Draft Countdown Forums

Draft Countdown Forums (http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/index.php)
-   Pro Football (http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=44)
-   -   CB vs RB (http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/showthread.php?t=56947)

Caulibflower 07-05-2013 06:11 PM

CB vs RB
 
The Injuriezzz thread was turning into a CB vs RB debate between some of us, so I've made a new thread and moved my last post from there to here:

Better to have two "average" corners and an "elite" runner, or an "average" corner, an "elite" corner and an "average" running back? We assume the quarterback is "average" as well. It's a debate about cornerbacks and running backs individual value, not whether it's better to have a running back or cornerback if the offense is already being driven by a top passer. If you're assuming you have Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady or something, you're not saying it's better to have Revis than Peterson, you're just saying it's best to have Brady.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FUNBUNCHER (Post 3397682)
I think a 1300-1400 yard season from Tobey Gerhart and Darrelle Revis giving the Vikes short fields off turnovers would have still put Minnesota in the playoffs.

So... basically an Adrian Peterson-type season from Gerhart? A rusher who is getting 1300-1400 yards is automatically in the Pro Bowl conversation. You're talking about guys like Arian Foster, Doug Martin, and CJ Spiller. Why not say the Vikings could've gone to the NFC Championship-game if only they'd had a top-6 cornerback? The Vikes had a 35 year-old Antoine Winfield as their best corner last year. I'm glad to have him on the Seahawks, but at this point in his career he's more "solid" than "star." So, sure - if the Vikings had some other Pro Bowl running back and the best cornerback in the league, maybe they'd have gotten further in the playoffs. But that's not really what this argument is about. If you're hypothetically going to put Darrelle Revis on the Vikings and take away Peterson, you have to put someone in at running back who's comparable to the level of cornerback Revis is replacing. The "Antoine Winfield" of running backs. And maybe that is someone like Toby Gerhart, but let's be honest - at this point, if Gerhart was a starting running back you'd be expecting more of an 1100-type season at 3.9 yards per carry and 8 TDs. (And I think that's fairly optimistic.) You're thinking more along the lines of what Chester Taylor put up the year before they brought in AP.

Quote:

Having the best RB in the game is a luxury, there are other ways to generate yards in the run game that don't require a future HOFer at the position.
And there aren't other ways of slowing down a passing offense than having a HOF-caliber cornerback? How about Jared Allen? How about Harrison Smith? On defense it's more important to have a balanced unit than on offense; if there is a glaring weak point on a defense, the offense is going to attack it. People have pointed this out already, but I'll reiterate: Revis can be avoided. When you have the best running back in the league, every time he gets the ball in his hands you have the best player in the league attacking the part of the defense you want to. It gives a team a lot more options, and a lot more consistency in their attack. That's not just a "luxury." Adrian Peterson was absolutely the right person to win MVP last year. The "it's a passing league" mantra is increasingly true, but it's still football and teams win the best way they can. For Minnesota, that's giving the ball to Peterson 25 times a game.

Let's put a healthy Revis on the Vikings. For the sake of the argument, let's say Revis is the shutting-downest of all shutdown corners and at most he allows one reception a game. He effectively takes away his opponent's top receiver all game. Now, say they're playing the Packers. Jordy Nelson is a non-factor. Aaron Rodgers is still going to feed it to Randall Cobb, JerMichael Finley and James Jones all game, and Eddie Lacy and Jonathan Franklin will get their touches. Revis might be a good tackler, but it doesn't matter if he's bringing down the running backs after 5 yard carries. The Packers will take that all day. Randall Cobb is burning Josh Robinson, so the Vikings switch Revis over to Cobb. Cobb is now done for the day, while the emancipated Jordy Nelson goes over Robinson for a 40 yard TD. See where this is going? Meanwhile, Toby Gerhart has had 17 carries for 56 yards, and the Packers defense is not worried at all about him breaking a big one. They're going after Ponder with all they've got and Ponder throws a back-breaking pick late in the 3rd quarter.

