had a ridiculous freshman year.

Actually, he had a ridiculous game vs. USC, and it was off to the races from there.

by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Jul 23, 2010 1:36 PM EDT reply actions

no Brandon Saine ?

that guy to me is a perfect replacement for kevin faulk

Non Sibi Sed Patriae.
I love my ZX-6r Kawasaki.
I bleed Scarlet and Grey...A Buckeye for Life

by NinjaZX6R on Jul 23, 2010 4:24 PM EDT reply actions

there are one more coming

by PotM on Jul 23, 2010 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions

Biggest knock on Brandon Saine will be durability.

Kevin Faulk hasn’t exactly ended up on IR too many times. Saine’s injury history will be a concern, but he’ll be a steal in the later rounds, or an undrafted FA steal.

by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Jul 24, 2010 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions

that is true but his pass catching abilities is the best in college ftball right now

amazing speed and great hands.

Non Sibi Sed Patriae.
I love my ZX-6r Kawasaki.
I bleed Scarlet and Grey...A Buckeye for Life

by NinjaZX6R on Jul 24, 2010 8:27 PM EDT up reply actions

I'm going to have to watch for this guy this year then

Keep the faith!

by Marima on Jul 24, 2010 9:03 PM EDT up reply actions

do you watch college football?

the Ohio State-the U game will be on abc on sept 11@ 3.30pm.
In my imo…OSU didn’t utilize him right till last yr. Rums screens, runs out of the backfield, runs the wheel route from the fb spot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijMHAxABRM8
( he is no. 3)

Non Sibi Sed Patriae.
I love my ZX-6r Kawasaki.
I bleed Scarlet and Grey...A Buckeye for Life

by NinjaZX6R on Jul 24, 2010 10:13 PM EDT up reply actions

Saine was kinda battling an injury bug.

He’s bounced back and proven himself in Tressel’s system.

Now, he has to follow Ike’s advice, and prepare himself for the game against Miami.

If there’s a game I REALLY want the Buckeyes to win, it’s their game vs. Miami. Losing that one would REALLY hurt the Buckeyes.

by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Jul 24, 2010 11:30 PM EDT up reply actions

if they win that game ( 90% sure they will) they will go to the title game

Non Sibi Sed Patriae.
I love my ZX-6r Kawasaki.
I bleed Scarlet and Grey...A Buckeye for Life

by NinjaZX6R on Jul 25, 2010 7:29 PM EDT up reply actions

Tell that to Iowa...

Or Wisconsin. Or any of the Big Ten teams on the schedule this season.

There’s been more than one occasion that Ohio State has tossed away a game vs. the Wolverines with the Big Ten title and the National Championship on the line. Heck, MSU ruined John Cooper in 1998.

Anything can happen in the Big Ten. Anything.

by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Jul 25, 2010 7:39 PM EDT up reply actions

maybe in the cooper yrs but not w. tressel in charge

Ohio state (except the 2 title games) has only lost to two un ranked teams ever- illionis n freakin purdue in 8 yrs
Iowa and the Wisc games will be close but they should win out. Mich…lol…our 2nd team could team that horrible team who looks like they will start yet another true freshman @ qb. I dont fear Illnois, Minn, Purdue, Ind, Penn State, Mich St.
OSU has lost two good defensive players- Worthinton and Cloeman) but they have great depth on the defensive side.They switched to the 3-4 defense (1 gap) last yr and it helped them a lot.
Offensively-they are set to go…lost no players. Confidence from the rose bowl win should help the Buckeyes.

Non Sibi Sed Patriae.
I love my ZX-6r Kawasaki.
I bleed Scarlet and Grey...A Buckeye for Life

by NinjaZX6R on Jul 26, 2010 12:53 AM EDT up reply actions

sparodically

A friend of mine will point out certain players to keep an eye on during the season and that’s usually how I watch. Plus, it’s ALWAYS on on Saturdays while I’m getting the food ready for Sunday’s crowd.

Keep the faith!

by Marima on Jul 25, 2010 10:10 AM EDT up reply actions

you should cheer for my school!

Non Sibi Sed Patriae.
I love my ZX-6r Kawasaki.
I bleed Scarlet and Grey...A Buckeye for Life

by NinjaZX6R on Jul 25, 2010 7:29 PM EDT up reply actions

You all realize we might be looking at a 1 back backfield going into the draft right?

It’s highly likely that Morris, Taylor and Faulk retire and Maroney leaves for more money. Leaving practice squad guys and Law Firm to fill the backfield. That’s not good at all.

We need a solid RB and I know Comedic is going to argue me on this but we do. More than we need a real FB. Forgetting the running game has not benefited the team and it’s showing more and more. Having a backfield Houston could look at and laugh at is not good. We should have drafted a RB in this draft so we wouldn’t have Law Firm being the “senior” guy on the team. It’s not looking good next year if we have to draft an offensive lineman to fill Mankins spot and, at the same time, rebuild the entire running back unit from the ground up.

by satsunada on Jul 25, 2010 2:36 AM EDT reply actions

What's a 'solid RB'?

Forgetting the running game has not benefited the team and it’s showing more and more.

By this, I assume you mean the fact the Pats haven’t drafted RBs. That’s not the only way to build up a RB corps.

The Saints won the Superbowl in 2009. Their leading rusher was an Undrafted Free Agent – Pierre Thomas. Their second-top rusher was another Undrafted Free Agent – Mike Bell. Bell had been cut from the Broncos and signed by the Texans, who waived him after just over a week.

So the Saints won a Superbowl with a guy who’d been passed over 256 times in the draft by all 32 teams, and a guy who’d been passed over 256 times in the draft by all 32 teams and cut by two of them. And while the Saints had Fullbacks, they weren’t used regularly – Heath Evans had a total of 6 games, and Kyle Eckel had a total of 7. So having fullbacks clearly wasn’t the key to winning a Superbowl, nor was having highly-drafted RBs running like studs.

In short: The Saints won the Superbowl with a RBBC led by UFA bit-part RBs and only part-time FBs.

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Jul 25, 2010 3:13 AM EDT up reply actions

I knew this was coming

I’m quite aware that’s not the only way to build up a RB corps. I’m also aware of what the Saints did.

Here’s another fun stat, we had 45 yards rushing in the Giants Super Bowl. The inability of the backs to get much done led to an increased pressure package from the Giants and almost directly led to the low scoring affair. If having multi-receiver threats and all that jazz you’ve been talking about really works, how come it hasn’t won a Super Bowl in 5 years? Despite all the scoring potential of the offense, they lost the ability to really take up time and help the defense. Corey Dillon was a free agent, I’ll give you that… but he also ran for many a yard and ran hard.

If you really have no care at all about the backfield, then why not recommend that we just cut all the backs and settle for having an extra lineman back there to help in blitz packages. We’ll just throw the ball the whole time.

Another thing you didn’t mention.. and what directly led to the Saints winning.. was the opportunistic defense they had and the strong defensive line play of their starters. And sure, the running backs they had were undrafted and cut but that kind of thing happens. Teams don’t always see talent best, easily evidenced by how many passed Brady over before the Pats got him. However, even without seeing talent, we’ve drafted a TON of DB’s in the past 3 drafts. We’ve also drafted many linemen of both varieties. We’ve drafted 4 running backs since 2000 with Maroney being the only one in the 1st or 2nd round with J.R. Redmond back in 2000 being the next highest. We have a few free agents that are young but by default, not very talented. This has left a huge void at running back of both youth and talent and competitiveness. Couple this with the poor planning on the contracts and we’re stuck in a situation where we’ll probably lose half the running backs next year.

