Discussion in 'Sports Forum' started by Max_123, Feb 16, 2019.
Football is so fun
Gordon would look good in silver and black. It would take the pressure off the rookie.
Would Gordon have some choice of where he can be traded? Like, a team isn't going to trade for him if he isn't likely to re-sign, right?
A team won’t trade for him unless they decide to pony up on an extension for him as well.
I think we're saying the same thing haha
Ohhhhh, I totally interpreted your post incorrectly. My bad haha!
wait where am I
How is that? They went 13-3 and won two playoff games lmao. Gurley was hurt in the super bowl and barely ran and that’s why they lost. Thanks for proving my point I guess, that the Rams are a stark example of why teams pay their RB
The Rams are also a stark example of why you should not.
I disagree because they are bad without him
So now they are in the same boat but are paying a lot more to be in it.
Injuries happen. I still think it’s overexaggerating to say RB are a “dime a dozen” because no they are not. Typically there’s ONLY a dozen or so RB who are head and shoulders above the rest
If you can’t get a top back? Yeah just do RBBC. But every “very good” RB from Melvin Gordon on up should be prioritized by their team. It’s not easy to replace that talent like people seem to imply.
CMC, Gurley, and Gordon are the only backs right now actually living up to their high draft stock. The rest were after the first round. So yeah, a team with good scouting CAN easily get a new good RB because every single year there are backs that are first/second round talents that fall. No team, unfortunately, has this forum to listen to when we say "hey, maybe Alvin Kamara/Kareem Hunt/Le'Veon Bell/James Conner/David Montgomery/etc... SHOULDN'T keep falling.
The Rams didn’t lose in the super bowl because Gurley was hurt. They lost because Goff played terribly and McVay was incapable of pivoting from his initial game plan
Acting like the RB has nothing to do with that is a very 2 dimensional way of looking at this.
Why did the offense / Goff fall apart? Because defenses had to defend Gurley first the whole year, so their playcalls were obvious run stopping looks. They couldn’t pay as much attention to stopping the pass, because Gurley rips off big plays every time the defense puts the linebackers in zone coverage. And that misleadingly inflated how good the Rams actually are at being a vertical attacking offense.
It is easier to call “flood” / “levels” plays or call a lot of play action, and catch the defense off guard, when they’re focused on Gurley. Once the RB position wasn’t a threat, teams were able to better scheme against, and predict, how Goff / McVay were going to attack them through the air. Belicheck is the GOAT at scheming against a team’s shortcomings and holes.
Likewise, McVay can’t just have his bread and butter plays on 3rd and 3 / 3rd and 4 anymore without Gurley. Shitty backup RBs can’t convert that often enough for the opponent to try to defend it.
He’s got to dig into his playbook for a creative pass play basically every 3rd down, and beat the defense the hard way every time. As a result, the teams see more of his playbook on film, and in turn develop a better understanding of how to stop his style of coaching.
A great RB forces the defense to make their game plan much more simple and that’s why above-average QB like Goff put up elite numbers in those offenses. Having a top RB isn’t just about the yards they gain. It’s about how, strategically, it just gives you an advantage in playcalling in general — it stretches the defense really thin since they have to account for everything on every down.
Any team that drafts a top tier skilled RB is just about guaranteed to pass a lot better too by default.
This is a good counterpoint in general. BUT 2 of the 3 backs you named are the ones we are discussing. Gordon and Gurley. I’m still saying if you have “that guy” sign him.
I’m suggesting that, yeah, even an underdrafred RB, if he proves himself worthy, should get that contract.
Especially in Gordon’s case - he is legitimately the future of that team after Rivers. Starting over at RB and QB at the same time is a lot harder than having some consistency.
But Kamara/Hunt/Bell/Conner/etc... is the argument against it. If every season a great back falls out of round one, then it isn't really THAT hard to replace them.
But that’s ignoring the strong probability that a team’s scouting group is high on the wrong guys in the draft class. It IS hard to replace them because you have to be THAT team that projects talent properly and knows that guy is good. A lot of the time teams just get lucky.
When a player like Kamara falls that’s not 1 or 2 teams passing on him. That’s ALL the RB needy teams passing on him and then the Saints being like “welp it’s the third round why not?”
Well they should hire their scouts from chorus dot fm then because we know better, clearly :p
Randall look at and respond to my last post in here
Alright I think I’m ready/excited for football again
The argument against big, long RB contracts is that RBs age very poorly, especially relative to other positions, not that good RBs don’t tremendously help a team and can be replaced seamlessly.
I think it’s definitely player and team specific. Pittsburgh seems to treat WRs as replaceable and cycle through them after their rookie deals. But most other teams don’t see that position as easily replaceable.