Switch back to this universe. Aaron Rodgers, as usual, throws to whoever he wants and racks up 364 yards and 4 TDs. But this time the Vikings have Adrian Peterson, who carries 34 times for 200 yards and keeps the Vikings in the game. Because of all the effort they have to put into containing Peterson, the Packers are leaving some openings in their pass defense and have to slow down their rush a little bit, which allows Christian Ponder the time he needs to get the ball to receivers who are single-covered, and the result is a relatively modest (but great for him) 234, 3 TD day and the Vikings win 37-34.

Quote:

I'd rather have a decent starting RB or RB-by-committee and an elite difference maker at corner, instead of an all-world RB and nobodys playing corner.
I'd rather have the all-world running back.

SuperPacker 07-05-2013 06:13 PM

this was an argument? cb everytime.

BallerT1215 07-05-2013 06:15 PM

CB.

Take away half the field on defense and can put your safety towards the line or extra coverage toward the middle of the field. You can't beat that.

If you have a stud O-line - anyone can be a difference maker at RB.

BallerT1215 07-05-2013 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by njx9 (Post 3398112)
depends on the rest of my team. if i have christian ponder, i want a rb. if i have tom brady, i want a cb.

Watch your tone man. CP is a winner. Learn, live it, love it.

Caulibflower 07-05-2013 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by njx9 (Post 3398112)
depends on the rest of my team. if i have christian ponder, i want a rb. if i have tom brady, i want a cb.

This is something I was waiting for someone to say. A lot of the conversation was about the Vkings, since AP plays for them. For the sake of the argument let's say the quarterback is average, too. Everyone knows an "elite" quarterback is the trump card in most cases.

SuperPacker 07-05-2013 06:32 PM

there are too many perfectly capable running backs in the nfl to justify taking adrian peterson over darrelle revis.

irrelevant of which qb you have.

BallerT1215 07-05-2013 06:35 PM

I think a better question would be #1 Shutdown CB vs. ELITE #1 WR.

Caulibflower 07-05-2013 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by njx9 (Post 3398123)
well, let's define average better.

Let's just say an "average" player is at best one who doesn't deserve to make the Pro Bowl by an honest, informed evaluation. That's the upper limit. Sam Bradford is decent and could probably get his team to a Super Bowl, but you don't think of him as a transcendent player by any means. Alex Smith, etc, would be "average" players.

Caulibflower 07-05-2013 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperPacker (Post 3398128)
there are too many perfectly capable running backs in the nfl to justify taking adrian peterson over darrelle revis.

irrelevant of which qb you have.

Can't be irrelevant.

Caulibflower 07-05-2013 06:52 PM

Might be true. Ponder's really not "Average" by that standard. He's closer to "bad."

If you have a "bad" quarterback, you better take AP.

That is an interesting to think about, though, when drafting and managing a roster. An elite running back can keep your team competitive in a way that an elite cornerback probably won't, but in the long run what you're really after is an elite corner and an elite passer. Running backs kind of have a weird role in the algorithm.

SuperPacker 07-05-2013 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caulibflower (Post 3398144)
Might be true. Ponder's really not "Average" by that standard. He's closer to "bad."

If you have a "bad" quarterback, you better take AP.

Because you can't get top running back production from 75% of the starting running backs in the league?

Caulibflower 07-05-2013 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperPacker (Post 3398147)
Because you can't get top running back production from 75% of the starting running backs in the league?

Because we're comparing Revis to Peterson. Who's to say if they pick Peterson they're somehow prevented from finding serviceable starters at corner? "serviceable" isn't good enough at running back if the quarterback isn't any good; the offense will lack a spark. If you have a good quarterback, that will create lanes that a serviceable running back can exploit, but the beauty of having Adrian Peterson is that he can make his own plays. Even Revis can't do that, and that's the main point. He can take plays away, but every time the ball gets handed to Peterson he can make something happen. Revis is a negating player (takes away the top receiver) while Peterson is a creating player (offense simply gives the ball to him and he can make a play out of nothing.)

