Interesting discussion this morning NFL radio

[PARAM]

Bill Polian and Solomon Wilcotts were discussing running backs in the draft, drafting running backs etc.. Polian said, "I've heard people say, you shouldn't take running backs in the first round because they don't last that long. That's ridiculous. Look at Edgerrin James, Jim Brown, Marshall Faulk" Wilcotts added "yeah and Emmitt...he-he-he-he". Polian continued about why they don't last long....."they take a viscous beating, particularly in pass pro" and added, "it's smart not to give them a second contract".

So which is it? They last long or shouldn't get a second contract.

Pro-Football-Reference has 250 running back listed from Emmitt to Ron Dayne (#250). If you look at the top of that list you'll find (with the exception of Jim Brown and Eddie George) 30 some running backs who played 10 years or more. With rare exception, by year 11 (age 31 or 32) their production dipped markedly. That list shows 250 running backs who managed to gain 3722 yards or more in their career. There are probably another 500 to 1,000 who gained less. So we should go by those rare specimens who last 10 years plus?

I do agree with Polian on a couple of things. "Pass pro is a severe collision" and "they shouldn't get 2nd contracts". You only need to look no further than Todd Gurley or Christian McCaffrey. The #1 active RB in longevity is Adrian Peterson (17 years) and he's only had one 1,000 yard season in the last 5 (1042 in 2018). The next active RB on the list is Mark Ingram, 7878 yards in 12 years or 657 yds/season. Not exactly the poster boy for drafting a guy high. Longevity is good, so long as production is good.

Another thing Polian touched on was the guys he likes in this years draft and he constantly cited "production", as in multi year production on the college level. I can agree you want that but that's also a double edged sword. Those guys have more wear and tear on them. That's why I like D'Vonte Price (FIU) and Brian Robinson (Alabama) or Rachaad White in the draft. The first two are 5 year college players but with limited wear and tear and White has limited carries but was productive last year. Robinson had 271 carries in 2021 but never registered 100 in the previous 4 years (545 total). Price had 129 carries this season and has just 369 over 5 years. White has 224 carries the last 2 years. And they're all over 6'0" and 200 lbs.

Polian cited guys like Breece Hall (Iowa St). I agree he's a capable RB with great production in his 3 year college career.....3941 yards but he's amassed 718 carries those 3 years. I guess it depends on what you're looking for in a RB. If you subscribe to that "no 2nd contract" approach, then Hall or others like him would be fine. For the Rams I hope they subscribe to that theory and take a big guy in this year's draft. We need somebody who can gain those 2 or 3 yards when we need them to. I'm hoping for D'Vonte Price or Rachaad White, Brian Robinson if those guys are off the board at #142 or #175. I feel pretty confident we're going to take a RB with one of the first 3 selections.

 

[Loyal]

Did Todd Girley's arthritic knees have any impact on his ability to block? Heck, some were wanting him signed last year just for his pass protection abilities....

 

[PARAM]

Did Todd Girley's arthritic knees have any impact on his ability to block? Heck, some were wanting him signed last year just for his pass protection abilities....

I think his arthritis affected everything but mainly his availability. Can't pass block if you can't stand up and move.

 

[Loyal]

I think his arthritis affected everything but mainly his availability. Can't pass block if you can't stand up and move.

But Pass Pro didn't cause Gurley to not be worthy of a large 2nd contract, those knees, it was his inability to cut and move laterally while running. Squaring up and blocking was not as affected as his inability to cut. Those arthritic knees may have existed when we drafted him and then grew worse, but can't remember for sure on that.

 

[blackbart]

Players have to put in time to get noticed, if they aren’t playing in college they aren’t the best option there. They might be a warm body at the pro level but are they ever going to make a difference on an elite team? Doubtful

 

[Force16X]

in the case of gurley (or others with similar production capabilities), how much does it affect the play calling if the defense knows that particular RB is in the play only to block, thus not adding to the possibility of different play calling? if its 3rd and long (10+ yards) then no one's fooled anyway, but just knowing that RB isn't out there to run or catch, there's no need to concern themselves with him.

 

[Rams43]

I’m pretty sure that Snead has learned his lesson on RB longevity.