Oh.. and if you don’t know what a solid RB is, I suggest you look at the litany of backs throughout league history that are either hall of famers or consistently helped their team win. If you can’t find one you think is dependable, quit following football. You hide behind Maroney like he can hold a candle to Frank Gore or DeAngelo Williams or even Cadillac Williams. Maroney wouldn’t even be a starter on the Seahawks. Behind him is a cadre of either young and inexperienced or ancient and dusty running backs that you seem to appreciate. While Faulk is the exception to the rule, the rest of the backs are pretty much worthless. Sure, they get yards here and there and can block on occasion but none of them would be in the league if the Pats didn’t scrape them up.You can bring up Super Bowl winning numbers and all that but the fact of the matter is the Patriots have either no talent or aged talent at running back and have continuously ignored the problem. We’ve leaned on the passing game too much and it just can’t hold up. Receivers get tired of running full speed and defenses get tired by the third quarter if the offense moves too quick.Have we been winning? Sure. The offensive talent outside of RB is VERY talented and can hide the blemish for a time.I still have no idea why you want us to suck at one position so much. You argue me with passing numbers and stats and all kinds of stuff every time I mention we need SOMETHING in the backfield besides Brady. If you want a continuous stream of has-beens and never-was’s then I’ll go try out for the team, maybe I can contribute more than Sammy Morris and at the very least I won’t be able to stutter step. I’ve had enough injuries to qualify but not as many as Taylor.

by satsunada on Jul 25, 2010 11:33 PM EDT up reply actions

Weird.. i never copy/pasted but it seems to have put them there.. very odd.

by satsunada on Jul 25, 2010 11:34 PM EDT up reply actions

I swear it does this sometimes

just to keep us humble, lol

Keep the faith!

by Marima on Jul 26, 2010 8:32 AM EDT up reply actions

I get the enthusiasm, but...

We’ve leaned on the passing game too much and it just can’t hold up. Receivers get tired of running full speed and defenses get tired by the third quarter if the offense moves too quick.

The Superbowl teams were both pass-first teams with so-so RBs. Both Addai and Reggie Bush were drafted highly, but both (like Maroney) are considered near-busts. Receivers do get tired, which is why both the Colts and Saints drafted/signed a whole swag of pass-catchers – Colston, Henderson, Meachem, Lance Moore, Shockey and Thomas; Wayne, Gonzalez, Collie, Garcon, Dallas Clark.

The offensive talent outside of RB is VERY talented and can hide the blemish for a time. I still have no idea why you want us to suck at one position so much

The Saints and Colts had so-so to horrible running (the top Saints rusher got 700 yards (same as Maroney!) and the Colts were ranked 31st in rushing), yet they were both Superbowl teams. I don’t want the Pats to “suck”, I just think they’re better served by taking free agents who can still run (say, like Thomas Jones?) and using the draft picks elsewhere. I’d rather get an O-lineman with a draft pick and get a free agent RB than the other way around.

You argue me with passing numbers and stats and all kinds of stuff every time I mention we need SOMETHING in the backfield besides Brady

I’m just saying the Colts made the Superbowl with the second-to-worst running in the whole league, and the Saints made it with no RBs getting more than 700 yards. That doesn’t suggest anything?

Why do you persist to say we’re ok back there when we’re obviously not?

The Pats ran for 2200 yards with Corey Dillion getting 1400 of them in 2004; the Pats ran for 1900-2000 yards in 2009. While I’d like that extra 200 yards, sure, it’s not a dire horrible all-plaguing problem, either.

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Jul 26, 2010 12:03 AM EDT up reply actions

The Super Bowl teams you mention masked the iffy running games with awesome D

Both teams had very strong defenses, particularly their front 7. The Saints had a better secondary but the Colts would have matched it had they had Bob Sanders healthy in the lineup. They could afford to ignore the running game except for pluggers. Honestly, the main running back for the Saints isn’t Bush, it’s Pierre Thomas. He runs VERY hard and sheds tacklers well.

The Patriots are in a rebuilding phase on the D and still have an iffy secondary. We need a running game to kill time off the clock and guarantee drives continue so the defense can do what the defense is supposed to do: Bend but don’t Break. As it stands, we’re probably a year or two away from having a fully operational defense again. A premier running back can buy that time.

Btw, I would have been cool if we picked up Thomas Jones. He’s a good hard runner too. Hell.. i’d of been happy with Peyton Hillis. Basically, I would have been happy with someone who wasn’t headed immediately toward retirement after a lockout was announced OR heading into free agency like Maroney is.

And another thing, I’m not saying we need to burn a first rounder on someone and aim as high as possible. I’m saying the Patriots should at least pretend they want a running back on occasion. Oh I don’t know.. maybe draft more than 4 in a decade. They picked up more cornerbacks in 2008 than running backs all decade. You can have all the talent on the O-Line you want and STILL get a running back worth something.

by satsunada on Jul 26, 2010 5:24 PM EDT up reply actions

True, but then...

the guys you mentioned as great examples of RBs:

Oh.. and if you don’t know what a solid RB is, I suggest you look at the litany of backs throughout league history that are either hall of famers or consistently helped their team win. If you can’t find one you think is dependable, quit following football. You hide behind Maroney like he can hold a candle to Frank Gore or DeAngelo Williams or even Cadillac Williams

True, at least in the regular season stats. But by the same token, I don’t remember the last time Frank Gore, DeAngelo Williams or Cadillac Williams won a playoff game… which is kind of the point. Even Maroney could arguably stand up and say “I won a playoff game” after a few of those 100+ yard efforts in 2007. The NFL, thanks partly to Polian’s rule and the emphasis on TV viewership, is a passing league. The run game is important, but it’s still secondary (for better or worse). It’s not impossible for a run-first team to make playoffs (the Jets and Ravens did it), but it’s been a while since a genuinely run-first team won the Superbowl. I suppose you could call the 2007 Giants a run-first team, but any team with a 1st round, 1st pick QB called “Manning” isn’t quite going to be run-first.

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Jul 26, 2010 9:00 PM EDT up reply actions

Very true but, with all the guys I mentioned, either the QB situation or the coaching situation was in flux the whole time

You can’t argue that Steven Jackson isn’t a great runner, despite the team. I’m not even looking for a run-first team. I just want the option of doing it and not to be screwed next offseason.

The biggest component of a modern Super Bowl team is quarterback. Not necessarily passing game, but quarterback. I won’t argue you there. The Patriots and Saints have shown you don’t really need super-talented receivers to win. What I’d like is a running back that’s young but good. I’d more prefer draft picks or rookie UFA’s instead of ancient guys from other teams. Because the other main component of a Super Bowl team is defense and a running back can mask a weak defense a bit by allowing the other team less time to operate.

In essence, apparently I should have offered examples like Marshall Faulk, Brian Westbrook, Terrell Davis or Adrian Peterson. I wanted to use current players that are comparable to Maroney in age and talent but have FAR exceeded Maroney’s efforts thus far.

I’m just saying.. for the love of god.. can we get a running back who’s decent in the draft. We’ve drafted QB’s, DB’s and OL for 3 or 4 years now.. why the hell not a running back. There has to have been SOMEONE since Maroney that was worth taking a chance on. Also, big free agents want more money than you’re average 2nd round running back so it’s a balancing act.

by satsunada on Jul 26, 2010 11:16 PM EDT up reply actions

That's the thing, though

I’d more prefer draft picks or rookie UFA’s instead of ancient guys from other teams

As I noted in my article about RBs a while back, the Pats have taken at least one UFA or draftee every single year since 2004 (and sometimes one of each).

In 2004 they drafted Cedric Cobbs in the 4th round (128th overall)
In 2004 they signed UFA Kory Chapman.
In 2005 they signed UFA Kyle Eckel.
In 2006 they drafted Laurence Maroney in the 1st round (21st overall).
In 2006 they signed UFA Patrick Cobbs.
In 2007 they drafted Justice Hairston in the 6th round (208th overall).
In 2008 they signed UFA BenJarvus Green-Ellis.
In 2009 they signed ex-UFA (one year in league) Chris Taylor.
In 2010 they signed UFA Pat Paschall
In 2010 they re-signed third-year UFA Chris Taylor.

As you can see, every year they’ve kicked the tyres on one or more young RBs, they’ve just never been able to stick around. That’s a total of ten young RBs who they’ve signed and tested out since they signed Corey Dillon (and had a “stud RB” and all that entails).

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Jul 26, 2010 11:55 PM EDT up reply actions

You make my point with that post..

Yes, we’ve signed UFA’s but look at that list. Is there anyone there, other than maybe Maroney and BJGE, with a lick of talent? We aim so high and ask so much for our DB’s and OL but when it comes to RB, we skimp and take trash. You can only grab no-name people so much before it starts to show. That list makes me wish they’d fire the scouts that are looking at running backs.

None of those guys are what I’d consider worthwhile picks, aside from Maroney. We had a chance, this last draft, to get a few guys who were worthwhile. I’m not saying we had a bad draft because we filled alot of holes but the RB position is still VERY weak.