SuperPacker 07-05-2013 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caulibflower (Post 3398149)
Because we're comparing Revis to Peterson. Who's to say if they pick Peterson they're somehow prevented from finding serviceable starters at corner? "serviceable" isn't good enough at running back if the quarterback isn't any good; the offense will lack a spark. If you have a good quarterback, that will create lanes that a serviceable running back can exploit, but the beauty of having Adrian Peterson is that he can make his own plays. Even Revis can't do that, and that's the main point. He can take plays away, but every time the ball gets handed to Peterson he can make something happen. Revis is a negating player (takes away the top receiver) while Peterson is a creating player (offense simply gives the ball to him and he can make a play out of nothing.)

The point is that it would be 100x easier to get a running back once you've got your elite CB than it would be to get a cornerback once you've got your elite RB. It just wouldn't be smart management of resources to go with Adrian Peterson.

niel89 07-05-2013 07:07 PM

I thinks a whole lot easier to find a solid starting RB then a solid starter at CB. There are plenty of RB who are j.a.g.s and produce at a pretty decent level. There few CB who are actually called good in this league. The gauge for what is a quality level of play between the positions is considerably different. Its really steep between what is considered good and garbage at CB. An elite CB last a fair bit longer than an elite RB.

I probably go with the CB just because I can find a pretty good RB fairly easy.

PS, I'd think Toby Gerhart probably puts up 1200 yards and around 12 TDs. He could actually be a solid RB but who honestly wants to take away carries from AD. The only touches he gets is because AD is useless on passing downs. Gerhart needs a fair amount of carries to work the defense. I hope he gets a decent look when he gets to sign next offseason.

Trogdor 07-05-2013 07:45 PM

Easy question for me. It is A LOT easier to have an elite offense without an elite RB than it is to have an elite defense without an elite CB.

You can scheme nobodies into solid RBs with the right scheme. Shanny has had a ton of success with a range of RB talents. Good luck hiding your corners unless you have an ELITE pass rush. Also as stated above it is A LOT easier to find an elite RB compared to finding an elite CB.

Personally the question should be elite CB vs elite RB without a name attached. AP IMHO is far as away the best RB in the league with a huge gap. Revis is the best CB in the league but not by the same margin.

yo123 07-05-2013 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by niel89 (Post 3398153)
I thinks a whole lot easier to find a solid starting RB then a solid starter at CB. There are plenty of RB who are j.a.g.s and produce at a pretty decent level. There few CB who are actually called good in this league. The gauge for what is a quality level of play between the positions is considerably different. Its really steep between what is considered good and garbage at CB. An elite CB last a fair bit longer than an elite RB.

I probably go with the CB just because I can find a pretty good RB fairly easy.

PS, I'd think Toby Gerhart probably puts up 1200 yards and around 12 TDs. He could actually be a solid RB but who honestly wants to take away carries from AD. The only touches he gets is because AD is useless on passing downs. Gerhart needs a fair amount of carries to work the defense. I hope he gets a decent look when he gets to sign next offseason.


Toby Gerhart is incredibly average.

Ness 07-05-2013 08:08 PM

Finding a great corner might be harder than finding a great halfback, but that doesn't mean their impact on the game will be the same. It boils down to how important their position is to helping your team win games. If your team is all around terrible on both sides of the ball, I'm taking Peterson if I have to choose between the two. You can get him plenty of touches for certain. Revis as good as he is, plays at a disadvantage because of the current ruling system, and teams are just spreading defenses out so much. Perhaps he takes out one target. Great. What about the other wide receivers and tight ends though? There are ways around having to deal with Revis as an offense. Defenses have no choice when it comes to dealing with Peterson.

jrdrylie 07-05-2013 08:09 PM

The answer to this is corner and it isn't even close. But how is this for crazy?

Christian Ponder-Toby Gerhart
vs.
Joe Webb-Adrian Peterson

I'm taking the first option every time. I think Ponder is much better than most give him credit for. Just look at the playoffs. In the regular season, Peterson went for 210 and 199 against the Packers. Take away Ponder and he can't even get 100 yards. A great running back is easily negated if his supporting cast isn't great.

Ness 07-05-2013 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrdrylie (Post 3398185)
The answer to this is corner and it isn't even close. But how is this for crazy?