I think we’re gonna see a string of constant annual RB’s drafted and nary a 2nd contract for any of them.

 

[rdlkgliders]

A lot of those RBs with longevity and production played in a different era. The priority to draft an RB high has been taking a hit for years. The Run first offense with a game breaker RB isn't sustainable in today's NFL. There are a few exceptions Henry being one, with the emphasis on the pass and pass pro specifically in offenses like ours where the routes often take longer to develop and the RB has to pass pro. There are exceptions but in general, pass blocking and hopefully, some route running is part of the skillset needed especially in our offense. Faulk was an obvious exception to the norm with a long career as a well-rounded player but that is 20 years ago. For the most part, we see a half dozen RBs play for more than 5 years. I am all for investing less in the draft meaning not spending a first or second unless he is special and you have multiple high picks. Hopefully, one pans out and is deserving of extension, and if not you reload or pick one up as we have been. Until we see a shift in the league ethos I don't see many top teams taking 1st round RBs.

 

[thirteen28]

My feeling is this: If you have a chance at a true, franchise RB, you take him, and you even risk a 2nd contract on them. Sometimes it's not going to work out, but you take the risk. When you have a true franchise RB - like a Gurley, like a Faulk - they add an extra dimension to your offense that makes it extra hard to stop. When the Rams had Faulk, their O was unstoppable, and the Rams with a healthy Gurley under McVay were a point scoring machine.

A franchise RB is not a must-have thing. But if you can have one, you take him and make him a focal part of your offense.

I'm sure I'm the minority here, but fuck it. I like my franchise RBs.

 

[Angry Ram]

If you like the guy, take him. Sheesh. Stop overanalyzing everything.

Most players don't last more than 5 years anyway.

 

[Allen2McVay]

If you like the guy, take him. Sheesh. Stop overanalyzing everything.

You may have the best handle on this Forum. You are literally ... an Angry Ram (fan)!

 

[rdlkgliders]

If you like the guy, take him. Sheesh. Stop overanalyzing everything.

Most players don't last more than 5 years anyway.

Les and Sean say What? LOL
Analyzing the draft is the in-between Super Bowl and Draft brain tease.
This team is built on meticulous " analyzing"

 

[dieterbrock]

If you like the guy, take him. Sheesh. Stop overanalyzing everything.

Most players don't last more than 5 years anyway.

Absolutely!

 

[OntarioRam]

Other than QB, no offensive player touches the ball as much as a RB. A truly franchise RB is very valuable and can completely transform an offense. I have no issues spending prime picks on RBs, if it is a game changing player.

 

[Ram65]

Do you take a RB very early in the draft?

It could get down to where you are as a team and if you have a realistic chance at a Super Bowl in a couple of years. The Giants wasted the Barkley pick as they were not ready to compete. What made things worse was he has been hurt and peaked early. So there is more of a risk with RBs. McCaffery's good years have been wasted in Carolina.

Less wear and tear before the draft?

Sounds like a good idea to me. A RB that has two years of production with the first year as a rotational RB sounds good. Finding the one with enough good film but, not overused makes sense.

The NFL game has changed to favor the passing game over the running game. If you are going to draft one very high you better be ready to make a SB run. RB by committee seems to be the safer way to go.

 

[leoram]

The first thing that comes to mind here is which way Snead has drafted in the past. I see guys with a load of college production save Funk. I believe they study a RB's instincts in traffic and awareness in pass pro. If you consider Akers you'd have to say that the Rams don't disqualify due to wear and teat in colleges as he consistently had to get tough yards w poor blocking.

I too believe they will draft a RB but I don't expect to see one before the 5th round

 

[Angry Ram]

Les and Sean say What? LOL
Analyzing the draft is the in-between Super Bowl and Draft brain tease.
This team is built on meticulous " analyzing"

There's a not so fine line b/w analyzing and overanalyzing. Which of the following conversations is more likely that Sean and Les might have?

Sean: "Les, what are you thinking, does you like this running back here?"

Les: "Yes but how will this choice look in 5 years? Will he deserve a second contract?"

Sean "Dude, we need a running back."

