RB's Don't Matter?

[bshaw28]

This is all very hypothetical, because you'd never have these guys available on the backend of R1 to be a test case. My only counter to it is that you don't see playoff teams or teams on the brink making a play for these top RBs either. But in theory, sure, if they were there at pick 32, it'd be a different story...but they would also not be drafted to be a 1000 snap count back either.

Zeke is a unique case and as I've said in other threads, probably the only back I would have considered that high...he's a legit Hall of Fame back and I thought so before he was drafted. On the same token, are the Cowboys better or worse today than they would have been if they drafted Jalen Ramsey or DeForest Buckner in R1 (in 2017, they took DE and CB with their first two picks) and then selected Derrick Henry in R2 while still getting Dak later on? I mean, this is what we're talking about here, ultimately. Pick premium positions in R1, get your RB later on. Zeke is also unique in that he plays a high volume of snaps...more than any RB in football.

But lets take Saquon Barkley...his snap count is on par with say...Sterling Shepard and they took him over Lamar Jackson. A mistake many teams made, but we can't act like there weren't many people pounding the table for Lamar either and they took a QB in the very next year. In a fantasy world where Saquon Barkley is drafted by a team with a QB, offensive line, edge rushers, etc...sure...I could be sold.

Also, lets take McCaffrey...they took McCaffrey over Patrick Mahomes, Deshaun Watson after Cam Newton threw 52% the year before. Same scenario as Barkley. Its just not for me and I think teams are wasting draft capital using them on a draft pick so high. If you want a RB...cool...could have had Dalvin Cook and Joe Mixon in R2 or Alvin Kamara in R2 if you wanted to pay up. The same with the Jaguars and Fournette. Could have drafted your QB and a RB in R2 and those teams are now in the playoffs instead of once again drafting in the Top 10.

IMO in nearly all of these cases of a RB being drafted high, its a big mistake by the franchise to do so. In a hypothetical scenario where these types of players are available very late in the draft...ok...but again, my counter is that you don't see these playoff teams moving up to get them.

As for examples where these playoff teams select a RB late in R1, it almost never works.

As for CEH...you're probably right, it won't end well. I think its intriguing ONLY because its the Chiefs...but, reflecting it reminds me of the Giants taking David Wilson after winning a Super Bowl, the Rams taking Trung Candidate after winning the Super Bowl...but this is also a different era of football and I just see CEH as an "offensive weapon" to a team that was just at a Super Bowl that legitimately has all of the foundational pieces locked up. It probably wasn't the best pick they could make, but I understand the philosophy and if you're the Chiefs, its worth a gamble, but I acknowledge it probably doesn't end well, these type of picks rarely do and we could be discussing in one year's time how they should have drafted X. The Chiefs draft was very swinging for the fences, tbh. Could be a lot of nothing sooner rather than later.

Seahawks drafting Rashaad Penny and Patriots drafting Sony Michel late seem silly in hindsight. Mark Ingram to the Saints seems like a nice example of a successful RB taken at 28, but then when you realize they gave up a first round pick next year for him, I'm not sure anyone can defend that when the Patriots used that pick to select Chandler Jones.

If you're saying "it's a hard and fast rule that no RB should be taken in the 1st Round" - then there's no need to debate how high in the 1st a RB is taken, right? Doesn't where a RB is drafted in the 1st become an irrelevant discussion if your statement is they should never be drafted anywhere in the 1st?

If in the highly unlikely scenario a Zeke/Barkley/McCaffery slipped to 32, and that team had a need for RB, it still wouldn't matter, right? That team should pass, because there's absolutely no scenario that justify's a RB in the 1st. Correct?

Taking a RB a RB in the 1st at all is one debate. How high you should take a RB in the 1st is a totally separate debate.

And CEH is stupid not because he's a RB, but because how small & slow for a RB he is. Like, if you wanted a pass catcher - take Swift. CEH athelticism almost never works out. It's such a very very long shot.

 

[Tit-e-skr]

I agree RB by committee is what we'll see more.

