PDA

View Full Version : Mark Ingram a Top 5 Pick?


shylo3716
09-27-2010, 12:58 PM
As of right now in two games, he has 33 carries 308 yards averages 9.3 per carry with 4 tds & a long of 54 yards. My question to you now since he has comeback strong off his surgery, do you think he will continue to run the way he has been running, & run himself into the top 5 of the draft?

Shane P. Hallam
09-27-2010, 01:00 PM
I think he already has a shot at Top 5 depending on needs. Problem is RBs generally fall a little, but he has the full skillset to do it.

Halsey
09-27-2010, 01:02 PM
I could see him going top 10. I don't agree with drafting a RB that high, but he seems to have everything needed to be a feature back. His big name and great intangibles will only help.

Razor
09-27-2010, 01:04 PM
How about just sticking with the thread already dedicated to Ingram?
http://draftcountdown.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41362&highlight=mark+ingram

BuddyCHRIST
09-27-2010, 01:13 PM
I doubt it, just because RB's tend to fall. But he's a great prospect and should be the first RB off the board. He has so many natural skills for the position.

Day One Pick
09-27-2010, 01:15 PM
To me, Mark Ingram is the safest pick in this class and I expect him to have the most productive career of any prospect in this class. For those reasons I have him as my #1 prospect. He's the type of player who could get a team 15,000+ yards and a coupl hundred TD's over the course of his career. Above and beyond his ability on the field, he's a focused, determined individual who is also a leader. He probably won't be the first pick, but certainly could and should be in the top 5.

Big Bird
09-27-2010, 01:20 PM
To me, Mark Ingram is the safest pick in this class and I expect him to have the most productive career of any prospect in this class. For those reasons I have him as my #1 prospect. He's the type of player who could get a team 15,000+ yards and a coupl hundred TD's over the course of his career. Above and beyond his ability on the field, he's a focused, determined individual who is also a leader. He probably won't be the first pick, but certainly could and should be in the top 5.
So, you're already pegging a guy to do something that only three other players have done (in terms of Rushing Yards), and then also do something only one person in NFL History has ever done in terms of eclipsing 200 Touchdowns?

If that's honestly what you believe, then I'd really hope Mark Ingram is 1st on your board because I couldn't imagine the expectations you'd have for anybody else...

SeanTaylorRIP
09-27-2010, 01:50 PM
I actually started off as not being high on Ingram and always saying that Richardson is the better back. While Richardson might be more explosive and probably even stronger, Ingram is one of the most gifted runners I've seen in a long time. His balance and patience is just on another level from any other back in the college game. He also has pretty good speed and strength. I'd say he is top 5 talent and I'd take him over guys like Caddy and Ronnie any day, but in today's game when the focus is more on running back units instead of single work horse runners, I find it hard to believe he'll go top 5. Just taking a glance at potential top 5 pick teams:

Bills: No way, Spiller, Jackson, Lynch.
Rams: Nope, Steven Jackson plus they have so many bigger needs.
Browns: Highly unlikely. Hard to justify taking a RB when your QB's are Delhomme, Seneca Wallace and Colt McCoy. Not to mention all the other team needs. Jerome Harrison, Hillis and Davis seem fine for now and they probably want to see what they have in Hardesty.
Bucs: Wouldn't be a bad pick but they could really use a pass rusher, some secondary help, or even a #1 wideout to pair with Mike Williams and Benn. Also they seem pretty content on running back by committtee.
Lions: No way, Best+Smith.
Jags: Nope MJD.
Panthers: Stewart+ Deangelo.
Broncos: Nope Knowshon.
Seattle: First big possibility, won't be picking top 5 though.
Washington: Pretty good chance but will Shanny really spend a top 10 pick on a RB, especially when WR, NT, and FS are much bigger needs.

So again hard seeing him going top 5. Teams know they can get gems at any point in the draft so using a pick that high seems like an absolute rarity now a days especially since Ingram doesn't have any freak attributes like D-mac or Spiller's speed. Still think the gap between him and Ryan Williams is closer than most think but Ingram should have a home before the 20th pick rolls around.

RealityCheck
09-27-2010, 02:07 PM
Depends on who's picking there, like STRIP said, TB and Seattle are the only big possibilities.
But what if the Raiders end up as one of the 5 worst teams? The Pats would take him without thinking twice.

And remember, not may people though the Bills were going to take Spiller. Or the Broncos taking Knowshon.

Babylon
09-27-2010, 02:12 PM
Depends on who's picking there, like STRIP said, TB and Seattle are the only big possibilities.
But what if the Raiders end up as one of the 5 worst teams? The Pats would take him without thinking twice.

And remember, not may people though the Bills were going to take Spiller. Or the Broncos taking Knowshon.



Seattle if they're drafting that high is taking a QB.

As for taking RBs in the top 5 that is usually reserved for guys like OJ Simpson, Eric Dickerson and Adrian Peterson and i'm not sure i'd put Ingram in that category.

Day One Pick
09-27-2010, 03:34 PM
So, you're already pegging a guy to do something that only three other players have done (in terms of Rushing Yards), and then also do something only one person in NFL History has ever done in terms of eclipsing 200 Touchdowns?

If that's honestly what you believe, then I'd really hope Mark Ingram is 1st on your board because I couldn't imagine the expectations you'd have for anybody else...

I didn't say he will, I said he's the type of player who could. I think he's a better prospect than Adrian Peterson. He's probably going to be more consistant, more durable, and certainly has better ball security. He runs behind his pads much better than Peterson, which should translate to a longer career. He just reminds me so much of Emmitt Smith that I think in the right situation and baring major injury he could do the same types of things as Smith.

Sportycliche
09-27-2010, 04:00 PM
Seattle if they're drafting that high is taking a QB.

As for taking RBs in the top 5 that is usually reserved for guys like OJ Simpson, Eric Dickerson and Adrian Peterson and i'm not sure i'd put Ingram in that category.

and Adrian Peterson was not even a top 5 pick.


I can see him going in the top 5.

shylo3716
09-27-2010, 04:02 PM
and Adrian Peterson was not even a top 5 pick.

I can see him going in the top 5.

AP went 7th if I'm correct

umphrey
09-27-2010, 04:37 PM
What about his knee? He's hurt it a couple times now, right? I'd be scared about that injury lingering and keeping him out of games, or slowing him down. Especially if I'm drafting top 5 or 10, he would have to be a workhorse, not split carries.

PrimetimeTheDon
09-27-2010, 05:06 PM
I think he's a better prospect than Adrian Peterson.


Dude.


Dude....

Look either you didn't see AD in college or you need to find a new hobby.

brat316
09-27-2010, 05:07 PM
I don't understand how he can go in the Top 5, let alone the Top 10. He isn't a game changing runner, thats what the trend in now. If this was 8-10 years ago yeah he would be a lock for the top 5. He isn't a player that is going to give you an explosive 80 yard play, or is a threat to take it the distance any time he touches it. Also RBBC also lowers the value of rbs.

Sure its possible with Ryan Matthews and Knowshon going around 11-12. He will be a first round pick, but in the 10-20 range. Unless some team really really wants him.

brat316
09-27-2010, 05:11 PM
I didn't say he will, I said he's the type of player who could. I think he's a better prospect than Adrian Peterson. He's probably going to be more consistant, more durable, and certainly has better ball security. He runs behind his pads much better than Peterson, which should translate to a longer career. He just reminds me so much of Emmitt Smith that I think in the right situation and baring major injury he could do the same types of things as Smith.

What really?

Peterson was a threat to take it the distance from where ever he touched the ball, KR, catching, running. He ran fast, made amazing cuts, and jukes, had super long runs and was still able to grind it out.

Forenci
09-27-2010, 05:20 PM
I don't understand how he can go in the Top 5, let alone the Top 10. He isn't a game changing runner, thats what the trend in now. If this was 8-10 years ago yeah he would be a lock for the top 5. He isn't a player that is going to give you an explosive 80 yard play, or is a threat to take it the distance any time he touches it. Also RBBC also lowers the value of rbs.

Sure its possible with Ryan Matthews and Knowshon going around 11-12. He will be a first round pick, but in the 10-20 range. Unless some team really really wants him.