You also make my point further by the fact that, of all those guys, that only the 1st round pick and one.. maybe 2 .. of the UFA’s worked out. UFA Running backs are UFA for a reason. We can afford to use one of the 14 draft picks next year to get one.. JUST ONE.. running back. Again, you keep arguing me about ONE RUNNING BACK. We have 8 worthwhile offensive lineman, 4 good to great receivers and 3 .. THREE.. tight ends that are keepers to go with a surefire HoF quarterback. Then in the backfield we have people that either lived up to their potential ages ago or never found any to begin with.

You keep posting our terrible odds with a running back and how teams don’t need them and yet.. at the end of the day, our entire 2009 season was built around a play where we had to pass to get 2 yards because we couldn’t trust our backs.. and we lost games because our receivers got tired and the offense stagnated because the RB weren’t living up to expectations.

1 back.. 1 first or second round pick on a back. You can have the whole rest of the damn draft order but burn a high pick on someone worth a flip. We’ve wasted plenty of chances to get someone worthwhile while drafting useless DB’s or OL we know won’t make the team. Maybe if we had a functional back that was stable.. we wouldn’t need 5 RB to fill basic jobs that perhaps 2 or 3 could do.

by satsunada on Jul 27, 2010 6:56 PM EDT up reply actions

But that just goes to MY point

You can only grab no-name people so much before it starts to show.

It’s so-called “no-name people” who won the Superbowl last year – Undrafted Free Agents Pierre Thomas and Mike Bell.

UFA Running backs are UFA for a reason.

Except when they’re winning Superbowls, like Priest Holmes, Pierre Thomas, Dominic Rhodes, Mike Bell, and Willie Parker.

To throw out another few recent UFA RBs, you’ve got Pro Bowlers Clifton Smith, Mack Strong and Leonard Weaver, or guys like Ryan Grant, Nick Goings, Marcell Shipp or Earnest Graham.

If you’re going to open it up a little and look at late 7th rounders (where the Pats have spent a few picks) – Derrick Ward, Rock Cartwright, Madison Hedgecock, Ahmad Bradshaw, and Peyton Hillis stand out.

None of those guys are “worth a flip”?

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Jul 27, 2010 7:32 PM EDT up reply actions

You name 7 recent UFA's out of how many that sucked?

You name 5 7th Rounders out of how many that got cut before the season even started?

As far as being worth a flip, out of that whole list.. I’d say Ryan Grant and Earnest Graham maybe. The rest of that list were only good because they were new.

Priest Holmes was Priest Holmes, Parker had a chip on his shoulder, Bell has yet to show me anything worthwhile since Denver dropped him like a bad habit, Rhodes is ok when he’s not a criminal and Pierre Thomas.. ok.. I’ll give you him because he’s pretty good.

Also, using Super Bowls to gauge a player’s performance can be misleading. Mike Wilson was an ok receiver.. career total of 137 games, 159 receptions for 2199 yards and 15 TD’s… over 10 years.. however, in your book he’d sound super-spectacular with his FOUR Super Bowl rings as a backup receiver for the Montana/Rice 49ers. Then you’d probably pitch me on how pivotal and crucial slow and rather unathletic receivers are to a Super Bowl team.

Hell.. even out of the list you provided above, the only one above who’s still with his original team ( i think ) is Ryan Grant. It’s not the running backs that win postseason games alone. They help and sometimes it’s great when they show up but it’d be even nicer if you could rely on them to make 3 yard runs now and again.. which Bradshaw, Thomas, Parker and Grant are good at.So pitching me on the rare few backs out of the literal hundreds that are UFA’s over the last decade does not impress me. Nor does the amount of Super Bowl bling they carry because usually they aren’t the one that won the game or even mattered. That’s because they are UFA’s.The 7th rounders you list are fittingly 7th rounders. They have minimal playing time and you can’t rely on them. They are good change of pace backs but nothing more.To counterpoint, here’s a list of first round picks you may have heard of: Ronnie Brown, Cedric Benson, Carnell Williams, Steven Jackson, Kevin Jones, Larry Johnson, Willis McGahee, Ladainian Tomlinson, Deuce McAllister, Michael Bennett, Reggie Bush, DeAngelo Williams, Joseph Addai, Adrian Peterson, Marshawn Lynch, Jonathan Stewart, Felix Jones, Rashard Mendenhall, Chris Johnson, Knowshon Moreno, Donald Brown, Chris “Beanie” Wells. Basically, as long as you weren’t drafted by the Falcons, Raiders or Browns.. they did very good. There’s at least 2 dozen pro bowls and a handful of Super Bowl appearances in that group including.. oh my.. 1st Rounder Donald Brown in the recent Super Bowl.. and Reggie Bush. So basically, out of 30 guys selected.. roughly 24 or 25 are great whereas UFA’s and 7th Rounders combined can’t come close to that ratio.

by satsunada on Jul 28, 2010 8:10 PM EDT up reply actions

It copied again.. ugh.. apparently it feels long posts need to be longer

by satsunada on Jul 28, 2010 8:11 PM EDT up reply actions

Some of those are okay...

To counterpoint, here’s a list of first round picks you may have heard of: Ronnie Brown, Cedric Benson, Carnell Williams, Steven Jackson, Kevin Jones, Larry Johnson, Willis McGahee, Ladainian Tomlinson, Deuce McAllister, Michael Bennett, Reggie Bush, DeAngelo Williams, Joseph Addai, Adrian Peterson, Marshawn Lynch, Jonathan Stewart, Felix Jones, Rashard Mendenhall, Chris Johnson, Knowshon Moreno, Donald Brown, Chris "Beanie" Wells

Compared to guys like: Darren McFadden, Marshawn Lynch, Kenny Irons, Chris Henry, Brandon Jackson, Reggie Bush, Laurence Maroney, Joseph Addai, LenDale White, Cedric Benson, Carnell Williams, JJ Arrington, Eric Shelton, Chris Perry, Kevin Jones, Tatum Bell, Julius Jones, Greg Jones, William Green, Maurice Morris, Ladell Betts, Anthony Thomas, LaMont Jordan, Ron Dayne, and Trung Canidate, all of whom were disappointing first- and second-round draftees from 2000-2010.

So basically, out of 30 guys selected.. roughly 24 or 25 are great whereas UFA’s and 7th Rounders combined can’t come close to that ratio

I’m not sure where you’re getting your ‘30’ number from. Trung Canidate disagrees.

They help and sometimes it’s great when they show up but it’d be even nicer if you could rely on them to make 3 yard runs now and again

Record longest rushing play in a Superbowl? The 75-yard TD run by UFA Willie Parker. He finished the game with 93 yards on 10 carries, the highest average for all Superbowl RBs with 10 carries or over.

So pitching me on the rare few backs out of the literal hundreds that are UFA’s over the last decade does not impress me

I count 5 UFA RBs who won Superbowls – Priest Holmes, Dominic Rhodes, Mike Bell, Pierre Thomas, Willie Parker.

I count 3 first-round draftee (2000-2010) RBs who won Superbowls – Joseph Addai, Reggie Bush, Rashard Mendenhall (who was on IR for 75% of the season).

Five > three. Especially since Holmes, Rhodes, Parker were definite starters in their respective years, and Bell and Pierre Thomas were the 1A and 1B starters. Bush was merely a backup/third-down back. Mendenhall was on IR. That’s pretty compelling, at least to me.

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Jul 28, 2010 9:03 PM EDT up reply actions

And we both misread each other..

I said first round picks… not 2nd round. And yes, Lynch, Bush and McFadden all have been pretty crappy up to this point. Carnell Williams is doing great considering he’s blown both ACL’s and the others are just as productive, if not more, than the UFA’s you mention and are choosing not to mention.

Record longest run? Are you serious? And Vrabel is the most awesome receiver ever with a 100% touchdown to catch ratio. Again, once or twice doesn’t impress me. Also, Parker was good for 3 yards on a play and the Steelers O-Line was awesome up until the last few years.

Other than Parker, all those guys mentioned weren’t even remotely the reason their team made it to the Super Bowl, much less won it. Priest, god rest his soul, only had 8 yards as the utility back for the Ray Lewis and Rod Woodson show. The Saints was purely the D and Drew Brees. Rhodes did great but it was a win over the hapless Bears.