But the 2018 Chiefs with & without Hunt:

With Hunt - 11 games - 9-2 record - 434 yds per game - 36.7 pts - Scored under 30 pts 2 times in 11 games
W/o Hunt - 5 games - 3-2 record - 406 yds per game - 32.2 pts - Scored under 30 pts 2 times in 5 games

Would the Chiefs have also won the 2018 Super Bowl if they still had Hunt?

They were in the SB if not for a lined up offsides on a game ending INT by Brady. A lined up offsides that had zero bearing on the play. Chiefs would have beaten the Rams most likely.

 

[bshaw28]

This is all very hypothetical, because you'd never have these guys available on the backend of R1 to be a test case. My only counter to it is that you don't see playoff teams or teams on the brink making a play for these top RBs either. But in theory, sure, if they were there at pick 32, it'd be a different story...but they would also not be drafted to be a 1000 snap count back either.

Zeke is a unique case and as I've said in other threads, probably the only back I would have considered that high...he's a legit Hall of Fame back and I thought so before he was drafted. On the same token, are the Cowboys better or worse today than they would have been if they drafted Jalen Ramsey or DeForest Buckner in R1 (in 2017, they took DE and CB with their first two picks) and then selected Derrick Henry in R2 while still getting Dak later on? I mean, this is what we're talking about here, ultimately. Pick premium positions in R1, get your RB later on. Zeke is also unique in that he plays a high volume of snaps...more than any RB in football.

But lets take Saquon Barkley...his snap count is on par with say...Sterling Shepard and they took him over Lamar Jackson. A mistake many teams made, but we can't act like there weren't many people pounding the table for Lamar either and they took a QB in the very next year. In a fantasy world where Saquon Barkley is drafted by a team with a QB, offensive line, edge rushers, etc...sure...I could be sold.

Also, lets take McCaffrey...they took McCaffrey over Patrick Mahomes, Deshaun Watson after Cam Newton threw 52% the year before. Same scenario as Barkley. Its just not for me and I think teams are wasting draft capital using them on a draft pick so high. If you want a RB...cool...could have had Dalvin Cook and Joe Mixon in R2 or Alvin Kamara in R2 if you wanted to pay up. The same with the Jaguars and Fournette. Could have drafted your QB and a RB in R2 and those teams are now in the playoffs instead of once again drafting in the Top 10.

IMO in nearly all of these cases of a RB being drafted high, its a big mistake by the franchise to do so. In a hypothetical scenario where these types of players are available very late in the draft...ok...but again, my counter is that you don't see these playoff teams moving up to get them.

As for examples where these playoff teams select a RB late in R1, it almost never works.

As for CEH...you're probably right, it won't end well. I think its intriguing ONLY because its the Chiefs...but, reflecting it reminds me of the Giants taking David Wilson after winning a Super Bowl, the Rams taking Trung Candidate after winning the Super Bowl...but this is also a different era of football and I just see CEH as an "offensive weapon" to a team that was just at a Super Bowl that legitimately has all of the foundational pieces locked up. It probably wasn't the best pick they could make, but I understand the philosophy and if you're the Chiefs, its worth a gamble, but I acknowledge it probably doesn't end well, these type of picks rarely do and we could be discussing in one year's time how they should have drafted X. The Chiefs draft was very swinging for the fences, tbh. Could be a lot of nothing sooner rather than later.

Seahawks drafting Rashaad Penny and Patriots drafting Sony Michel late seem silly in hindsight. Mark Ingram to the Saints seems like a nice example of a successful RB taken at 28, but then when you realize they gave up a first round pick next year for him, I'm not sure anyone can defend that when the Patriots used that pick to select Chandler Jones.

There's a couple of flaws with this. Pats, Seahwaks, Chiefs are 3 of the last 5 teams to take RB in the 1st, so successful perennial playoff teams do it.

I don't get why you're comparing taking a RB to a big time QB. Isn't any position you take dumb in relation to a QB that worked out.

What's worse, taking Solomon Thomas a 3, Fournette at 4, or Corey Davis at 5 compared to Mahomes? Taking McCaffery at 8 or John Ross at 9 before Mahomes? All teams are dumb for taking any other position other than Mahomes, not just RB. Also, who picked behind Mahomes is dumb for not trading up to get him, right?