Ingram is better than Moreno and Matthews so I could certainly see him in the top 8.

He's not a threat to take it the distance every time but he certainly can take it the distance. His vision and balance is unreal. Not to mention his power and good, but not great, speed.

Also I think sharing carries with Richardson is a great thing for him. Reduces the wear and tear on his body.

brat316
09-27-2010, 05:46 PM
Ingram is better than Moreno and Matthews so I could certainly see him in the top 8.

He's not a threat to take it the distance every time but he certainly can take it the distance. His vision and balance is unreal. Not to mention his power and good, but not great, speed.

Also I think sharing carries with Richardson is a great thing for him. Reduces the wear and tear on his body.

But thats the thing. Look at the recent trend of RB taken high, all were speed guys. CJ probably would have went higher had he come out a year later or if that drafted hadn't been packed with RBs. Teams that spend that high of a pick now want someone who is a game changer, before they were thought of as 1 dimensional, not anymore.

Yeah those two though shouldn't have went that high, clearly they were big reaches, though I'm hold off on Matthews. I really liked him but thought he went a bit high.

Bob Sanders Dreadlock
09-27-2010, 05:48 PM
He is going to be a patriot =( FU raiders

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
09-27-2010, 05:52 PM
I like his value more in the 8-12 range. He's not as good a prospect as AD, but then again, no one is. I think he is gonna be a great back for a long, long time. It isn't about 40 time, it isn't about size it's about instincts and vision as a runner, and Ingram is incredible in those aspects.

FUNBUNCHER
09-27-2010, 06:12 PM
Top 15 for a RB today is like going top 3 twenty years ago.
Definitely the first RB off the board.

Really will be interesting to see what SHanny does if Ingram is available and the Skins pick top 7.

Skins need 3-4 studs on defense, Oline, LBs, WR, RB.

Maybe he takes a QB to learn behind McNabb. But if Shanny thinks Ingram is the 2nd coming of TD, I wouldn't be surprised at all for Shanahan to select his first RB in the top 10.

Day One Pick
09-27-2010, 07:02 PM
What really?

Peterson was a threat to take it the distance from where ever he touched the ball, KR, catching, running. He ran fast, made amazing cuts, and jukes, had super long runs and was still able to grind it out.

Ingram had 17 runs of 20 yards or more yards in 2009. So far this year in 2 games he has I think 3 long TD runs, so he's a threat to take it the distance too.

Don't you remember all the question marks on Peterson as a prospect? He wasn't even a top 15 lock until he showed up at the combine and wowed everyone. He dropped off in a lot of eyes after his amazing freshmen season. He had the durability questions, and had the fumbling issues all the while having his production drop off significantly.

Day One Pick
09-27-2010, 07:03 PM
He is going to be a patriot =( FU raiders

yep.......

keylime_5
09-27-2010, 08:09 PM
i don't like RBs in the top 5 unless it's a no brainer like LT or Peterson, and even then it's a bad idea to take a RB that high in a good draft. I think Ingram is a beast, but I don't think he's top 5 stuff.

stephenson86
09-27-2010, 08:36 PM
He is my favourite RB prospect since Cedric Benson, would definatley take him in the Top 5, he will be brilliant at the next level. He reminds me personally of a smaller version of Jonathan Stewart but with better vision.

IndyColtScout
09-27-2010, 09:23 PM
I had a conversation with my buddy the other day about RBs in the 1st round nowadays. Basically, I cant remember a player since AP that I thought to myself HOF potential without playing an NFL down.

Back in the day late 80/early 90's tons of high prospect RBs got labeled with that and I think people started backing off those comparisons after countless letdowns.

Well, point is I think Ingram has that type of ability in the NFL. Different RB than Peterson, Ingram is an Emmitt Smith close and IMO has HOF potential for a RB prospect.

brat316
09-27-2010, 10:10 PM
Yeah but the Emmitt Smith type of back is not whats in style now. I do love the running game smash mouth football, but its a passing league.

A Perfect Score
09-27-2010, 10:17 PM
Ingram is the type of player who isn't going to go top 5, but in 5 years he's going to make alot of teams wish they had pulled the trigger on him with one of those picks. I've got him more as Marshawn Lynch style value right now. As for a pro comparison, I actually think he runs alot like Ray Rice. Hes a bit bigger, but the styles and motions are very similar.

TACKLE
09-27-2010, 10:20 PM
Ingram reminds me of Edge. Edge is a better athlete but there builds and running styles are similar.

wordofi
09-27-2010, 11:40 PM
I can't see him going top 5 because he's not a "freak." Also, running backs don't win games quarterbacks do. You didn't see the Vikings going 13-3 with Adrian Peterson. It took Favre to take them over the edge. Same thing with the Jaguars and MJD. Same thing with Steven Jackson and the Rams.

However, Drew Brees led his team to a Super Bowl victory and Peyton Manning to the Super Bowl.

The bottom line is that running backs don't contribute to their teams winning games.

TACKLE
09-27-2010, 11:48 PM
The bottom line is that running backs don't contribute to their teams winning games.

I'll let the brilliance of this statement speak for itself.

brat316
09-28-2010, 12:10 AM
I can't see him going top 5 because he's not a "freak." Also, running backs don't win games quarterbacks do. You didn't see the Vikings going 13-3 with Adrian Peterson. It took Favre to take them over the edge. Same thing with the Jaguars and MJD. Same thing with Steven Jackson and the Rams.

However, Drew Brees led his team to a Super Bowl victory and Peyton Manning to the Super Bowl.

The bottom line is that running backs don't contribute to their teams winning games.

Then why have a rb on teams? Just eliminate it.

descendency
09-28-2010, 12:23 AM
I'll let the brilliance of this statement speak for itself.

He exaggerated too much, but he's basically right. If you don't have a QB, you might as well tank the year. VERY VERY few teams make the playoffs without a top 15 QB. Almost no one wins a playoff game without one. The number of 3+ game winners (in the playoffs) by QBs who were not considered top 15 is (probably) less than 10.

You can't win with only a QB, but you almost never win without one.

edit: The myth of needing to be able to run to win playoff games and that defense wins championships are propagated because people see elite QBs fail to win games and need an explanation for it. You need good balance (running, passing, defense) and a QB. The number of Super Bowl winners that didn't have a good balance of those 3 (and special teams for that matter) is very very low.

BigBanger
09-28-2010, 12:23 AM
He's underrated by a lot of people (except that one guy). He's a top 10 talent, but will probably fall into the teens or twenties... as most RBs do.

You have to have elite physical tools to be a high draft pick at RB... unless Oakland is picking in the top 10, then you only need speed. His patience and vision are second to none.

Caulibflower
09-28-2010, 12:50 AM
If I was a top-5 team and wanted Ingram, I'd be trying to trade down. The value simply isn't there in the top 5 for him. And he's basically been my favorite player in college football since I first saw him play. The top 5 picks are basically reserved for players who cannot be stopped one-on-one, and quarterbacks. You want guys like Suh who have to be double-teamed, guys like Joe Thomas who can take a guy that normally has to be double-teamed on his own, or Calvin Johnson-types who can make huge plays just because someone threw the ball far enough down the field. With running backs, you have to have a lot more in place for them to be successful; there are backs that make their lines look good, of course, but like we've seen with LaDanian Tomlinson this year - you can be the best back in the league and look washed up if your line isn't good at run blocking. There's been a huge difference between LT running behind the San Diego line and LT running behind the Jets' line. Injuries may have been a factor, but he's got holes in New York. I remember his last couple years in SD he'd run up to the line and he'd just have a bunch of lineman standing bunched up in a row without any running lanes.

So my point is, he could be one of the most dynamic players in the draft, just as far as ability goes, but a team picking in the top-5 is probably going to be really uncomfortable picking a guy who isn't really seen as a multi-faceted game-changer. He's a pure running back, not a CJ Spiller/Reggie Bush kind of player who will catch a bunch of passes (although he's a terrific screen runner. I just thought of that...) and can return kicks and punts. A team with a pretty good line already in place is going to have their toes curl when Ingram drops to them. But, mostly because those teams are already successful, they usually aren't picking in the top 5. I don't think it's purely about having "elite physical tools" when you're talking top 5, I think it's got a lot more to do with positional value. People could agree that Ingram is the best player int he draft, but ultimately, and ironically, the best player in the draft might not be the one that helps your team the most.