Sure, I’ll give you that 5 is greater than 3. Despite the fact that 2 are on the same team. But my point again, most teams that draft high running backs are rebuilding from nothing.. which is where we are now in that backfield. Nothing. Also, you name like 5 guys out of what? 200 UFA’s and 7th Rounders? I’ll take 3 out of whatever number there are of first rounders vs. that ratio anyday.

by satsunada on Jul 28, 2010 10:04 PM EDT up reply actions

Hah! That's my point!

Other than Parker, all those guys mentioned weren’t even remotely the reason their team made it to the Super Bowl, much less won it. Priest, god rest his soul, only had 8 yards as the utility back for the Ray Lewis and Rod Woodson show. The Saints was purely the D and Drew Brees. Rhodes did great but it was a win over the hapless Bears.

Exactly! None of those RBs got their teams to the Superbowl. And of the first-round RBs, none of them got their teams there, either – Reggie Bush had ~500 yards on the season, Addai was a bit-part, Mendenhall was on IR. So, in other words, of the teams that have won the Superbowl, none of them were dependant on RBs. RBs don’t matter so much in the scheme of winning Superbowls. I’m not saying they’re unimportant, but it’s not important enough to justify the difference between a first-round draftee and an UFA pickup. All the other positions matter – the D and QB (as you mentioned with the Saints), or the “Ray Lewis and Rod Woodson show”.

To sum it up – I’d rather draft a Ray Lewis, Rod Woodson, Drew Brees, Saints D… than a first-round RB. A UFA RB will be closer to a first-round RB than a UFA MLB will be to Ray Lewis.

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Jul 28, 2010 10:22 PM EDT up reply actions

You are correct in the assumption about the other positions

Yes, you’d rather draft those other positions but you have the EXACT SAME ODDS of getting someone that’s as worthless. How many picks have bombed on us from other positions? How many times have we gotten someone with a horrible injury history to watch it continue?

A UFA RB will NEVER be close to a first-round RB just like a UFA MLB will NEVER be close to a Ray Lewis. I don’t see Pierre Thomas and Mike Bell playing NEARLY as well as Chris Johnson or Adrian Peterson. You can’t honestly tell me they do either. So with 2 first round picks next year and 1 damn running back in the stable at season’s end, you want to ignore the running back position in favor of getting a 4th or 5th linebacker, 6th or 7th DB, or an 8th or 9th OL that we’ve picked up in the last 4 years?

I can completely understanding wanting all the other positions but leaving a gaping hole to get a 3rd string linebacker or 2nd string guard with a 1st round pick is just plain bad management.

Also, to say no running back has gotten their team to a Super Bowl is rather nonchalant. Because you were going with Super Bowl winners, there are alot of backs that have gotten their team to the Super Bowl and MANY more that carried their team through the season and the playoffs. Faulk, Westbrook, Terrell Davis, Adrian Peterson, Tomlinson, etc. all pulled their teams that far or at least gave their offenses the opportunity.

If you think other positions matter, why the hell do you want 5 running backs on the roster? It only takes 3, we have 5 because all but one of them are old and get hurt or untrustworthy. That’s taking away 2 valuable roster positions on game day that could be used for other players if we just had a good, strong running back. It quite literally is weakening the whole damn team!

by satsunada on Jul 29, 2010 12:36 AM EDT up reply actions

Kinda.

So with 2 first round picks next year and 1 damn running back in the stable at season’s end, you want to ignore the running back position in favor of getting a 4th or 5th linebacker, 6th or 7th DB, or an 8th or 9th OL that we’ve picked up in the last 4 years?

RE. RT. LG (maybe). RG (maybe).

I can completely understanding wanting all the other positions but leaving a gaping hole to get a 3rd string linebacker or 2nd string guard with a 1st round pick is just plain bad management.

Any first round pick is likely to start, especially at OT (like, say, Matt Light?) or OG (like, say, Mankins?). FIrst round D-linemen start, too (Seymour, Warren, Wilfork).

How many picks have bombed on us from other positions?

Of the positions I named – OT, OG, DE – none. Matt Light, Sebastian Vollmer, Logan Mankins are the Pats top-2 round draft choices for O-linemen. Richard Seymour, Ty Warren, Vince Wilfork, Marquise Hill (deceased) and Ron Brace are the top-2 round draft choices on the D-line. Brace is a work-in-progress and Marquise Hill died right around the time he might’ve been able to supplant/replace Warren or Seymour.

As for first-round RBs… Laurence Maroney. Maroney vs. Wilfork/Warren/Seymour; or Light/Vollmer/Mankins? No contest.

If you think other positions matter, why the hell do you want 5 running backs on the roster? It only takes 3, we have 5 because all but one of them are old and get hurt or untrustworthy. That’s taking away 2 valuable roster positions on game day that could be used for other players if we just had a good, strong running back. It quite literally is weakening the whole damn team!

What team doesn’t have 5 on the roster? At the moment, the Titans have seven on the roster, the Vikings have eight. the Jets also have eight, the Ravens have seven. Those teams are run-first, and they don’t think three is enough…

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Jul 29, 2010 12:51 AM EDT up reply actions

Atm, lots of teams have 7 RB on the roster

However, on gameday.. the Pats kept 5, assuming all were healthy, on the suited, gameday roster. I seriously doubt the Ravens, Vikings and Titans keep more than 3 or, at max, 4 and then only suit 2 or 3. Vikings had 3 and a FB last year. That’s still less than what we use. The Titans had 4 and a FB but only really suit 3 and a FB any given day so.. again.. still less than what we use.

You’re generally right on the high round picks too. Most of the Pats high round picks do well.. so why not see if the same rule applies to RB? Also, I see you didn’t mention the plethora of DB’s we’ve drafted in recent years in the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd rounds.

Again, you only name 4 positions of need with what… 10 picks we have? We have 4 picks in the first 2 rounds, can’t we afford to get one running back with a first rounder and use the other 3 to fill what you want? Hell, take the other 5 draft picks too.. use those on DE and more DB’s and more OL. There are plenty of picks. Why you argue me on this so much is beyond me.

by satsunada on Jul 29, 2010 1:03 AM EDT up reply actions

That sounds about the same, though.

However, on gameday.. the Pats kept 5, assuming all were healthy, on the suited, gameday roster

That’s mainly because BJGE is a part-time FB and core special teamer – he’s not sitting on the bench doing nothing, he’s on the ST units. That’s not a ‘waste of a roster spot’ or anything. Also bear in mind that the Jets had two RBs on the practice squad (Pats had none); the other teams did similar things. They couldn’t guarantee to go through a season with only 4 guys, so they had to use a PS slot for the extras.

If you were campaigning for a 3rd round draft pick on a guy like Shonn Green, I’d be more receptive. But a first rounder? Eh.

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Jul 29, 2010 1:35 AM EDT up reply actions

Really? Practice squad?

We keep QB’s on the practice squad. And? Also, you’re still using 4 running backs even with BJGE as a fullback. The only roster I’m concerned with is the final 54 and the game day roster. If we have to have 6 people in the running backs position, we can only keep so many others. So you end up, like last season, with very limited linebacker groups because we couldn’t get enough backups.

3rd round isn’t good enough. I can name a good number of 3rd round or lower defensive lineman or offensive lineman that are still in the league but the odds worsen for a good back the later you wait. Probably moreso than any other position in the draft.

by satsunada on Jul 29, 2010 2:22 AM EDT up reply actions

Like Shonn Green?

The Jets thought cutting Thomas Jones was a good idea because of their third-round RB.

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Jul 29, 2010 2:30 AM EDT up reply actions

He showed me nothing..

He’s a decent change of pace back but that’ll get exposed quick. He looks like a fatter Julius Jones to me. Ya know, the guy Marion Barber made look good.

by satsunada on Jul 29, 2010 2:33 AM EDT up reply actions

You mean...

Marion Barber III, fourth-round draft pick? Him? Haha.

Brian Westbrook – third rounder.
Frank Gore – third rounder.
Jamaal Charles – third-rounder Steve Slaton – third rounder.
Chris Brown – third rounder.
Justin Fargas – third rounder.
Jerious Norwood – third rounder.
Brandon Jacobs – fourth rounder
Domanick Williams – fourth rounder.
Rudi Johnson – fourth rounder.
Tashard Choice – fourth rounder. LeRon McClain – fourth rounder.
Leon Washington – fourth rounder. Darren Sproles – fourth rounder.