I don't know why Barkley would get so much blame for being picked to high when the Giants losing this year when their last 3 1st Round picks in the years before him were Erick Flowers (straight up cut), Eli Apple (traded for 3rd & 5th rounders after 2 years) Evan Engram (14 starts last 2 years). Yes taking Barkley that high might be dumb, but at least he's produced. You can't blame him for losing.

And 1st Round RB's have played a good role. Gurley was a big reason for the Rams success. Michel was huge on the Pats 2018 SB run. Penny was overdrafted, but since Penny rished for 14-129-1TD week 12 vs Philly, and Travis Homer ran for 11-12 a month later vs Philly in the playoffs - I think it's safe to say they lost something when Penny went down.

I agree RB's can be taken too high - but you can't just take the best players drafted behind them and say "well they could've had this guy!". Then pretty much every position outside of QB looks stupid.

 

[BoxingRobes]

@bshaw28

I'm just going to respond to both of your posts in this one.

Running backs are the least important position on offense. We've discussed it in previous threads, so going through one-by-one with each scenario and specific example is silly because it all goes back to the same concept...the run : pass imbalance in the league has shifted the focus away from the position...on most successful teams, that player's snap count is on par with a role player. So, is it a hard and steadfast rule? It should be. Why? The draft capital, financial capital needed to acquire one in the first round is a poor allocation of your available capital. Even the good ones. Why even the good ones? Because no matter how productive they are, are still too reliant on nearly every other aspect of the offense. If the RB is the star of your show, your team stinks.

Yeah, its the ringer...but this basically makes the point while breaking down some of the specific players.

How the 2018 Season Answered the NFL’s Great Running Back Value Debate

From James Conner in Pittsburgh to Phillip Lindsay in Denver, teams found rushing success from unheralded options this season — and that could have repercussions throughout the league

www.theringer.com

So yeah, you shouldnt be taking RBs high or in the first round at all.

The teams that have recently taken RBs that high...Sony Michel is a 35% snap count player and basically the Patriots RB2 behind a 4th round pick. Rashaad Penny is a 13% snap count player and backs up a 6th rounder. The Chiefs RB1 last year was a free agent 35% snap count player. These were all bad allocations of draft and financial capital in the NFL.

In your thought exercise where one of these elite grade RBs find their way to the very bottom of R1...still a no from me, dawg. Why? Poor allocation of resources. Just get one later.

If you're one of these poverty teams...like the Jaguars...you live in Section 8 housing and took what money you had and purchased a Rolex. If you're one of these successful teams, you own a home, have a car, and you buy yourself a Royal Oak. Its nice and all, but I can think of a lot of other things you should have spent that money on.

 

[Gooner#44]

When a guys like CMac and Saquon and Zeke put up Pro Bowl receiving and rushing numbers in the same season and scores 20 TDs they are absolutely worth a Top 10 pick. CMac had more catches and yards than most WRs taken Top 10. LOL at anyone thinking that production is not worth a Top 10 pick let alone 1st round. I mean CMac put up 2500 yards total and 20 TDS, that's insane.

The 2018 Rams made it to the SB because of Todd Gurley, he was hands down the MVP of that team. Goff has a great year but Gurleys 2000 yards and 21 TDs were huge, and he did that in 14 games. The year before he was 2nd in MVP voting behind Brady.

 

[bshaw28]

@bshaw28

I'm just going to respond to both of your posts in this one.

Running backs are the least important position on offense. We've discussed it in previous threads, so going through one-by-one with each scenario and specific example is silly because it all goes back to the same concept...the run : pass imbalance in the league has shifted the focus away from the position...on most successful teams, that player's snap count is on par with a role player. So, is it a hard and steadfast rule? It should be. Why? The draft capital, financial capital needed to acquire one in the first round is a poor allocation of your available capital. Even the good ones. Why even the good ones? Because no matter how productive they are, are still too reliant on nearly every other aspect of the offense. If the RB is the star of your show, your team stinks.