And that's my two cents.

(EDIT: Lots of people say if you're picking in the top 10 or whatever you take the best player available. I am, of course, aware of this sentiment. I just think that when a team is thinking about how much money they're going to have to pay that player, and what role that player is going to play, they have to be thinking "what is the best player for my team?" and not just which player they would want the most if all things were equal.)

Rosebud
09-28-2010, 01:12 AM
I don't understand how he can go in the Top 5, let alone the Top 10. He isn't a game changing runner, thats what the trend in now. If this was 8-10 years ago yeah he would be a lock for the top 5. He isn't a player that is going to give you an explosive 80 yard play, or is a threat to take it the distance any time he touches it. Also RBBC also lowers the value of rbs.

Sure its possible with Ryan Matthews and Knowshon going around 11-12. He will be a first round pick, but in the 10-20 range. Unless some team really really wants him.

Ingram is like a rich man's Matthews or Knowshon, so why can't he get picked higher than them?

That said I wouldn't spend a top 10 pick on him because I don't believe in taking RBs that high unless you're the 1970's Steel Curtain in terms of stacked-ness. But he's certainly a wonderful RB who I think could be even better than DeAngelo Williams who Ingram reminds me of.

AntoinCD
09-28-2010, 04:58 AM
Normally I'm not a big fan of taking a RB that high. Specifically because if you're picking in the top 5-10 you have serious other needs, be it QB, DE, OT etc. However this year, take a team like the Patriots who may well have a top 10 pick thanks to the Richard Seymour trade to the Raiders. They clearly have their QB. If Quinn, Heyward, Clayborn etc either slip in value leading up to the draft or are already gone then they wont go defense with that pick IMO. Then add in that no OT seems to warrant a top 10 pick just yet. All this would lead to an educated guess the Pats would be interested in Ingram. This would also be one of the cases where I would advocate taking a RB that high as he may be BPA and fills a big need

Day One Pick
09-28-2010, 05:05 AM
Funny how "back in the day" can be like 15 minutes ago for some of you.

In the 2005 draft, there were 3 RB's taken in the top 5 (Ronnie Brown, Cedric Benson, and Cadillac Williams). In the 2006 draft Reggie Bush went 2nd overall. Adrian Peterson went 7th in 2007. Darren McFadden went 4th overall in 2008.

So we are talking about the last 2 out of the last 6 draft there wasn't a RB taken in the top 7 picks.

I'll save time and reply now to the first person who says, "yeah, how did that work out." It's never about the position, it's always about the player. Clearly some evaluations were wrong on some of these players. Some have been injured and some are just now finding their way. Anyone who takes this stance certainly would have to feel taking a QB high is a bad decision.

nepg
09-28-2010, 08:00 AM
Ingram looks and runs bigger than last year, and he didn't lose any speed. I've been loosely in the Emmitt Smith comparison camp and sticking him in the 18-25 range as a draft pick, but he looks more like LaDainian Tomlinson this year...which puts him in the 8-15 range, imo.

I was not a big fan of Ingram as a draft prospect, but he's changing my mind quickly.

To say he's a better prospect than AD is just asinine, though. AD is a Top 3 RB prospect of ALL-TIME. Him, Bo and Herschel are the best prospects to ever come along.

A Perfect Score
09-28-2010, 08:04 AM
Funny how "back in the day" can be like 15 minutes ago for some of you.

In the 2005 draft, there were 3 RB's taken in the top 5 (Ronnie Brown, Cedric Benson, and Cadillac Williams). In the 2006 draft Reggie Bush went 2nd overall. Adrian Peterson went 7th in 2007. Darren McFadden went 4th overall in 2008.

So we are talking about the last 2 out of the last 6 draft there wasn't a RB taken in the top 7 picks.

I'll save time and reply now to the first person who says, "yeah, how did that work out." It's never about the position, it's always about the player. Clearly some evaluations were wrong on some of these players. Some have been injured and some are just now finding their way. Anyone who takes this stance certainly would have to feel taking a QB high is a bad decision.

I understand where you are coming from, but even in the past two years there have been significant changes in the way that NFL teams run the football. Committee is a much larger factor now then it was 2 years ago. Hell, I don't remember anyone talking about committees when Reggie Bush was drafted, and now he shares the backfield with two other players. McFadden shares with Bush. The Vikings just spent a second rounder to pair someone with Peterson. The time of the NFL workhorse back is gone, and yes thats happened within the past 2 years. Nowadays, guys who go in the top 10 like CJ Spiller are guys who can work inside a committee and contribute to the offense in numerous ways. Im not saying Ingram isnt that guy, just that your argument is partially false.

nepg
09-28-2010, 08:07 AM
Every committee needs an anchor, and that's what Ingram is. He's worth a first round pick for the right team.

bruschis4all
09-28-2010, 08:39 AM
Normally I'm not a big fan of taking a RB that high. Specifically because if you're picking in the top 5-10 you have serious other needs, be it QB, DE, OT etc. However this year, take a team like the Patriots who may well have a top 10 pick thanks to the Richard Seymour trade to the Raiders. They clearly have their QB. If Quinn, Heyward, Clayborn etc either slip in value leading up to the draft or are already gone then they wont go defense with that pick IMO. Then add in that no OT seems to warrant a top 10 pick just yet. All this would lead to an educated guess the Pats would be interested in Ingram. This would also be one of the cases where I would advocate taking a RB that high as he may be BPA and fills a big need

We might be able to move up a little from our second 1st rounder and draft Ingram. There's a decent chance that the Pats don't make the playoffs. Will be on the outside looking in. With extra picks in the 1st, 2nd and 4th round. Maybe, the pats move up if they like a player. Especially if there is a rookie wage scale. Also, need OL help. Wouldn't be disgusted if we get a pass-rusher first and then a T. D'Angelo Williams is a free agent at the end of the year. If we're going cheap on the ol and let Mankins walk. Signiing him could be an option.

LonghornsLegend
09-28-2010, 09:32 AM
He's legit as they come, and no doubt he'll be a feature back at the next level and a very good one. My thing is I can guarantee when the combine comes around people are gonna forget about the intangibles, the vision, the patience, the balance, and start to over evaluate everything that becomes important during the combine; 40 time, vertical, things with a stop watch and a note pad.


Everyone is gonna freak out that he doesn't run a 4.4 and that's why he's not that good, or look at this other RB who can jump higher then him I'd rather have that guy, it happens every year, and Ingram isn't gonna wow you in February like a Trent Richardson will so I have no doubts that it's gonna happen.


I think his best bet is gonna be New England, they need to stop trading back and just trade him. Though if they have a chance at 3 of the big 4 WR's this year and Moss doesn't come back, hard to see them take Ingram that high over Julio Jones, Jonathan Baldwin, or Malcolm Floyd.


Still, Ingram is gonna be well worth the pick no matter where a team takes him at.

wordofi
09-28-2010, 10:10 AM
Then why have a rb on teams? Just eliminate it.

My point is that you can wait to find a running back. Also, the Colts still win games with their crappy running game.

LonghornsLegend
09-28-2010, 10:12 AM
My point is that you can wait to find a running back. Also, the Colts still win games with their crappy running game.

So every other team doesn't need a RB, since a HOF, top 5 QB of all-time can still win games by throwing 50 times. That's not a great example. Not everyone has Peyton Manning. Any other QB who had the Colts LT, and running game, would suffer.

Halsey
09-28-2010, 12:22 PM
The fact that Ingram plays for the best team in the country, and is a Heisman winner, could potentially lead to him being overrated as a prospect. RBs tend to be popular players, but that doesn't always make them great picks. Most people didn't criticize the Bills too much for selecting Lynch or Spiller where they did, but neither look like great picks, based on the other needs the BIlls had, at this point.

Day One Pick
09-28-2010, 01:34 PM
I understand where you are coming from, but even in the past two years there have been significant changes in the way that NFL teams run the football. Committee is a much larger factor now then it was 2 years ago. Hell, I don't remember anyone talking about committees when Reggie Bush was drafted, and now he shares the backfield with two other players. McFadden shares with Bush. The Vikings just spent a second rounder to pair someone with Peterson. The time of the NFL workhorse back is gone, and yes thats happened within the past 2 years. Nowadays, guys who go in the top 10 like CJ Spiller are guys who can work inside a committee and contribute to the offense in numerous ways. Im not saying Ingram isnt that guy, just that your argument is partially false.