That’s a pretty good pool of talent, especially with the way the Pats seem to pick up third- and fourth-round picks like candy on draft day. They’re far easier to use for prospecting than first- or second-rounders.

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Jul 29, 2010 3:05 AM EDT up reply actions

And still a third and fourth rounder, especially running backs, don't turn out wondrous All Pros

Or even have close to the years some of those guys have had. You choose guys out of 10 years worth of drafts to give me the select few when I can name 8 out of 9 picks that are outright stars just between 2008-2009 (Darren McFadden being the loser). In the same years, the rate for 3rd and 4th rounders was roughly 6, maybe 7, out of 8 being mediocre or better.

The pool of talent and draft picks are fine but why not get a DE or LT or G with the extra 3rd and 4th rounders. Why burn a high pick on a RB when people like Vollmer, Loadholt, and Eben Britton are available in the 2nd or third round. Most of the super good tackles/guards go well before even the Raiders pick might end up taking us so we’re already getting 2nd stringers. Burn the pick on a running back and get the awesome superstar and a balanced offense while Brady is still there and healthy.

by satsunada on Jul 29, 2010 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions

Who wants an All-Pro?

A first-round draft choice can be traded back for multiples of second-, third- and fourth-round draft picks – the Pats do it every year. So say the Pats turn their first rounder into two thirds- and a fourth-rounder. Draft a LeRon McClain, a Brian Westbrook and a Frank Gore, and that’s a pretty good RB corps right there. If one of them flunk, you’ve got two other bodies. If your first rounder flunks, you’ve got nobody.

Burn the pick on a running back and get the awesome superstar and a balanced offense while Brady is still there and healthy.

If you’re just fixated on getting the next Chris Johnson, Adrian Peterson or Steven Jackson, you’re bound to be disappointed. You’re just as likely to end up with a Darren McFadden or Trung Canidate.

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Jul 29, 2010 5:54 PM EDT up reply actions

Oh, and your point

Also, I see you didn’t mention the plethora of DB’s we’ve drafted in recent years in the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd rounds.

I don’t think they’re as bad as they look – they started right around the time the Pats pass-rush retired – but I also suspect a lot of it is that (I hate to say this) the Pats miss Eric Mangini. He was a good D-backs coach, and once he left the Pats D-back scouting went out the window. Remember, Mangini absolutely sucked in drafting in New York, but for the glaring example of one Darelle Revis.

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Jul 29, 2010 1:40 AM EDT up reply actions

Ouch.. ya, that would be painful to say

You have a point, but we do just keep drafting them like we don’t have any. Same with linebackers and receivers. We keep trading back in the draft and in the process miss out on good players. Though that’s another issue entirely.

Some of those cornerbacks are pretty iffy if you ask me. The safeties are great, it’s that nickel package that scares me. And we’ve burned what, 6 picks in 2 years on DB’s?

That said, we do need to get better coaches to fill the position of those that left. The team has taken losses well in the past but Pioli and McDaniels hurt.

by satsunada on Jul 29, 2010 2:25 AM EDT up reply actions

Of those guys...

Only Wilhite and Wheatley could be considered disappointments thus far. Wheatley’s fragile (which doesn’t reflect his talent or skill, but perhaps his bad luck), and Wilhite was miscast as a #2 CB when he’s clearly better suited as a Nickel.

It’s a reflection of the league that teams need 3 or 4 starting CBs – the Jets already had one of the better CB corps in 2009 and went out and drafted a first-round CB and took the best free agent CB on offer. Having one or even two shutdown CBs isn’t enough in the modern game – it’s 3 or 4 ‘starting-quality’ CBs at least, now. That’s not the Pats fault, it’s just a sign of where the game is going.

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Jul 29, 2010 2:43 AM EDT up reply actions

Quite agree on the CB comment

It is becoming that way. Receivers are getting better over time, as they come out of college. On the flip side, quarterbacks are getting worse. Not a whole lot of QB’s that have been great lately. Flacco, Ryan, Henne and Stafford are pretty good but there’s like a 3 year dead zone in that position for talent.

Either way, sure.. draft more.. but you don’t need a high first rounder to get a talented corner either. Much less a safety. You have better luck in the second round and it’ll come cheaper since corners are starting to demand more money.

by satsunada on Jul 29, 2010 5:38 PM EDT up reply actions

Agreed

Although, if you can get a guy like McCourty who adds a lot of value in Special Teams – returner, gunner, kick and punt coverage, punt and kick blocker – then I could understand upgrading from a second-rounder to a first-rounder. The Pats build their defence from the D-line and up the middle – Inside Linebackers and Safeties, then CBs and OLBs. It’s cheaper, for one thing – Safeties cost less than CBs, even though they could get as many interceptions and such in the season.

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Jul 29, 2010 9:37 PM EDT up reply actions

How many of those do you need?

Half the team has special teams value. You can only field 10 guys and a kicker.

I don’t see the team asking an offensive lineman to cover punts or Brady out there chasing down a ball carrier.

Can’t ya just draft a guy because he’s good?

by satsunada on Jul 29, 2010 9:53 PM EDT up reply actions

Yes, but..

The very first thing Belichick said about the guy was that “he was a 4 down player”. He’s not just good, he’s good for an extra 25% of the time – he blocked 7 (count ‘em, seven) kicks in college. That’s phenomenal.

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Jul 29, 2010 9:58 PM EDT up reply actions

Light was a 2nd rounder ;)

Pats Pulpit

by Richard Hill on Jul 29, 2010 9:21 PM EDT up reply actions

2nd round (48th pick)

Close enough! I’ve been saying “first- and second-round picks” all the way through, I had to slip up somewhere, haha.

That’s even more impressive value – the dude’s been a starter since 2001. Vollmer, Light and Mankins all being drafted in the top-2 rounds and earning starts as rookies doesn’t exactly hurt my theory, hah.

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Jul 29, 2010 9:31 PM EDT up reply actions

Again, i'm through...

Your theory sucks and please.. for the next person’s sake.. stop quoting Super Bowl teams. It makes no sense.

by satsunada on Jul 29, 2010 9:54 PM EDT up reply actions

Wait...

So in a sport where your entire purpose is to win Superbowls (not get your players named to Pro Bowls, All Pro, whatever…), comparing your team to the team that actually won the Superbowl makes no sense? If you say so…

Maybe the Pats should invest all their draft picks in RBs and nothing else, That’d make you happy, although then the team would look like the Buffalo Bills… Oh yeah. Those guys.

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Jul 29, 2010 10:00 PM EDT up reply actions

Really? Kicking while I'm down..

Not kosher. Sure, the entire purpose is to win Super Bowls and you can throw to your heart’s content and have a collection of has beens at running back and you’ll get just as far as we did last year when our one-dimensional offense met an actual defense.

And I’ve said.. time and time again.. just .. one.. pick. Just next draft. I could give a damn less what the rest of the draft order looks like and I’ve told you that time.. and time.. and time again.

Oh.. and comparing yourselves to the Super Bowl winning team is great, if you’re the Super Bowl winning team. We’re not. Brady hasn’t thrown for 5k yards. The receiving corps (up to this year) hasn’t had a consistent threat for 2 years (TD threat.. not plink you to death for short yardage threat). BB doesn’t have Payton’s mind for offense. There’s a huge difference between comparing and mimicking. You seem to be wanting to just mimic the trend instead of BEING the trend.

by satsunada on Jul 29, 2010 10:07 PM EDT up reply actions

Yes, we were a one dimensional offense last year, but we were very successful at it.

reason why we lost against the ravens is because we saw that brady counted on welker too many times, and that Bill O’Brien didn’t know how to diversify the offense.

The running game was not a factor in that game, simply because we chose not to run it in the first place.

Question: If we get over 2000 yards from our 5 running backs, and the other team gets over 2000 yards from 1 guy, then what’s the difference? Since we consistently got top 10 in the rushing department, from a PASS HEAVY offense in the past couple years(if it works, why go away from it), then why waste a 1st round pick on a RB, when that RB will STILL be in a committee and generate probably just as much production like any RB in a committee?

I'm also a Raider Fan dammit!!! RAIDER NATION!!!!

Down with Big Brother!

by patriotguy2 on Jul 29, 2010 10:18 PM EDT up reply actions

Actually...