Les: "but look at our old boy Todd, his knees after his second contract"

Sean: "Todd's knees were shot..."

Les: "but there's also Leveon Bell, and look what happened to Christian McCaffery!"

Sean: "Leveon was an ass, and the Panthers didn't have anyone else besides Christian...."

Les" I know I know but is it woooorrtthhhh ittttt?!" I just don't know.

Sean: "Bruh, he's a good back with a good college career, he knows how to hit the holes and fits what we implement"

Les: "I still don't know. In some cases it works out like Edgerin James, but then you also get a guy like Ezekiel Elliott, a few good years and he's done."

Sean: "That can happen at any position."

Les: "What about a defensive end?"

Sean: "Is that an absolute guarantee the end will be better than the back???"

Les: "Well no...but its less than a RB in his second contract!"

Sean: "..but how. Ugh, nvm can we at least get through this first??!!?"

OR

Sean: "Hey Les, I like this runner here. I watch some of his college career. Dude can run, catch, and pass block if need be. I'd like him to see the holes better though, but we got a good staff that helped Todd and Cam so I'm pretty confident we can coach him up there."

Les: "OK, let me take a look."

Les: "Wow, ok. He does look like a gamer. What round do you think?"

Sean: "IDK, late 2nd/3rd?"

Les: "Sure, lets not risk it. If he's there in the 2nd, we'll take him."

Sean: "Hell yeah. LETTTTT'S GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!"

 

[PARAM]

My feeling is this: If you have a chance at a true, franchise RB, you take him, and you even risk a 2nd contract on them. Sometimes it's not going to work out, but you take the risk. When you have a true franchise RB - like a Gurley, like a Faulk - they add an extra dimension to your offense that makes it extra hard to stop. When the Rams had Faulk, their O was unstoppable, and the Rams with a healthy Gurley under McVay were a point scoring machine.

A franchise RB is not a must-have thing. But if you can have one, you take him and make him a focal part of your offense.

I'm sure I'm the minority here, but fuck it. I like my franchise RBs.

The problem is sometimes the drop off is so sudden, you're on the hook for a lot of dead (or wasted) money. Zeke isn't worth his current salary. He signed his 90 mil extension prior to the 2019 season, coming off a 3 year run of over 4,000 yards and 28 TDs. That year he had a good season (1357 yards) and the next year, the biggest cap hit of his original rookie contract, only 900 yards. Last year, 1002 and for that the Cowboys paid just 6.8 on the cap. This season it's 18 mil and next year 16 mil. If they were to release him it would be a 30 mil dead money hit. Release him prior to next year, only 11.8 mil in dead money. Either way, he's not going to fulfill the salary. 2nd contracts aren't just gambles, they're dumb 99 times out of 100. What did drafting that stud bell cow #4 in the draft and giving him a 90 mil extension get them? 3 postseasons in 6 years and a 1-3 record in the playoffs.

If you like the guy, take him. Sheesh. Stop overanalyzing everything.

Most players don't last more than 5 years anyway.

I agree. If fact, I agree with that so much, I find it ridiculous that a fan will complain about taking a player too high. "Oh man, what a dumb move!!! They could have had him in the third round!!!"

 

[RamBall]

Did Todd Girley's arthritic knees have any impact on his ability to block? Heck, some were wanting him signed last year just for his pass protection abilities....

After dealing with an arthritic knee for the last decade, I'm sure anything Gurley did was painful.

 

[PARAM]

Faulk was an obvious exception to the norm with a long career as a well-rounded player but that is 20 years ago.

Yeah, exception to the norm and he started missing games in year 7, shot by year 9. He was no longer the running threat he had been. Polian mentioned Jim Brown and he retired "in his prime". IMO, he saved his legacy to some degree. A big punishing runner who didn't shy away from contact. He would have been 30 in his next year and I would bet, by 31 (if not sooner) nowhere near the threat he had been. It's not a good position to play, particularly right now. You're taking more punishment than almost everybody on the field. It's being devalued in the draft and teams are beginning to take the approach, draft in the 2nd, pay him for 4 years and let him go. Never having to pay a guy more than his rookie contract. The problem with that is, you have to draft one practically every year.