RB by committee has been around for a while now. The Steelers were doing that in 1994 with Eric Pegram and Bam Morris.

A Perfect Score
09-28-2010, 01:36 PM
Yes, its been around a while in theory. Up until very recently, it was something to do when you didn't have a primary back who could carry the load. Lately the situations have reversed, with teams preferring to use multiple backs in different situations as an alternative to one workhorse.

Day One Pick
09-28-2010, 01:42 PM
Yes, its been around a while in theory. Up until very recently, it was something to do when you didn't have a primary back who could carry the load. Lately the situations have reversed, with teams preferring to use multiple backs in different situations as an alternative to one workhorse.

I'm sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. Hell, the '72 Dolphins had Mercury Morris and Jarry Csonka as a one, two punch. They had a third RB in Jim Kiick. Csonka had 233 carries for 1,117 yards, Morris had 190 carries for 1,000 yards, and Kiick had 137 carries for 521 yards.

brat316
09-28-2010, 01:49 PM
I'm sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. Hell, the '72 Dolphins had Mercury Morris and Jarry Csonka as a one, two punch. They had a third RB in Jim Kiick. Csonka had 233 carries for 1,117 yards, Morris had 190 carries for 1,000 yards, and Kiick had 137 carries for 521 yards.

Okay name some other teams in '72 that have a RBBC, or in '94.

Now name teams this year or last year that have RBBC.

Halsey
09-28-2010, 01:53 PM
There are more teams that spread the ball around between RBs more, but RB 'committees' have been around for a long time. The Dolphins used Larry Czonka, Mercury Morris and Jim Kiick back inthe 70s. If you go back really far you'll find duos like "Mr. Inside and Mr. Outside" Doc Blanchard and Glenn Davis int he 1940s. The media is overhyping the idea that "RB committees" is something new.

brat316
09-28-2010, 01:57 PM
There are more teams that spread the ball around between RBs more, but RB 'committees' have been around for a long time. The Dolphins used Larry Czonka, Mercury Morris and Jim Kiick back inthe 70s. If you go back really far you'll find duos like "Mr. Inside and Mr. Outside" Doc Blanchard and Glenn Davis int he 1940s. The media is overhyping the idea that "RB committees" is something new.

Yeah, thats the thing you are mentioning 1 team per year. It was around, but it wasn't highly thought of, until recently. Hell the Eagles were doing it with Deuce Staley, Westbrook, and Buckhalter. Then it was the Bus and Deuce.

But now since more and more teams are doing it, its not considered a normal thing. Its like when the Dolphins were the only team to use Wildcat, it was around but only they were doing it. Now most teams implement some form of it, and its a normal thing.

A Perfect Score
09-28-2010, 02:19 PM
I'm sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. Hell, the '72 Dolphins had Mercury Morris and Jarry Csonka as a one, two punch. They had a third RB in Jim Kiick. Csonka had 233 carries for 1,117 yards, Morris had 190 carries for 1,000 yards, and Kiick had 137 carries for 521 yards.

Blair Thomas (2) (NYJ)
Emmit Smith (17) (DAL)
Darrell Thompson (19) (GB)
Steve Broussard (20) (ATL)
Rodney Hampton (25) (NYG)
Dexter Carter (26) (SF)

Leonard Russel (14) (NE)
Harvey Williams (21) (KC)
Jarrod Bunch (27) (NYG)

Tommy Vardell (9) (CLE)
Tony Smith (19) (ATL)
Vaughn Dunbar (21) (NO)

Garrison Hearst (3) (ARI)
Jerome Bettis (10) (LA)
Robert Smith (21) (MIN)

Marshall Faulk (2) (IND)
Greg Hill (25) (KC)
William Floyd (28) (SF)

Ki-Jana Karter (1) (CIN)
Tyrone Wheatley (17) (NYG)
Napoleon Kaufman (18) (OAK)
James Stewart (19) (JAX)
Rashan Salaam (21) (CHI)

Tim Biakutaka (8) (CAR)
Eddie George (14) (HOU)

Warrick Dunn (12) (TB)
Antowain Smith (23) (BUF)

Curtis Enis (5) (CHI)
Fred Taylor (9) (JAX)
Robert Edwards (18) (NE)
John Avery (29) (MIA)

Edgerrin James (4) (IND)
Ricky Williams (5) (NO)

Jamal Lewis (5) (BAL)
Thomas Jones (7) (ARI)
Ron Dayne (11) (NYG)
Shaun Alexander (19) (SEA)
Trung Candidate (31) (STL)

Ladainian Tomlinson (5) (SD)
Deuce McAlister (23) (NO)
Michael Bennet (27) (MIN)

William Green (16) (CLE)
TJ Duckett (18) (ATL)

Willis McGahee (23) (BUF)
Larry Johnson (27) (KC)

Steven Jackson (24) (STL)
Chris Perry (26) (CIN)
Kevin Jones (30) (DET)

Ronnie Brown (2) (MIA)
Cedric Benson (4) (CHI)
Cadillac Williams (5) (TB)
Reggie Bush (2) (NO)
Laurence Maroney (21) (NE)
Deangelo Williams (27) (CAR)
Joey Addai (30) (IND)

Adrian Peterson (7) (MIN)
Marshawn Lynch (12) (BUF)

Darren McFadden (4) (OAK)
Jon Stewart (13) (CAR)
Felix Jones (22) (DAL)
Rashard Mendenhall (23) (PIT)
Chris Johnson (24) (TEN)

Knoshown Moreno (12) (DEN)
Donald Brown (27) (IND)
Beanie Wells (31) (ARI)

CJ Spiller (9) (BUF)
Ryan Mathews (12) (SD)
Jahvid Best (30) (DET)


68 RBs drafted in the first round since 1990, all with the intention of being primary backs. (start sarcasm here) Clearly the NFL has been a RBBC league since the 1970's (end sarcasm here). It's only recently that we've seen alot of teams shift to the cheaper committee system. I'm not saying committees didnt exist in other eras of the NFL, but its only within the last few years that we have seen the huge resurgence of teams attempting to run the ball with several people instead of one talented back.

FUNBUNCHER
09-28-2010, 03:22 PM
Ingram looks and runs bigger than last year, and he didn't lose any speed. I've been loosely in the Emmitt Smith comparison camp and sticking him in the 18-25 range as a draft pick, but he looks more like LaDainian Tomlinson this year...which puts him in the 8-15 range, imo.

I was not a big fan of Ingram as a draft prospect, but he's changing my mind quickly.

To say he's a better prospect than AD is just asinine, though. AD is a Top 3 RB prospect of ALL-TIME. Him, Bo and Herschel are the best prospects to ever come along.

Debatable.

IMO Ki Jana Carter(5'10,@230#,4.3) was a better pro prospect than AD. So was Ricky Williams.
George Rogers, FSU's Sammie Smith, Marcus Allen, Eric Dickerson, Alonzo Highsmith, Lawrence Phillips, Curtis Enis, Jamal Lewis, Fred Taylor and Edgerrin James were all in their day considered equal and in many cases better pro RB prospects than AD.

He looks like a future HOFer now, but not too many draft reports had AD ranked as a 'can't miss' superstar in the pros heading into the 2007 NFL draft.

PrimetimeTheDon
09-28-2010, 03:41 PM
Debatable.

IMO Ki Jana Carter(5'10,@230#,4.3) was a better pro prospect than AD. So was Ricky Williams.
George Rogers, FSU's Sammie Smith, Marcus Allen, Eric Dickerson, Alonzo Highsmith, Lawrence Phillips, Curtis Enis, Jamal Lewis, Fred Taylor and Edgerrin James were all in their day considered equal and in many cases better pro RB prospects than AD.

He looks like a future HOFer now, but not too many draft reports had AD ranked as a 'can't miss' superstar in the pros heading into the 2007 NFL draft.

Maybe a handful of your list, but just a handful. One of the obvious ones that has been missed is Reggie Bush. He was held in higher regard than AD.