Peyton has said time and again that he was mimicking the Pats. He built the roster, team and influenced the franchise with the sole and express purpose of emulating the best franchise around in his estimation – the Patriots.

What I’m suggesting is that the Pats take a leaf from the Saints’ book and start being like the Pats again – and that doesn’t involve first-round draft picks used on RBs.

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Jul 29, 2010 10:21 PM EDT up reply actions

Umm...

Sure, the entire purpose is to win Super Bowls and you can throw to your heart’s content and have a collection of has beens at running back and you’ll get just as far as we did last year when our one-dimensional offense met an actual defense.

Or you could have a pair of UFA RBs and win the Superbowl, a la the Saints.

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Jul 29, 2010 10:23 PM EDT up reply actions

As a side note...

1 back.. 1 first or second round pick on a back. You can have the whole rest of the damn draft order but burn a high pick on someone worth a flip.

The comprehensive list of 1st- and 2nd-round RBs (from the 2000-2010 drafts) who won the Superbowl:
1 – Reggie Bush.
2 – Joseph Addai.
3 – Rashard Mendenhall (except he was on IR from week 4, his first start).
As far as I can tell, that’s it. Two guys who have arguably been busts, and a guy who was on IR the season he ‘won’ the Superbowl. That’s… not such a good strike-rate. Just sayin’.

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Jul 27, 2010 7:52 PM EDT up reply actions

Not so comprehensive scout..

Corey Dillon.. 2nd Round. Pick 43, 1997 Draft.

Though you are right, rarely does a 1st or 2nd round RB get to the Super Bowl quickly without help from the rest of the team. Steven Jackson, Kevin Jones, DeAngelo Williams and Jonathan Stewart.. please testify to that. Also, teams drafting high running backs are looking for a savior.. not a team guy. The Pats would be looking for a team guy.. not a savior.

Oh yea.. please stop being condescending by constantly putting my comments in quotes. It’s getting annoying.

by satsunada on Jul 28, 2010 8:17 PM EDT up reply actions

I said 2000-2010 drafts

1997 draft is before 2000, if my mathematics skills serve.

Though you are right, rarely does a 1st or 2nd round RB get to the Super Bowl quickly without help from the rest of the team.

That’s what I’ve been saying all along. It makes more sense to use high draft picks on other positions (say, O-line) than a first-round RB. The teams that do so win Superbowls. The 2009 example? The New Orleans Saints, who had three starting-quality Offensive Tackles and very good Guards, and UFA running backs.

Your posts are so long that it’s easier to pick-and-choose quotes to address individual points.

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Jul 28, 2010 8:39 PM EDT up reply actions

Unwanted copy pastes are not my friend :P

So you’re saying it’s ok to have holes in the roster in starting positions? Nope.. no deal. You also didn’t take into account the second half of that paragraph where I said we could use one to supplement our already impressive offense. If you’re using Super Bowls as your only measuring stick then answer me this, why is it the Pats haven’t won one in this current era of non-drafting of running backs in the early rounds (aside from Maroney). Reason? Our running game is unreliable so we can’t burn time off the clock to win like we could in 03-04. Well.. that and Asante Samuel likes to play for the INT instead of cover..

And I’ll give you the stats, my bad. The Patriots only seem to attack 1st and 2nd round running backs at the end of their career when they suck. Apparently they agree with you that people that are falling apart are better. So we should get Chris Johnson in 6 years at this rate. That way he’ll have 2 bad knees and maybe run a 4.9 40 time but he’ll ask for very little so we’ll be able to pay our 3rd string Guard more because he’s a first rounder that rides the pine.

by satsunada on Jul 28, 2010 9:55 PM EDT up reply actions

It's where you pick your 'holes', though

You only get so many draft picks a season, so you necessarily have to choose between (for instance) drafting a first-round RB or a first-round O-lineman. The thing is, a first-round O-lineman will open holes even an UFA RB can run through – that’s what the Saints did to win a Superbowl, after all. The reverse isn’t true (unless your RB is named Steven Jackson).

The Patriots only seem to attack 1st and 2nd round running backs at the end of their career when they suck.

Isn’t that what they did when they traded for Corey Dillon? They won the Superbowl that year, haha.

You also contain the other main point – that first- and second-round RBs only last 5 or 6 years. First- and second-round lineman (both O- and D-) last a decade or more, and still have trade value after 10 years – Richard Seymour being the obvious example. You can draft a Seymour in the first, ride him into the ground for a decade, and then trade him away for a first-round draft pick. Even if you drafted a Chris Johnson, what trade value will he have after 5 years?

You can stack the O-line for a decade with high draftees and plug in so-so backs behind them and churn out yardage. Mike Shanahan did that since… ever. The Pats, even with their playcalling issues, churned out the 13th most yards on the ground last season – and that was with Kaczur and an injured Neal on the right hand side of the O-line.

As I see it, the Pats could use another Tackle (probably RT, if Vollmer’s a long-term LT), and perhaps another Guard or two – Neal can’t last forever, and Mankins might be gone. Plug in another free agent journeyman RB behind an improved Pats line, and they’ll be top-10 in rushing easily, and probably top-5.

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Jul 28, 2010 10:14 PM EDT up reply actions

And there's your problem...

“Plug in another free agent journeyman RB behind an improved line” is your answer? How many journeyman RB do we need? We have 5 on the GAMEDAY ROSTER now? How many more to fill that hole? 3 or 4 more? 5? This is not a good cycle.

Do we need another OL? Sure, use 5 to 8 picks on that if you want. Like I said, I JUST WANT ONE PICK!!!!!! We have 10 to 12 next year and 2 first rounders and you can’t fill a tackle and guard position with a 1st rounder and all the others?

To answer your other question about trade value, you picked a poor example. Most teams would trade for Chris Johnson in a heartbeat right now. Moreso than they’d trade for an offensive lineman. You get great returns on trading backs after their initial contract or near the end of it. As long as they still have some tread on the tires.. teams that have your views would grab them up and be content. That’s why, 5 years later, you draft another RB. It’s not supercomplicated and doesn’t really horrendously hurt the team.

Oh.. Shanahan had Terrell Davis. Nuff said.

Oh.. Shanahan had Terrell Davis. Nuff said.The Pats yardage doesn’t matter when you can’t trust one of the FIVE running backs on your roster to get 2 damn yards. Also, alot of that yardage was garbage yardage because we all know the team liked blowouts with passing early then just running drives into the ground after halftime.

by satsunada on Jul 29, 2010 12:43 AM EDT up reply actions

I will discover why the hell this thing keeps copying me on certain things.....

by satsunada on Jul 29, 2010 12:44 AM EDT up reply actions

A few points...

How many journeyman RB do we need?

Not many, but could you honestly say you would’ve been disappointed to have signed Thomas Jones in free agency this year? He’s coming off a 1400 yard season… yet he’s a journeymen the Jets couldn’t even trade away. That is the ‘no trade value’ thing I talk of – a guy coming off a 1400 yard season couldn’t get trade offers solely because he’s over 30.

Most teams would trade for Chris Johnson in a heartbeat right now.

Absolutely nobody would trade for Darren McFadden, though. Nobody did trade for Thomas Jones, or LaDanian Tomlinson, or…etc etc. Once they hit 29 or 30, their trade value is nil. Literally.

You get great returns on trading backs after their initial contract or near the end of it.

Like LenDale White? Leon Washington? What’s that, a fifth-round pick? Lower? That’s a far cry from the Raiders forking over a first-rounder for a 30+ Richard Seymour.

Oh.. Shanahan had Terrell Davis.

And such esteemed players as Olandis Gary, Mike Anderson, Reuben Droughns, Garrison Hearst, Quenton Griffin, and Tatum Bell. Some of those guys are fullbacks. That O-line turned nobodies into 1000 yard rushers.

I don’t mind the Pats using ‘one pick’. I just think there is far, far better value to be had than using a 1st or 2nd round draft pick on an RB. A third-rounder I could contemplate, and a 4th or lower would be good value depending on the guy’s skillset (ie – if he can run back kickoffs or play 3rd down back, I’d be all for it).

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Jul 29, 2010 1:26 AM EDT up reply actions

I would have loved Thomas Jones..

he was pretty fresh except for last season. He doesn’t have nearly the carries on his record as most backs hitting 30. I’m still not sure why no one took any offers but I imagine it was the risk of taking on a new contract and having to offer him free agent money for a 31 yr. old. That was probably the sticking point. LenDale White has a history of issues and Leon Washington broke a leg.. devastating for a RB.