Christian Ponder-Toby Gerhart
vs.
Joe Webb-Adrian Peterson

I'm taking the first option every time. I think Ponder is much better than most give him credit for. Just look at the playoffs. In the regular season, Peterson went for 210 and 199 against the Packers. Take away Ponder and he can't even get 100 yards. A great running back is easily negated if his supporting cast isn't great.

What about Barry Sanders and his supporting cast?

Caulibflower 07-05-2013 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrdrylie (Post 3398185)
The answer to this is corner and it isn't even close. But how is this for crazy?

Christian Ponder-Toby Gerhart
vs.
Joe Webb-Adrian Peterson

I'm taking the first option every time. I think Ponder is much better than most give him credit for. Just look at the playoffs. In the regular season, Peterson went for 210 and 199 against the Packers. Take away Ponder and he can't even get 100 yards. A great running back is easily negated if his supporting cast isn't great.

Joe Webb isn't even a quarterback, though. And if he is, he's literally the worst in the league.

prock 07-05-2013 11:51 PM

Adrian Peterson was worth like 7 wins for us by himself. I'd take him over Revis every day if you have a bad quarterback.

Mufasa 07-06-2013 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prock (Post 3398366)
Adrian Peterson was worth like 7 wins for us by himself. I'd take him over Revis every day if you have a bad quarterback.

I'd take him over Revis every day if you have a great quarterback.

If I have Adrian Peterson and Aaron Rodgers or Adrian Peterson and Tom Brady, I'm not too worried about my defense; they won't have to do much.

descendency 07-06-2013 01:25 AM

This isn't even a debate. It's corner. And it's corner by a long margin.

You can create good running backs. Good OLs (especially interior) can turn a off the street FA into a 4+ ypc guy. There will always be one corner on the field that you can't help and when a QB finds that guy (and they often do), you had better hope he can cover.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mufasa (Post 3398419)
If I have Adrian Peterson and Aaron Rodgers or Adrian Peterson and Tom Brady, I'm not too worried about my defense; they won't have to do much.

Even without Adrian Peterson, no one is going to worry about their offense not being able to score enough points. Did you miss the last few seasons? The Patriots D and Packers D have been average at best and often abysmal, but that hasn't kept either team from being good to great.

Caulibflower 07-06-2013 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by descendency (Post 3398454)
You can create good running backs. Good OLs (especially interior) can turn a off the street FA into a 4+ ypc guy.

Total nonsense.

Quote:

There will always be one corner on the field that you can't help and when a QB finds that guy (and they often do), you had better hope he can cover.
You're just saying, "But what if they have a bad cornerback!" If they do, he's going to get picked on. No one's debating that. We're talking about having one or the other. Whatever team you add Revis to, you're going to have a cornerback on the other side that you hope can cover a wideout.

Quote:

Even without Adrian Peterson, no one is going to worry about their offense not being able to score enough points. Did you miss the last few seasons? The Patriots D and Packers D have been average at best and often abysmal, but that hasn't kept either team from being good to great.
Because they had great offenses. I don't know what your point is. Also, as for your statement "no one is going to worry about their offense not being able to score enough points," see Ex. A: The New York Jets. The Jets would've traded Revis for Peterson straight up if they'd had the opportunity.

Mufasa 07-06-2013 02:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by descendency (Post 3398454)
This isn't even a debate. It's corner. And it's corner by a long margin.

You can create good running backs. Good OLs (especially interior) can turn a off the street FA into a 4+ ypc guy. There will always be one corner on the field that you can't help and when a QB finds that guy (and they often do), you had better hope he can cover.



Even without Adrian Peterson, no one is going to worry about their offense not being able to score enough points. Did you miss the last few seasons? The Patriots D and Packers D have been average at best and often abysmal, but that hasn't kept either team from being good to great.

Alright, so we agree, if you have a great QB you're going to put enough points up.

Then the question becomes keeping the other team from scoring.

With Peterson you can hand him the ball and let him run the clock out. And with him and Rodgers/Brady you're almost guaranteed to score more points in the process.

There is absolutely zero question that I would trust that to keep the other team from scoring way more than I would trust a defense with one great corner.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:37 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.