For the record, I had AD and Megatron 1-2 for my rankings that year. I forget which was which.

Day One Pick
09-28-2010, 04:59 PM
This running back by committee thing is a poor argument. Keep in mind we are debating Mark Ingram's draft status as a top 5 pick. It's not a new concept regardless of it's popularity. Even so, a team still needs atleast one of those RB's to be a stud. How many of these RB by committee teams have atleast one 1st round RB?

metafour
09-28-2010, 09:59 PM
He looks like a future HOFer now, but not too many draft reports had AD ranked as a 'can't miss' superstar in the pros heading into the 2007 NFL draft.

Only because of the injury history. He got hurt a few times in college and was tall, lanky, and ran fairly upright. That scared a lot of people, including myself, into seeing him as a future injury nightmare.

wordofi
09-28-2010, 11:21 PM
I'll let the brilliance of this statement speak for itself.

Name me a team that has won a Super Bowl in the ast five years because they had a "great" running back?

wordofi
09-28-2010, 11:23 PM
So every other team doesn't need a RB, since a HOF, top 5 QB of all-time can still win games by throwing 50 times. That's not a great example. Not everyone has Peyton Manning. Any other QB who had the Colts LT, and running game, would suffer.

Look at the Packers and Bears. Where is their running game?

GatorsBullsFan
09-28-2010, 11:44 PM
Top 10 definitely...Top 5...I don't see it

Most teams in the top 10 don't really need RB...but you could get a team that is going to draft the BAP (Best Available Player).

Saints-Tigers
09-28-2010, 11:50 PM
A lot of times, the key to a great running game really isn't about the back at all. The difference between a great back and a legendary back isn't that noticeable behind a great line, and if you are running behind a poor line, you aren't going to win anyway.

brat316
09-29-2010, 12:03 AM
Name me a team that has won a Super Bowl in the past five years because they had a "great" running back?

2005-2006 Steelers. Willie Parker
2004-2005 Pats. Corey Dillion

Check and Mate btich.

Also Bears got the bowl because of Thomas Jones.

RaiderNation
09-29-2010, 12:07 AM
I can see him top 10 maybe, but top 5 is a reach IMO. He is going to be a good RB in the NFL

brat316
09-29-2010, 12:17 AM
This running back by committee thing is a poor argument. Keep in mind we are debating Mark Ingram's draft status as a top 5 pick. It's not a new concept regardless of it's popularity. Even so, a team still needs atleast one of those RB's to be a stud. How many of these RB by committee teams have atleast one 1st round RB?

He is going to go in the first round no one is arguing against that.

RBBC is not a poor argument its a factor that plays into drafting a Rb. Why as a GM would you spend absurd amount of money on a top 5 pick only to have him split the carries/snaps with another player? Also its popularity has a lot to do with it, in this era its popular. Like it is popular to line up in 4 WR sets, or run the wildcat, they both have been around not a new concept, same with the 3-4 defense.

wordofi
09-29-2010, 12:41 AM
2005-2006 Steelers. Willie Parker
2004-2005 Pats. Corey Dillion

Check and Mate btich.

Also Bears got the bowl because of Thomas Jones.

I said great. Neither of them are going to be Hall of Famers.

The bottom line is that the NFL is a quarterback-driven league. I would take Peyton Manning over Chris Johnson any day of the week.

TitanHope
09-29-2010, 01:03 AM
I don't think Ingram is a Top 5 pick.

And to be honest, I don't think he's a Top 10 pick. I have him as a mid-to-late 1st RD'er.

That's not to say he won't be a great pro. It's just that I don't think he's a special prospect. But neither were guys like MoJo Drew and Ray Rice.

fenikz
09-29-2010, 04:15 AM
or even CJ2K [/blasphemy]

Day One Pick
09-29-2010, 04:53 AM
I said great. Neither of them are going to be Hall of Famers.

The bottom line is that the NFL is a quarterback-driven league. I would take Peyton Manning over Chris Johnson any day of the week.

Peyton Manning or an equivalent isn't in this draft class.

Glad you brought up Chris Johnson. Not only is he the key to the Titans offense, he also makes Vince Young atleast good enough to be on the field. He's a great example of what a great RB can do for an offense.

wordofi
09-29-2010, 09:43 AM
Peyton Manning or an equivalent isn't in this draft class.

Glad you brought up Chris Johnson. Not only is he the key to the Titans offense, he also makes Vince Young atleast good enough to be on the field. He's a great example of what a great RB can do for an offense.

I give up. If you think you should waste a top 5 pick on Mark Ingram, then go ahead and be disappointed.

brat316
09-29-2010, 09:51 AM
I give up. If you think you should waste a top 5 pick on Mark Ingram, then go ahead and be disappointed.

I'm with you there, I don't think he should go in the top 5. But there are times when there is a Rb worth taking in the top 5. Not 1,2 or 3 more like 4 or 5.

Saints-Tigers
09-29-2010, 10:04 AM
Peyton Manning or an equivalent isn't in this draft class.

Glad you brought up Chris Johnson. Not only is he the key to the Titans offense, he also makes Vince Young atleast good enough to be on the field. He's a great example of what a great RB can do for an offense.

Vince Young has won a lot of games with and without Johnson being a great back or being on the field.

How many did Johnson win rushing for 200 yards a game with no Vince?

nepg
09-29-2010, 11:05 AM
I said great. Neither of them are going to be Hall of Famers.

The bottom line is that the NFL is a quarterback-driven league. I would take Peyton Manning over Chris Johnson any day of the week.
Dillon most certainly should be a HoF RB, but probably won't be voted in. He easily has HoF numbers, and 2 rings doesn't hurt.

Jerome Bettis was a huge factor in the Steelers' first Super Bowl.

Pre-injury Addai was amazing, and was just as much a factor in the Colts' Super Bowl and season as Manning.

The Ravens' entire offense revolved around Jamal Lewis.

The Giants had Brandon Jacobs.

D-Unit
09-29-2010, 11:05 AM
Ingram is going to be a Top 5 pick, imo.

nepg
09-29-2010, 11:15 AM
Maybe a handful of your list, but just a handful. One of the obvious ones that has been missed is Reggie Bush. He was held in higher regard than AD.

For the record, I had AD and Megatron 1-2 for my rankings that year. I forget which was which.

Bush doesn't count as a RB prospect because that's not how he was viewed. He was a glorified Eric Metcalf, and everyone knew it. That's why he went #2. He went #1 because the Saints needed someone to market the team.

I had CJ and AD 1-2 as well...any sane person who didn't really need Joe Thomas did.

Debatable.

IMO Ki Jana Carter(5'10,@230#,4.3) was a better pro prospect than AD. So was Ricky Williams.
George Rogers, FSU's Sammie Smith, Marcus Allen, Eric Dickerson, Alonzo Highsmith, Lawrence Phillips, Curtis Enis, Jamal Lewis, Fred Taylor and Edgerrin James were all in their day considered equal and in many cases better pro RB prospects than AD.

He looks like a future HOFer now, but not too many draft reports had AD ranked as a 'can't miss' superstar in the pros heading into the 2007 NFL draft.

None of them were close to AD. That list just makes me realize how amazing he was as a prospect... He was faster and more skilled than all of them, and only a couple on that list were more powerful runners (Ricky and maybe Jamal Lewis - though he wasn't the bulldozer he became).

A Perfect Score
09-29-2010, 11:20 AM
Ricky Williams was the best RB prospect I've ever seen, and that includes Adrian Peterson. Jamal Lewis was 5'10, 240 and ran a 4.35, but he had production concerns coming out. He was a beast as well though.

Miaoww
09-29-2010, 11:37 AM
I understand where you are coming from, but even in the past two years there have been significant changes in the way that NFL teams run the football. Committee is a much larger factor now then it was 2 years ago. Hell, I don't remember anyone talking about committees when Reggie Bush was drafted, and now he shares the backfield with two other players. McFadden shares with Bush. The Vikings just spent a second rounder to pair someone with Peterson. The time of the NFL workhorse back is gone, and yes thats happened within the past 2 years. Nowadays, guys who go in the top 10 like CJ Spiller are guys who can work inside a committee and contribute to the offense in numerous ways. Im not saying Ingram isnt that guy, just that your argument is partially false.