You’re picking prime people to compare to instead of people like Jake Long or Vernon Gholston that nobody wants. The draft is a risk for every position, not just running backs. I can guarantee that if the Titans chose to trade Johnson or the Vikings Peterson, someone would bite and bite hard. Good running backs, historically, demand pretty high trade value as long as they are like 28 or 29.

Shanahan had a great O-Line, agreed. However there’s a huge difference between a thousand yard rusher and a 2000 yard rusher. A crappy back gets about 800 yards with that O-Line, a good back got over 2000. HUGE difference. I won’t even go into fullbacks because I know you hate them too.

There isn’t better value in the lower rounds for RB. College teams only generally produce 1 good running back a year and even that field is thinned down by not-so-good backs. That’s why there’s generally like 3 or 4 running backs in a draft that are actually worth drafting. Good example, this last draft, only Ryan Matthews and C.J. Spiller were actually respectable in my mind. The rest are going to have issues and injury concerns.

Oh.. and another thing. Never use the Raiders as an example of the standard league front office. That was well over what Seymour was worth and they like paying players like that *cough*AsomughaRussellMcFaddenHeyward-BeyWalker*cough*

by satsunada on Jul 29, 2010 2:18 AM EDT up reply actions

That's kind of the point, though

However there’s a huge difference between a thousand yard rusher and a 2000 yard rusher. A crappy back gets about 800 yards with that O-Line, a good back got over 2000. HUGE difference.

So get two or three ‘crappy’ backs and use them in a rotation. When the Pats last had a 1400 yard back (2004), they put up 2200 yards total rushing. In 2009, with all the playcalling issues, injuries and occasionally bad blocking, they got 2000 yards total rushing.

RBBC puts out yardage. It’s not great for fantasy football purposes, but when you can get three backs to put up the same yardage as one feature back, what’s the problem? The Saints won the Superbowl on the back of two 700 yard backs and a guy who got 300 yards – call it 2000 yards total when you add in their FBs and QBs rushing. That’s the kind of yardage that wins a Superbowl over a season, and the Pats are on that target. With new TEs their ability to get 2 yard runs on critical downs improves, too.

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Jul 29, 2010 2:49 AM EDT up reply actions

I'm not sure why you keep using the Saints as reference but ..

it wasn’t the running backs that got them to or won that Super Bowl. I’ve made that clear.

RBBC does put out yardage. And i’m not against having 2 or 3 backs but not 5 like we currently have. Like you, I’d love a large bruiser back but we don’t have anyone now that would compliment that style. We have a bunch of guys who run about the same style and hit the holes roughly the same (except Faulk who.. sadly.. has the best running skills on the team). The Saints had Bush and Thomas… the Giants had Jacobs and Bradshaw… the Titans had Lendale White and Chris Johnson.. the Panthers had DeAngelo Williams and Jonathan Stewart… and the people that whipped our ass had Ray Rice and Willis McGahee. You remember them right? Committee’s are great when you actually have a committee, not a clone of the same guy 4 times.

Oh.. and the TE will help but it won’t hide the fact you still can’t run worth a damn. Even last year, we had an extra O-Lineman as fullback and STILL had trouble. All they’ll really do is open up the passing game more but honestly, who cares.. all the defense has to do is put 4 lineman down and 7 DB’s and we’ll never get a yard.

by satsunada on Jul 29, 2010 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions

But, isn't that my exact point?

it wasn’t the running backs that got them to or won that Super Bowl. I’ve made that clear.

So… you want to win Superbowls, and you don’t need RBs to do it? Voila. Don’t invest in RBs, then.

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Jul 29, 2010 5:58 PM EDT up reply actions

Ugh.. we walk this circle again.

To be completely clear… the Saints running backs were a small part of the many facets that got them to the Super Bowl. The defense was the biggest factor. As a unit, they did phenomenally well. The passing game set up most of the rushing attack in the first place.

In the end, it’s a Super Bowl. It’s one damn game. You aren’t even looking at what teams got to the playoffs.. you aren’t looking at regular season…. you are just using Super Bowl winners as defense. Which is, honestly, getting pathetic.

If you don’t want a running game and think all running backs throughout history were worthless, just say so and I’ll walk away thinking you’re a damn idiot. If you think drafting a running back high is a waste of time despite the immense and usually immediate returns, again.. just say so and I’ll walk away thinking you’re a damn idiot.

If you want to base every facet of a team on one position and love drafting backups with high picks, then ok.. again, just say so and I’ll walk away thinking you’re a damn idiot.

You’re exact point is that mediocre backs are as good as great backs. That’s the only point you’ve made to me. The only other point you’ve made is that linemen can make or break a team. I’ll even agree with that but if you have an awesome line and nobody worth a damn behind it.. what’s the point? All these draft picks burned on O-Linemen and you WASTE them by putting 30+ year old running backs behind them and going “it’s ok.. you’re doing just enough”

To sum up my exact point, if you don’t vary the offense.. you get CRUSHED in postseason play. If you don’t have a reliable way to get 3 DAMN YARDS that isn’t pass, you’ll get CRUSHED in postseason play. We’ve sucked for 4 years in the running back section and you know what it’s gotten us? 0 Super Bowls. It gets Brady crippled for a season. It gets old guys huge paychecks. I’m not even saying use your only pick to get a running back.. WE HAVE TWO!! TWO… it’s a number.. it means more than one. We have an excellent opportunity to get someone good. If we get a tackle or guard, we get a guy who over those marvelous 10 year careers.. will score 0 points for the team and we’ll still be passing on 4th and 2….

by satsunada on Jul 29, 2010 8:26 PM EDT up reply actions

Actually, that's not so

The defense was the biggest factor.

Football Outsiders broke down every play and rated the Saints as only the 14th best defence (one above the Colts, and two above New England). In their Weighted Defence rank (comparing how they did against who they did it against), NO was a horrible 23rd (Indy was 19, NE was 13).

New Orleans was a decent 9th against the pass, but a horrible 29th in surrendering against the run. They were also mid-table in variability – they could be pretty bad as well as pretty good.

To sum up my exact point, if you don’t vary the offense.. you get CRUSHED in postseason play

Colts and Saints stuck to their gameplan in the postseason and both made the Superbowl. Go figure.

We’ve sucked for 4 years in the running back section and you know what it’s gotten us? 0 Super Bowls.

The Colts were ranked 32nd in running and made the Superbowl. They also won one a couple of years ago. Go figure.

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Jul 29, 2010 9:07 PM EDT up reply actions

OK, i'm just going to shut up now..

Please, at your next available chance, go piss on Walter Payton’s grave and tell Marshall Faulk and Corey Dillon they wasted their lives at the position and don’t deserve the rings they earned.

I have no idea why you want us to suck.. i really don’t. I guess I’ll just remain glad you and I don’t run things and don’t work together.

by satsunada on Jul 29, 2010 9:50 PM EDT up reply actions

How are they "sucking"?

I’ll take a 2000 yard combined rushing effort from 5 random RBs and use a first-round draft pick somewhere else, than use a first-rounder on an RB and get a whole 200 extra yards.

That’s not ‘sucking’. It’s economy.

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Jul 29, 2010 10:10 PM EDT up reply actions

yep.

I'm also a Raider Fan dammit!!! RAIDER NATION!!!!

Down with Big Brother!

by patriotguy2 on Jul 29, 2010 10:19 PM EDT up reply actions

Also...

…pretty sure the Vikings (Peterson), Dolphins (Brown + Williams), Jets (TJ), Jaguars (MJD), Titans (CJ), Ravens (Ray Rice/Willis McGahee), Packers (Ryan Grant), Bengals (Benson), Panthers (Williams, Stewart), Rams (S-Jax), etc (teams with the best running games of the past 3-4 years) have won how many Super Bowls in that span?

Teams need balance to win Super Bowls. They need to be able run when called upon. They need to pass when necessary. Any team that relies upon one facet of their offense will not win any championship- and a Pats fan needs to look no where further than 2007.

Since we’re talking about the running game, there’s two factors that weigh heavily when drafting a prospect: risk for injury (running backs get injured over twice as much as the next highest injured position in the NFL) and potential for production.