Yeah, its the ringer...but this basically makes the point while breaking down some of the specific players.

How the 2018 Season Answered the NFL’s Great Running Back Value Debate

From James Conner in Pittsburgh to Phillip Lindsay in Denver, teams found rushing success from unheralded options this season — and that could have repercussions throughout the league

www.theringer.com

So yeah, you shouldnt be taking RBs high or in the first round at all.

The teams that have recently taken RBs that high...Sony Michel is a 35% snap count player and basically the Patriots RB2 behind a 4th round pick. Rashaad Penny is a 13% snap count player and backs up a 6th rounder. The Chiefs RB1 last year was a free agent 35% snap count player. These were all bad allocations of draft and financial capital in the NFL.

In your thought exercise where one of these elite grade RBs find their way to the very bottom of R1...still a no from me, dawg. Why? Poor allocation of resources. Just get one later.

If you're one of these poverty teams...like the Jaguars...you live in Section 8 housing and took what money you had and purchased a Rolex. If you're one of these successful teams, you own a home, have a car, and you buy yourself a Royal Oak. Its nice and all, but I can think of a lot of other things you should have spent that money on.

1) You think TE's, Kickers, and Punters are more valuable than RB's - and use weird metrics to like salary & snap counts to back it up.

I don't see TE's, Kickers, and Punters getting drafted higher than RB's, and I don't see them contributing more on the field - but ok.

If you think Brett Kern & Thomas Morstead are more valuable to the Titans & Saints than Derrick Henry & Alvin Kamara - so be it.

RB's usually play in a committee, so there snap counts are lower in general - but regardless 1st Rounds RB's like Gurley, Zeke, McCaffery, and Fournette have all been on playoff teams in their careers and play 75% - 95% of their teams snaps.

But if snap counts is your thing - then how do kickers and punters fit in? And is the Ravens blocking TE Nick Boyles (70% of snaps) much more valuable than their Pro-Bowl RB Mark Ingram (46%) and Pro-Bowl TE Mark Andrews (41%)?

I agree with your stance and the article that RB's roles are diminishing. But RB's are still more valuable than TE/K/P - there's no need to get cute with the data.

2) I don't think never drafting a RB in the 1st Round is a bad strategy. Every team builds and values positions differently. When it comes to 1st Round Picks - Packers/Eagles/Jets/Skins never take RB's. Chargers never take OL. Saints never take LB's. A lot of teams never take TE's.

But when you say NO team should EVER take a RB in the 1st round - it just leads to some things that don't compute with me

2016 - No way you'd take Zeke at #32. But you're good with Derrick Henry going #45?
2017 - No way you'd take McCaffery at #32. But you're good with Dalvin Cook going #41?
2018 - No way you'd take Barkley at #32. But are you good with Nick Chubb going #35?

Like - if this year Dolphins took Jonathan Taylor at #30 and Robert Hunt at #39 - you'd say 100% mistake, right? Now if they took Hunt at #30 and Taylor at #39 - would you be ok with that?

It seems silly to have a rule set in stone that no RB, no matter how good, should ever be taken in the early 30's. But late 30's - that's totally fine.

 

[BoxingRobes]

1) You think TE's, Kickers, and Punters are more valuable than RB's - and use weird metrics to like salary & snap counts to back it up.

I don't see TE's, Kickers, and Punters getting drafted higher than RB's, and I don't see them contributing more on the field - but ok.

If you think Brett Kern & Thomas Morstead are more valuable to the Titans & Saints than Derrick Henry & Alvin Kamara - so be it.

RB's usually play in a committee, so there snap counts are lower in general - but regardless 1st Rounds RB's like Gurley, Zeke, McCaffery, and Fournette have all been on playoff teams in their careers and play 75% - 95% of their teams snaps.

But if snap counts your thing - then how do kickers and punters fit in? And is the Ravens blocking TE Nick Boyles (70% of snaps) much more valuable than their Pro-Bowl RB Mark Ingram (46%) and Pro-Bowl TE Mark Andrews (41%)?