The RB by committee is now in vogue, but someone like Ingram would be the focal point of said committee. The guys he shares the backfield with would purely be in there to spell him - or to come in on obvious passing downs (assuming they're much better receivers than he is).

That kind of player is worth a first round pick, though I'd be hesitant to spend a top 10 selection on him.

nepg
09-29-2010, 02:21 PM
He's the ideal back to build a RB group around. Add a speed back and a depth RB, and you're good to go.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
09-29-2010, 03:36 PM
I don't think RB committees are something that teams strive to get. They're something that's come about because of a surplus solid RBs, but a lack of great ones. Any team would much rather have an Adrian Peterson or Chris Johnson than two solid backs. Because true game breaking running backs are so rare and are gone so quickly, teams opt for the RBBC approach.

SeanTaylorRIP
09-29-2010, 03:39 PM
I don't think RB committees are something that teams strive to get. They're something that's come about because of a surplus solid RBs, but a lack of great ones. Any team would much rather have an Adrian Peterson or Chris Johnson than two solid backs. Because true game breaking running backs are so rare and are gone so quickly, teams opt for the RBBC approach.

For some teams yeah but take the Panthers for example. Took Jonathan Stewart. Deangelo is capable of being a workhorse but they chose to have a running back by committee approach with talented backs. Also the Chiefs, they signed Thomas Jones even though you could have easily handed the reigns to Jamaal Charles, not to mention they even drafted McCluster.

Texas Homer
09-29-2010, 03:45 PM
I like Ingram a lot as a RB prospect. I think that Ingram has the potential to be an above average RB in the NFL.

I don't think that he will be a top 5 pick though. Just my opinion.....

D-Unit
09-29-2010, 03:56 PM
I don't think you can look at history and use that to claim that Ingram won't be taken in the Top 5.

First off this is a draft that is probably going to be the worst at the top (with a dearth of elite talent) that we've seen in years. This is worse than the Jamarcus Russell draft. At least they had Calvin. This is the crap of crapola. So Ingram to me, is one of the elite players in the draft. Don't let the hype that leads to the draft fool you... they need to make news outta something... bottomline is looking like this draft is the weakest it's going to be in maybe over a decade.

Secondly, RBs are still considered franchise cornerstones. Chris Johnson and Adrian Peterson have proven that. Without them, those teams would be exponentially weaker. People like to think RBs are easy to replace... easy as plug 'n play. People who believe that have blinders on. Yeah, it may seem that way... unless you have a truly, I mean TRULY ELITE RB. When you have one of those, it ain't so easy as plug 'n play. Elite RBs are special and can make or break a franchise. Ingram is elite.

Lastly, saying a guy is a Top 10 pick, but not a Top 5 pick at this point in time is nonsense. It depends on the teams picking! Nobody knows the order today. Teams draft based on need. If there is a team needing a RB in the Top 5 then Ingram could go there. Ingram is the safest pick in the draft.

Day One Pick
09-29-2010, 04:04 PM
I don't think RB committees are something that teams strive to get. They're something that's come about because of a surplus solid RBs, but a lack of great ones. Any team would much rather have an Adrian Peterson or Chris Johnson than two solid backs. Because true game breaking running backs are so rare and are gone so quickly, teams opt for the RBBC approach.

Bingo......

nepg
09-29-2010, 04:21 PM
I don't think you can look at history and use that to claim that Ingram won't be taken in the Top 5.

First off this is a draft that is probably going to be the worst at the top (with a dearth of elite talent) that we've seen in years. This is worse than the Jamarcus Russell draft. At least they had Calvin. This is the crap of crapola. So Ingram to me, is one of the elite players in the draft. Don't let the hype that leads to the draft fool you... they need to make news outta something... bottomline is looking like this draft is the weakest it's going to be in maybe over a decade.

Secondly, RBs are still considered franchise cornerstones. Chris Johnson and Adrian Peterson have proven that. Without them, those teams would be exponentially weaker. People like to think RBs are easy to replace... easy as plug 'n play. People who believe that have blinders on. Yeah, it may seem that way... unless you have a truly, I mean TRULY ELITE RB. When you have one of those, it ain't so easy as plug 'n play. Elite RBs are special and can make or break a franchise. Ingram is elite.

Lastly, saying a guy is a Top 10 pick, but not a Top 5 pick at this point in time is nonsense. It depends on the teams picking! Nobody knows the order today. Teams draft based on need. If there is a team needing a RB in the Top 5 then Ingram could go there. Ingram is the safest pick in the draft.

This is somewhat contradictory. You say this class will be worse than 2007, which had 3-4 elite talents, but then say there's no difference between Top 5 and Top 10. There's a huge difference. If there are only 3-4 elite players, the difference between a team needing a RB picking in the Top 5 and that same team picking 6-10 is significant.

We'll take the Patriots because that's the one obvious example. If they're picking Top 5, they're looking at guys like Patrick Peterson, Marcel Darius, AJ Green, Robert Quinn, and maybe Adrian Clayborn. If they're picking 6-10, whoever they'd otherwise be targetting might not be an option, and the money they'd have to pay their draft pick will be significantly less...so Ingram becomes an option. In the Top 5, there's no way the Patriots consider Ingram.

D-Unit
09-29-2010, 04:45 PM
This is somewhat contradictory. You say this class will be worse than 2007, which had 3-4 elite talents, but then say there's no difference between Top 5 and Top 10. There's a huge difference. If there are only 3-4 elite players, the difference between a team needing a RB picking in the Top 5 and that same team picking 6-10 is significant.

We'll take the Patriots because that's the one obvious example. If they're picking Top 5, they're looking at guys like Patrick Peterson, Marcel Darius, AJ Green, Robert Quinn, and maybe Adrian Clayborn. If they're picking 6-10, whoever they'd otherwise be targetting might not be an option, and the money they'd have to pay their draft pick will be significantly less...so Ingram becomes an option. In the Top 5, there's no way the Patriots consider Ingram.
You are confused on all levels. It's not contradictory at all. Reread what I said:

Lastly, saying a guy is a Top 10 pick, but not a Top 5 pick at this point in time is nonsense. It depends on the teams picking! Nobody knows the order today. Teams draft based on need. If there is a team needing a RB in the Top 5 then Ingram could go there. Ingram is the safest pick in the draft.

Clarification #1: A player being considered a Top 10 pick could easily be a Top 5 pick depending on the order of the teams picking and their needs. If St. Louis is picking in the Top 5 once again, they are not going to be taking a QB. So you see, even if Locker was the #1 rated player, doesn't mean he is going #1. Player ratings do not equal the spot they are drafted. Maybe you guys need to be saying, "I don't think Ingram is a Top 5 prospect" instead of saying he is not a Top 5 pick.

Clarification #2: Time relativity. I specifically said, "at this point in time". No where does it state that there is no difference in being a Top 5 pick versus being a Top 10 pick. There is a difference in the end, but to say now that someone can be a Top 10 pick but not a Top 5 pick while we're still in the beginning of the season is unwise. Stocks will rise and fall dramatically.


...and btw... the Patriots have Fred Taylor as their starter. He's gone down and Benjarvis Green Ellis is their new starter. Are you telling me that there's NO WAY the Patriots would take Ingram? Wow. That's funny.

nepg
09-29-2010, 05:04 PM
I didn't confuse it at all. I don't see a team considering him in the Top 5 because of the elite talents that will be available in that range. Later in the Top 10, he'll be considered because the depth of elite talents just won't be there. I don't think he's necessarily an elite talent, but he does remind me of Tomlinson as a prospect right now. It takes a lot for me to consider a RB an elite prospect.

As far as safest pick...I don't see that either. How can you say that about a runningback of all positions? I think Marcel Darius is more likely to be the safest pick because of the track record that 3-4 DEs have and the level of talent he possesses.

D-Unit
09-29-2010, 06:02 PM
I didn't confuse it at all. I don't see a team considering him in the Top 5 because of the elite talents that will be available in that range. Later in the Top 10, he'll be considered because the depth of elite talents just won't be there. I don't think he's necessarily an elite talent, but he does remind me of Tomlinson as a prospect right now. It takes a lot for me to consider a RB an elite prospect.