Looking at the top 5 running backs in the NFL, they were all drafted in the first two rounds. But every “top back” is on a run first team, which would lower the value of Tom Brady and when your quarterback is one of the best in the league, don’t you want the ball in their hand? So the most important factor when judging a running back’s value is not their total yards gained, because a running back for the Jets with Sanchez at quarterback will gain many more yards than any running back with a Brady or Manning or Brees at QB. So the important factor is how the running backs perform when called upon- or yards/attempt.

Looking at the yards/attempt for teams, 5 out of the top 6 yards/attempt teams heavily utilize first round picks. But the next 4 team use third round picks or later, or backs picked up. So yeah, top running backs will most likely produce- but will have have a large enough value over a third round pick to justify their draft pick?

But my opinion: Yeah, I think the Patriots need to draft a back. I hope the Patriots use a 2nd, 3rd and a 5th on running backs. I’ve said there’s a difference between yards gained and valuable yards gained. There are many running backs who can get 70 yards a game. But how many can guarantee the first down on a 3rd and 4? I want a back who can guarantee that. And I think a drafted back can guarantee that better than an undrafted one.

But that’s not to say I want to go for a first round pick. This is where I have to factor in the potential for injury. What happens if the first round pick gets injured? Running backs get injured more and I wouldn’t want that to happen to my first round pick. With the Patriots successful first round picks for the past 10 years, I trust the team to draft a player who can contribute. I want to address the line early on. With Matt Light, Dan Koppen and Stephen Neal well on their way to the retirement home, I would love to see the Patriots use a first and a second on a player like Anthony Costanzo and/or Rodney Hudson.

Looking beyond the running back position, and at the team as a whole, there are a bunch of holes that need to be filled. The difference between a first or second round lineman (offensive or defensive) and a mid or late round pick is much greater than the difference for a running back or any other position. With the longevity provided with lineman draft picks, I think the balance between value and potential benefit for the team’s future far outweighs any potential a first round running back could add to the team.

But that’s why I’d be happy with a mid-round back. I’d be happy with a few. But looking at the team as a whole, in respect to what the team needs (tackle, guard, center, outside linebacker, defensive end) apart from running backs, and the value added for the franchise of getting 10 years from a lineman is much greater than getting 5 years from a running back. Especially when you can get a mid round running back (or a couple) who are still viable options.

Pats Pulpit

by Richard Hill on Jul 29, 2010 9:53 PM EDT up reply actions

That sounds like logic? Is that allowed?

I’m pretty sure you’re pissing over Walter Payton’s grave or something…

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Jul 29, 2010 10:06 PM EDT up reply actions

Seriously, go to hell.

by satsunada on Jul 29, 2010 10:08 PM EDT up reply actions

I'm going to get off this blog now.. permanently

You are making me hope the Patriots suck and we lose all the running backs next year but one.. like I predict.. just to make a point. That’s wrong.

In closing, thanks for having me for a short while and stay civil.. even though I let frustration at talking in circles get the best of me.

by satsunada on Jul 29, 2010 10:57 PM EDT reply actions

Seriously? We are all having a good debate, and out of frustration of Comedic.Sans, Hill, and I not agreeing with what you are debating, you are leaving?

We won’t make you do anything. Everyone has opinions, but leaving because someone doesn’t agree with you on something, or because someone doesn’t understand something you are telling them(also can be said vice-versa) just doesn’t make sense to me.

Take a break if you must, but don’t let this be the reason to leave the Pulpit for good.

I'm also a Raider Fan dammit!!! RAIDER NATION!!!!

Down with Big Brother!

by patriotguy2 on Jul 29, 2010 11:13 PM EDT up reply actions

If the Patriots lost every back, except one...

…wouldn’t that be proving Comedic.Sans correct? Because imagine if those backs were first round picks? It’s much easier to swallow if the team loses 2 or three UDFAs or mid round picks at RB than it is to lose a 1st round RB. You have to think of the team as a whole, with a salary cap, with depth concerns and with other needs. Would I love to have an Chris Johnson on the team? Absolutely I would. But that doesn’t fit, if we want to have an offense with Tom Brady and a Randy Moss. This isn’t Madden where you can have a collection of all the best players- strategy has to be involved.

When you’re looking at a 16+ game season, would you rather have:

One 1st round running back
or
One 2nd round RB, one 4th round RB and one UDFA

Because the latter option is still much cheaper than the former. The total yards gained by the second group, while less formidable on a personal level, will be just as productive as the first individual. The second group also allows the team to invest in other positions to strengthen the team.

So I don’t anyone here doesn’t want a running game- in fact, I think it’s the opposite. We all want a running game. But if we want a running game to factor into the offense, we have to factor in Tom Brady, the receivers he needs, the blockers he needs- and then whatever is left over can be the running backs. And next year, with this possibly being the last year for Matt Light and Logan Mankins, and possibly the final year of starting quality play from Stephen Neal and Dan Koppen, don’t you think the Patriots should invest some early picks in the offensive line?

Try and look at the team as a whole instead of just the running back position. It may help to see where I’m coming from. Don’t leave the Pulpit over a debate! It’s too much fun for that.

Pats Pulpit

by Richard Hill on Jul 29, 2010 11:52 PM EDT up reply actions

Well said.

And the other factor is:

One 1st round running back
or
One 2nd round RB, one 4th round RB and one UDFA

The former needs only one broken leg to completely derail the team; the latter needs three broken legs. The fact the Pats have been able to get consistently good (top 10) rushing production from their RB corps in the last few years, even with injury-prone backs – LoMo, SaMo, Fred Taylor – is an argument in favour of the status quo.

Better than the Bucs, who disappeared completely when Cadillac Williams had his wheels jacked, or the Seahawks, who faded into oblivion when Shaun Alexander’s knees realised they were old, or the Chiefs post-Larry Johnson. One injury to a feature back, the season is tanked.

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Jul 30, 2010 12:13 AM EDT up reply actions

for the chiefs

they have a good RB invested in Jamaal Charles. Just throwing it out there.

I'm also a Raider Fan dammit!!! RAIDER NATION!!!!

Down with Big Brother!

by patriotguy2 on Jul 30, 2010 12:36 AM EDT up reply actions

Now they do

But they didn’t for a good 3 years or so – LJ’s seasons after 2006 were a wash. And Jamaal Charles is unproven over a full season, much like Shonn Green.

More to the point, Jamaal Charles is a third-rounder – only taken a few spots above Shaun Crable. That’s a fairly substantial pick, sure, but the Pats basically picked up a freebie third-rounder this year – teams throw those picks around as trade-bait all the time. The way the Pats run the table on draft day, they could pick up third-round RBs almost for free.

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Jul 30, 2010 1:32 AM EDT up reply actions

yep.

I'm also a Raider Fan dammit!!! RAIDER NATION!!!!

Down with Big Brother!

by patriotguy2 on Jul 30, 2010 10:20 AM EDT up reply actions

Well, he's proven a bit. Charles performed great last season.

I'm also a Raider Fan dammit!!! RAIDER NATION!!!!

Down with Big Brother!

by patriotguy2 on Jul 30, 2010 10:20 AM EDT up reply actions

In the last few games, sure

He still didn’t quite start the season, and getting a full 16+ games out of an RB is no mean feat (ask LoMo!). He had the benefit of having someone else get hit for the first month or two of the season, so he was still fairly fresh and un-injured when running at guys who’d been nicked up already in the season. I’m sure he’ll do pretty well, but being a feature-back from the outset is a slightly different proposition to coming in part-way through.

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Jul 30, 2010 11:34 PM EDT up reply actions

Oh I think he fits the RBBC thing like we do here.

They have Thomas Jones, so there is a worthy tandem(even though I think Jones is slightly overrated).

I'm also a Raider Fan dammit!!! RAIDER NATION!!!!

Down with Big Brother!

by patriotguy2 on Jul 30, 2010 11:45 PM EDT up reply actions

Yeah, I suspect Pioli will use him 'properly'

Thomas Jones is a good, solid, first- and second-down back. Jamaal Charles is a very, very good third-down back, and too good to limit to only third-down. Charles will take his fair share of first- and second-downs, too, because he’s a great RB, and TJ will get his fair share (bearing in mind he’s 30+). I’d expect it to be a Pats-style RBBC in all but name.

Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.

by Comedic.Sans on Jul 31, 2010 12:39 AM EDT up reply actions