I agree with your stance and the article that RB's roles are diminishing. But RB's are still more valuable than TE/K/P - there's no need to get cute with the data.

Kicker and Punter is silly to discuss, I wouldn't take them in Round 1, Round 2, Round 3 either and you're just getting into the weeds. I'd disagree on TE, but I really don't feel like getting into the weeds and discussing it. Look up the Nick Boyle contract figure v. Mark Ingram from just your own example and I think it answers that question.

You're just overthinking and misconstruing value for the quality of the player. We discussed earlier in a previous thread with Todd Gurley and the same applies to everyone else. A player can still be really good but have diminishing value to winning. And the value isn't nothing, but its last of the 11 position on offense, and it'd be the lowest of the starting 22 of an NFL team...give or take a few very niche roles on a defense. I've thrown out numerous bits of statistical data to support it and I'm comfortable with my take.

In the very hypothetical scenarios you've laid out with value and what I'd do if one of these ELITE running backs in hindsight fell to some pick in the 30s...I'd just counter with...why don't these top teams make plays to trade up and get some of these guys? Why don't these elite teams sign these guys to massive contracts? Le'Veon Bell was told to sit home and had to go to the Jets (and the Steelers didn't miss a beat). The Jaguars couldn't give away Leonard Fournette (literally). In the lone case where a top grade back has slipped into the 20s of recent vintage and a team traded up to get him - Mark Ingram - I don't think you or I would disagree on the fact that the Saints got poor value from that pick. Even if you take one of these backs in Round 1, the counter is, why not just get one later? For as good as Zeke is, they would be better with Jalen Ramsey and Derrick Henry. For as good as Christian McCaffrey is, they'd be better with a QB and one of the RBs in R2.

The Dolphins example would be a prime example of a bad move. They are a team that needs so much everywhere, using draft capital to draft a RB (something I thought they'd do, tbh...I thought they loved JK Dobbins and would take him with 30 or 39) would have been silly. I'm not getting into a debate over the quality of players they did take, but taking OL and DB was smart. If they pan out it makes it smarter, but the strategy, IMO, was sound.

 

[Gooner#44]

Since 1990 8 RBs have been NFL MVP, the others have been QBs. All other positions have none.

 

[bshaw28]

Kicker and Punter is silly to discuss, I wouldn't take them in Round 1, Round 2, Round 3 either and you're just getting into the weeds. I'd disagree on TE, but I really don't feel like getting into the weeds and discussing it. Look up the Nick Boyle contract figure v. Mark Ingram from just your own example and I think it answers that question.

You're just overthinking and misconstruing value for the quality of the player. We discussed earlier in a previous thread with Todd Gurley and the same applies to everyone else. A player can still be really good but have diminishing value to winning. And the value isn't nothing, but its last of the 11 position on offense, and it'd be the lowest of the starting 22 of an NFL team...give or take a few very niche roles on a defense. I've thrown out numerous bits of statistical data to support it and I'm comfortable with my take.

In the very hypothetical scenarios you've laid out with value and what I'd do if one of these ELITE running backs in hindsight fell to some pick in the 30s...I'd just counter with...why don't these top teams make plays to trade up and get some of these guys? Why don't these elite teams sign these guys to massive contracts? Le'Veon Bell was told to sit home and had to go to the Jets (and the Steelers didn't miss a beat). The Jaguars couldn't give away Leonard Fournette (literally). In the lone case where a top grade back has slipped into the 20s of recent vintage and a team traded up to get him - Mark Ingram - I don't think you or I would disagree on the fact that the Saints got poor value from that pick. Even if you take one of these backs in Round 1, the counter is, why not just get one later? For as good as Zeke is, they would be better with Jalen Ramsey and Derrick Henry. For as good as Christian McCaffrey is, they'd be better with a QB and one of the RBs in R2.

The Dolphins example would be a prime example of a bad move. They are a team that needs so much everywhere, using draft capital to draft a RB (something I thought they'd do, tbh...I thought they loved JK Dobbins and would take him with 30 or 39) would have been silly. I'm not getting into a debate over the quality of players they did take, but taking OL and DB was smart. If they pan out it makes it smarter, but the strategy, IMO, was sound.