As far as safest pick...I don't see that either. How can you say that about a runningback of all positions? I think Marcel Darius is more likely to be the safest pick because of the track record that 3-4 DEs have and the level of talent he possesses.
If you don't think Ingram is an elite talent, then that is the root of your confusion.

As for DT prospects being a safer bet than RB prospects... I think you are clearly still confused.

Darius might not even be drafted by a team running the 3-4. Out of curiosity, what is this great track record of 3-4 DEs being drafted in Round 1 and being successful? I know a boatload of 1st round RBs off the top of my head that are big kay players for their teams, but I can't even think of a handful of 1st round 3-4 DEs that are making the same kind of impacts.

Babylon
09-29-2010, 06:23 PM
I don't think you can look at history and use that to claim that Ingram won't be taken in the Top 5.

First off this is a draft that is probably going to be the worst at the top (with a dearth of elite talent) that we've seen in years. This is worse than the Jamarcus Russell draft. At least they had Calvin. This is the crap of crapola. So Ingram to me, is one of the elite players in the draft. Don't let the hype that leads to the draft fool you... they need to make news outta something... bottomline is looking like this draft is the weakest it's going to be in maybe over a decade.

Secondly, RBs are still considered franchise cornerstones. Chris Johnson and Adrian Peterson have proven that. Without them, those teams would be exponentially weaker. People like to think RBs are easy to replace... easy as plug 'n play. People who believe that have blinders on. Yeah, it may seem that way... unless you have a truly, I mean TRULY ELITE RB. When you have one of those, it ain't so easy as plug 'n play. Elite RBs are special and can make or break a franchise. Ingram is elite.

Lastly, saying a guy is a Top 10 pick, but not a Top 5 pick at this point in time is nonsense. It depends on the teams picking! Nobody knows the order today. Teams draft based on need. If there is a team needing a RB in the Top 5 then Ingram could go there. Ingram is the safest pick in the draft.

I was just thinking today that the top of the draft looked real good:

Luck
Locker
Peterson
A.J. Green
Quinn

FUNBUNCHER
09-29-2010, 06:31 PM
Bush doesn't count as a RB prospect because that's not how he was viewed. He was a glorified Eric Metcalf, and everyone knew it. That's why he went #2. He went #1 because the Saints needed someone to market the team.

I had CJ and AD 1-2 as well...any sane person who didn't really need Joe Thomas did.



None of them were close to AD. That list just makes me realize how amazing he was as a prospect... He was faster and more skilled than all of them, and only a couple on that list were more powerful runners (Ricky and maybe Jamal Lewis - though he wasn't the bulldozer he became).

AD ran a 4.38 at the NFL combine. Sammie Smith, Enis, Ki Jana, Jamal Lewis, Lawrence Phillips, Fred Taylor, Edge and Ricky Williams all had sub 4.4 times prior to their draft years.

Lewis, Ki Jana, Enis, Taylor, Rogers, Sammie Smith were all significantly bigger than AD's 212#.

It's hard to make this comparison IMO because many of these guys were mega-busts, but as pure pro prospects, there's no way AD would be first among this group.
Curtis Enis coming out of Penn State looked like Earl Campbell with 4.3 speed!!
Fred Taylor was a freak and could do anything AD could do as a collegian.

There has never been a RB like Sammie Smith at FSU, before or since; 6'2, 226#, 4.3 speed and power. Too bad he was a serious cokehead.

I don't think anyone would have taken AD over Ki Jana Carter coming out of college.


I understand the love AD gets, but the greatest RB prospect ever is Bo Jackson because of his alleged sub 4.2 speed.

After that, there are a lot of backs who were off the charts as prospects. IMO AD isn't at the top of the list after Bo. Too skinny. AD can spin and cut, but his hips are a little stiff and there were RBs who were more fluid running the ball than AD.
Next to these other guys, I downgrade AD because he's relatively small compared to many of them.

D-Unit
09-29-2010, 06:31 PM
I was just thinking today that the top of the draft looked real good:

Luck
Locker
Peterson
A.J. Green
Quinn
Out of that list, Peterson is the only elite talent that I think will materialize into star status in the NFL. I think Green is especially overrated (I like other WRs more) and Quinn is just the top DE in a weak class of 4-3 DE prospects so that's why he gets mentioned. But heck... it is all just my opinion. I have Ingram in my Top 5.

I think Pat Delvin is better than Luck and Locker too, sooooo... yeah, I'm not your traditional sheep follower.

nepg
09-29-2010, 06:32 PM
There hasn't been a 3-4 DE drafted that hasn't started and played well that I can think of. It's the safest position to draft early.

Starting with Richard Seymour:
2001:
#6 - Richard Seymour - possible HoF player
2003:
#13 - Ty Warren - has been one of the best DLs in the NFL since he was drafted
2005:
#20 - Marcus Spears - damn good DE when he's healthy
#28 - Luis Castillo - has been one of the better linemen in the NFL since drafted
2008:
#5 - Glenn Dorsey - wasn't meant to play 3-4, but has been damn good at DE since 2009.
2009:
#3 - Tyson Jackson - has looked good and made big strides. will be an anchor along that line for a long time.
#9 - BJ Raji - drafted as NT, but has played a lot of DE

Sure, there haven't been a lot drafted, but the ones that have been drafted are franchise players. Combined with a lack of 3-4 teams until recently, one of the main reasons for the lack of DLs drafted as 3-4 DEs is that they're such safe picks who quickly become mainstays of the defenses they play in.

D-Unit
09-29-2010, 06:35 PM
There hasn't been a 3-4 DE drafted that hasn't started and played well that I can think of. It's the safest position to draft early.

Starting with Richard Seymour:
2001:
#6 - Richard Seymour - possible HoF player
2003:
#13 - Ty Warren - has been one of the best DLs in the NFL since he was drafted
2005:
#20 - Marcus Spears - damn good DE when he's healthy
#28 - Luis Castillo - has been one of the better linemen in the NFL since drafted
2008:
#5 - Glenn Dorsey - wasn't meant to play 3-4, but has been damn good at DE since 2009.
2009:
#3 - Tyson Jackson - has looked good and made big strides. will be an anchor along that line for a long time.
#9 - BJ Raji - drafted as NT, but has played a lot of DE

Sure, there haven't been a lot drafted, but the ones that have been drafted are franchise players. Combined with a lack of 3-4 teams until recently, one of the main reasons for the lack of DLs drafted as 3-4 DEs is that they're such safe picks who quickly become mainstays of the defenses they play in.
That's 7 in 9 years. Now do the RBs in the same time span.

A Perfect Score
09-29-2010, 06:36 PM
I already listed every first round RB on the page before, save yourself some research. Trust me, it took a long time haha.

nepg
09-29-2010, 06:38 PM
Ya, I listed every 3-4 DE.... 100% success rate on drafted 3-4 DEs... Can't come close to that with RBs.

D-Unit
09-29-2010, 06:45 PM
Ya, I listed every 3-4 DE.... 100% success rate on drafted 3-4 DEs... Can't come close to that with RBs.
There were only 7 taken in 9 years. 34 DEs aren't taken in Round 1. It's not a position that has traditionally been considered one where you need to spend a 1st round pick on in order to fill. Compared to the number of 1st round RBs taken. 5 were taken in 2008 alone. Just goes to show that NFL teams put a higher priority on addressing the position in Round 1.

nepg
09-29-2010, 06:48 PM
It is a position teams spend a first round pick to fill, but when they spend it, it lasts for 8+ years. There's a 50% success rate for RBs drafted in that same time span.

I'll take the 7/7 successful DEs over the 12/24 (or something like that) RBs in the same 9 year period.

Also consider that there would be a few more 3-4 DEs if ****** teams like the Lions and Bucs didn't snag primo prospects like Suh and McCoy before 3-4 teams like the Browns have a chance to pounce.

nepg
09-29-2010, 06:51 PM
repeat post

Day One Pick
09-29-2010, 06:54 PM
There were only 7 taken in 9 years. 34 DEs aren't taken in Round 1. It's not a position that has traditionally been considered one where you need to spend a 1st round pick on in order to fill. Compared to the number of 1st round RBs taken. 5 were taken in 2008 alone. Just goes to show that NFL teams put a higher priority on addressing the position in Round 1.

This will change with just about half the league running a 3-4 now. The big reason 3-4 personel hasn't been drafted high historically is because of two reasons. One being it's a projection, meaning the prospect is projected at a position other than what can be seen on film (in most cases). Two being the fact that 3-4 personel has to be developed. Pretty much every player in the Steelers front 7 since they've been running the 3-4 (early 80's) has been developed for 2-4 years prior to becoming a starter. Casey Hampton is one big exception. Things will have to change now that so many teams are looking for the same type of personel. I sort of feel like 4-3 teams will have an advantage in the draft if teams keep switching to the 3-4. Now might actually be a good time for a 3-4 team to switch to a Tampa 2 or another 4 man front.

Halsey
09-29-2010, 07:57 PM
To me, teams should just try to get good players at just about any position of need after the first 10-15 picks. Top 10-15 picks are usually where teams will have a chance to take a fairly reasonable risk on a high value player at a high value position. Once a Draft gets past those picks it becomes harder to predict, so teams should just get a player they like, even if he doesn't play a premium position. If you go back and look at the history of the Draft, you'll see that second half of the first round players are far from safe bets to be above average starters.

PrimetimeTheDon
09-29-2010, 08:34 PM
Warren has never been impressive
Spears is average at best
Dorsey sucks
Tyson Jackson sucks

%100 success rate my ass.
All of those teams get run on. Elite 3-4 DE's like Seymour or A.Smith are as rare as any commodity in the NFL.

Morton
09-30-2010, 12:20 AM
If the Patriots are drafting top 10 with the Raiders pick, do they choose Mark Ingram or do they go for a much-needed pass rusher like Von Miller, Robert Quinn, or Adrian Clayborn?

Seriously - the New England defense is terrible and one of the reasons for this is their lack of any decent pass rushers.

katnip
09-30-2010, 12:21 AM
If the Patriots are drafting top 10 with the Raiders pick, do they choose Mark Ingram or do they go for a much-needed pass rusher like Von Miller, Robert Quinn, or Adrian Clayborn?

Seriously - the New England defense is terrible and one of the reasons for this is their lack of any decent pass rushers.

They'll probably trade down like they usually do

Morton
09-30-2010, 12:25 AM
They'll probably trade down like they usually do

If they get a top 10 pick there might not be a team willing to trade with them, however.

A Perfect Score
09-30-2010, 11:41 AM
If the Pats are drafting Top 10 and can't move back, I'd bet considerable money that they will pick a WR, especially since its looking unlikely Moss will be back and odds are at least one of Baldwin, Jones and Floyd will be there.

Miaoww
10-01-2010, 02:18 AM
For some teams yeah but take the Panthers for example. Took Jonathan Stewart. Deangelo is capable of being a workhorse but they chose to have a running back by committee approach with talented backs. Also the Chiefs, they signed Thomas Jones even though you could have easily handed the reigns to Jamaal Charles, not to mention they even drafted McCluster.

I think the Panthers taking Stewart was more to do with their lack of confidence in Williams. They started Foster over him for reasons I still can't fathom.

Sure it's worked out fine, but I HATED that pick at the time. I don't like 1st round RBs at the best of times, then my team goes and takes two RBs in the first round within two years of each other?! Madness.

nepg
10-01-2010, 09:05 AM
Warren has never been impressive

What? Warren out-performed Seymour most years, and put up amazing numbers for a 3-4 DE. He's been better than Smith. He should have 3-4 Pro Bowl appearances.

Spears is average at best

Injuries don't help, but he's been solid. Has definitely played up to or above his draft position.

Dorsey sucks

You lose all credibility here (not that you had much left after the Warren comment). Dorsey has been very good at DE for the Chiefs and keeps getting better. He's the main reason their front seven is so good this year.


Tyson Jackson sucks

Well this just isn't true at all. He was average as a rookie, but was transitioning from 4-3 DE to 3-4 DE, which isn't a common switch. He's been very good so far in 2010. Missed last week due to injury, but he's shown a ton of development.

%100 success rate my ass.
All of those teams get run on. Elite 3-4 DE's like Seymour or A.Smith are as rare as any commodity in the NFL.

The Chiefs have the #6 run defense, Dallas is #7, and New England doesn't have Warren this year. Fail.

Shane P. Hallam
10-01-2010, 09:11 AM
Since this was such a debate, I decided to blog about it with some stats and evidence. Read it here!

http://draftcountdown.com/draft-blog/2010/10/the-value-of-the-runner

wordofi
10-01-2010, 10:33 AM
Since this was such a debate, I decided to blog about it with some stats and evidence. Read it here!

http://draftcountdown.com/draft-blog/2010/10/the-value-of-the-runner

I think you should have shown how well their teams did due to acquiring them. What people are missing about my point is that quarterbacks contribute much more to the win column than running backs do.

Last year, in 2009, of the quarterbacks who were in the top 10 in quarterback rating, 8 of those teams made the playoffs. As for running backs who finished in the top 10 in rushing yards in 2009, only 4 of those teams made the playoffs.

I don't know how much more I have to prove. You better be drafting a "special" running back in the top 5.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
10-01-2010, 11:05 AM
I think you should have shown how well their teams did due to acquiring them. What people are missing about my point is that quarterbacks contribute much more to the win column than running backs do.

Last year, in 2009, of the quarterbacks who were in the top 10 in quarterback rating, 8 of those teams made the playoffs. As for running backs who finished in the top 10 in rushing yards in 2009, only 4 of those teams made the playoffs.

I don't know how much more I have to prove. You better be drafting a "special" running back in the top 5.

That's true, but what if there is no special QB available? Chances are there won't be more than one true Franchise signal caller in this draft. Who that is going to be is entirely up for debate. Hell, there might not even be one. Every single one of the top QBs have red flags. Locker struggled(to put it politely) against Nebraska and hasn't learned how to win games, Mallett has character and accuracy issues, and Luck is just a rSO at this point.

RBs are less of a crapshoot. There are busts at the position, but it's generally easier to evaluate. You see a guy like Ingram and while he may not fit the mold of the "perfect prospect" he doesn't have any flaws. He's not gonna run away from the defense like CJ or AD, but he has good enough long speed to take a few. He has great vision through the hole and is difficult to take down. If I were a betting man, I'd bet a lot of money that Ingram is going to be a special runner in the NFL.

Shane P. Hallam
10-01-2010, 11:41 AM
I think you should have shown how well their teams did due to acquiring them. What people are missing about my point is that quarterbacks contribute much more to the win column than running backs do.

Last year, in 2009, of the quarterbacks who were in the top 10 in quarterback rating, 8 of those teams made the playoffs. As for running backs who finished in the top 10 in rushing yards in 2009, only 4 of those teams made the playoffs.

I don't know how much more I have to prove. You better be drafting a "special" running back in the top 5.

I don't disagree with you, but if teams don't need a franchise QB, it isn't such a bad thing to take a RB so high.

Chucky
10-01-2010, 12:41 PM
I really doubt this guy gets past wherever the Bucs are picking(assuming Quinn and PP are gone). SEeing as the Bucs will likely be in the top 10 I def see him going there...doubt he goes top 5 though

nepg
10-01-2010, 07:56 PM
I don't disagree with you, but if teams don't need a franchise QB, it isn't such a bad thing to take a RB so high.

His entire angle is that people who believe you can build a team around the running game would pass over a franchise QB for a RB. No one is saying that. Of course people take the QB over a RB if they have a need at both positions (unless we're talking about, say...Adrian Peterson-type talent v. JaMarcus Russell-type talent - which we aren't) - especially in this upcoming draft. But if a team is set at QB or there just isn't one there...what Shane said.

Halsey
10-01-2010, 08:11 PM
People tend to view QBs as more risky than RBs, but I would argue that it's at least as risky to pass on a potential franchise QB as it is to take one. Very few QBs are seen as safe bets to be quality starting QBs. Often RBs are seen as nearly risk free, but guys like Knowshon Moreno, Marshawn Lynch and Cadillac Williams looks like bad picks at this point. I remember seeing Moreno ranked as high as a top 5 prospect in the entire Draft, and I'm not sure he's helped Denver in the least bit.