Well you've said TE/K/P are more valuable - but if you don't want to get discuss then, then we'll just agree to disagree on that.

Jared Goff & Kirk Cousins aren't top 5 QB's even though the in the Top 5 highest paid players - so I don't agree with individual salaries to determine a players value.

Again, you're taking about specific players specific draft positions, and in regards to other players, and contacts and all that. I can answer all those, but I'm still trying to understand your thoughts on when it's ok to take a RB first.

I'm asking, if you should never take a RB as high as #32, but taking a RB at #41 is totally fine then:

- What, in your eyes, is the difference between those 9 slots (32 vs 41)?
- And If #41 is ok to take a RB, is #35 also ok? What do you feel is the starting point where you can take a RB?

 

[Gooner#44]

The Steelers offered Bell a $70 MILLION DOLLAR CONTRACT, he turned it down. SO they didn't exactly tell him "go sit at home", they also had drop off from him to Conner. You have a little bit of hyperbole in your arguments here Robes.

 

[No_Fly_Zone]

I'd just counter with...why don't these top teams make plays to trade up and get some of these guys? Why don't these elite teams sign these guys to massive contracts? Le'Veon Bell was told to sit home and had to go to the Jets (and the Steelers didn't miss a beat). The Jaguars couldn't give away Leonard Fournette (literally). In the lone case where a top grade back has slipped into the 20s of recent vintage and a team traded up to get him - Mark Ingram - I don't think you or I would disagree on the fact that the Saints got poor value from that pick. Even if you take one of these backs in Round 1, the counter is, why not just get one later? For as good as Zeke is, they would be better with Jalen Ramsey and Derrick Henry. For as good as Christian McCaffrey is, they'd be better with a QB and one of the RBs in R2.

Jumping in only to point out these two thought processes (draft value vs. lack of open market value) are not mutually exclusive. A franchise can potentially still get value and productivity for an elite RB in the last 1/4 of the first round (about as early as I would consider drafting one if I was an NFL GM), but then determine not to pay the RB 4 or 5 (with the team option for a 1st round pick) years later. After all, an NFL RB with 4-5 years of RB1 NFL carries may not have a lot of tread left on the tires, and likely does not warrant the salary some poor-performing, desperate team prone to bad decisions is willing to pay.

If I was an NFL GM, I would considering drafting an elite RB late in the first (if a need), because I know RBs (especially elite ones) typically make an impact early in their careers. So the chances are high I will get 4-5 years of salary-value for the player (absent a holdout situation, in which case I wouldn't pay). But once the contract expires, I am never paying a RB $8M+ a year, especially not on a contract with big guaranteed that lasts into his late 20/early 30s. There are few positions where the value gets flipped on its head more than RB when moving from rookie contract to second contract. Teams that do so are paying a position with arguably the most diminishing skills over time x4 or x5 (or more) their rookie deal for past performance that is unlikely to be matched over the second contract.

Let the RB walk, get a huge salary on the open market, and enjoy the compensatory pick you'll get because some trash franchise (like the jets) will be dumb enough to sign him to $13.1M/year deal.

 

[BoxingRobes]

Well you've said TE/K/P are more valuable - but if you don't want to get discuss then, then we'll just agree to disagree on that.

Jared Goff & Kirk Cousins aren't top 5 QB's even though the in the Top 5 highest paid players - so I don't agree with individual salaries to determine a players value.

Again, you're taking about specific players specific draft positions, and in regards to other players, and contacts and all that. I can answer all those, but I'm still trying to understand your thoughts on when it's ok to take a RB first.

I'm asking, if you should never take a RB as high as #32, but taking a RB at #41 is totally fine then:

- What, in your eyes, is the difference between those 9 slots (32 vs 41)?
- And If #41 is ok to take a RB, is #35 also ok? What do you feel is the starting point where you can take a RB?

TEs are more valuable. You provided a clear example on one team isolated, I responded in kind. Yes, Nick Boyle is more valuable than Mark Ingram. He plays more, he's paid more. I'm not sure what else you need to determine value in the strawman you provided. When Mark Andrews is in line for an extension, he'll be paid more than both.

The difference between 32 and 41 is a little more than half of the money, less than half guaranteed. Also, 41 will likely be a team's second pick in the draft...so, there is significantly less capital invested.

Every team is different, but R1 is a no from me, dawg. If you don't have a QB, probably shouldn't be taking a RB anytime soon. If you don't have your OL in order, probably shouldn't be taking a RB anytime soon. Don't have pass catchers, probably shouldn't be taking a RB anytime soon. We can start there, if you want to transition to defense, we can do that, too. I'm not sure why you feel the need to strawman this very simple concept to death.

 

[Gooner#44]

"On Monday, the Detroit Lions made quarterback Matthew Stafford the highest-paid player in NFL history, signing him to a five-year,
$135 million deal, according to multiple reports."

 

[Gooner#44]

Top 6 yards from scrimmage players in the NFL in 2019:

#1, #4, #5, #6 were all RBs that were Top 10 picks

Weird how the "least important position on the field" pulled that off...…...

 

[bshaw28]

TEs are more valuable. You provided a clear example on one team isolated, I responded in kind. Yes, Nick Boyle is more valuable than Mark Ingram. He plays more, he's paid more. I'm not sure what else you need to determine value in the strawman you provided. When Mark Andrews is in line for an extension, he'll be paid more than both.

The difference between 32 and 41 is a little more than half of the money, less than half guaranteed. Also, 41 will likely be a team's second pick in the draft...so, there is significantly less capital invested.

Every team is different, but R1 is a no from me, dawg. If you don't have a QB, probably shouldn't be taking a RB anytime soon. If you don't have your OL in order, probably shouldn't be taking a RB anytime soon. Don't have pass catchers, probably shouldn't be taking a RB anytime soon. We can start there, if you want to transition to defense, we can do that, too. I'm not sure why you feel the need to strawman this very simple concept to death.

Again, I think that taking a RB in the 1st is a good strategy. I just wouldn't be as inflexible with it.

I agree guys like Barkley, Fournette, and McCaffery were taken too high and their those teams had more pressing needs. But for me, if say a Barkley/McCaffery/Zeke slipped to the 20's or 30's in the draft - at some point they become too good a value to pass on them. I don't see paying CEH $10.8 mil at #32 or Taylor $7.8 mil at #41 over 4 years as much of a difference.

When I look at how 1st Round RB's have panned out the last 5 years vs 1st Round WR's & TE's - I think RB's have returned much more value. It's a sliding scale. RB's aren't more valuable than WR's as a whole - but I think a Top 5 RB in the NFL is more valuable than a #3 WR. I wouldn't necessarily pass on a great player at a less important position to take a lesser player at a more important position. It's sort of a do you draft for need or draft best player available type debate.

And I think the whole "I can get a RB later" might be a little skewed a for South Floridians. It's hard to find a #1 RB outside of the first 50 or 60 picks. Guys like Lamar Miller, Devonta Freeman, James White, Marlon Mack - all are successful 4th Round picks and FL guys, so it makes it seem like "oh, I can just wait until the 4th and get a RB." But those guys are like the best 4th Round RB's in the last 10 years. The large majority of 4th round RB's look like the collection of 4th Rounders the Dolphins ended up with on their roster last year - Mark Walton, Kalen Ballage, Semaje Perrine.

I posted this before - but here's how RB's drafted 2000 - 2019 have produced. The hit rate of 1st Rounders is much higher. It's possible to get a good RB later, but your chances for success are much lower. Sometimes you just gotta pay premium prices to get the premium player.

1st Round RB's produce at a significantly better rate.

 

[For_The_U]

I really like AJ Dillon but was shocked when he went in the 2nd, granted it was towards the end of the round and teams started making a run on RB's. Most mocks I saw had him as a 5th round pick.

I personally think Dillon is closer to a 2nd round guy than a 5th round guy. But only time will tell.