NFL Thread

Cowboys should have drafted Ramsey regardless of Elliott's production. Shut-down CBs are less available than top tier RBs. And with the line Dallas had they could have done just as well with a McFadden-Morris-3rd guy* the past two seasons and Morris-Whomever*-Smith this year while addressing a porous secondary. They could have drafted Henry in rd 2, or perhaps selected Booker later on. Or they pass up on the RB while addressing defense and find a RB in free agency after the inevitable move by the club that ultimately would have drafted Elliott.

Thing is, Dallas' biggest need was not RB in 2016, it was secondary, or just about any defensive position can be argued. But Jerry Jones has wet dreams of the 90s and this clouds his judgment when drafting (and that he's among the worst talent evaluators around).

*Whomever ultimately drafts Elliott in 2016, possibly Jacksonville, or Bears/Giants if the Jags take Apple/Hargreaves, and that would have meant a RB in the drafting club would have been let go before the season began. Could easily have picked up a decent RB to pair with the other guys.
 
How is Green Bay's defense performing so well today?

Is it a matchup or scheme thing that aids Green Bay against the Rams offense?

Is the Rams offense out of sync today?
 
MrMarcello said:
How is Green Bay's defense performing so well today?

Is it a matchup or scheme thing that aids Green Bay against the Rams offense?

Is the Rams offense out of sync today?
Click to expand...
Our D is pretty talented but inconsistent. Our D-line is pretty good (Clark is a monster), Martinez is an awesome tackler and the young corners, especially Alexander, look really good. If we had a better pass rush, this would be an elite unit.
 
UH8RI7A.png



here is a quick little chart i put together. y axis is career accumulated value. x axis is order of RB picked in draft. so the best players are on top and the higher picks are to the left. the size of dot is the count. so for example, at (16,0) there are 5 backs picked 16th in their class who never accumulated any value so the dot is bigger. but at (4,1) there are 2 running backs who were picked 4th but only had a career AV of 1. you can see the top picks perform better than lower picks but not at near enough trend as you would hope if nfl teams could evaluate running backs coming out college very well.




now the nfl and nflpa have negotiated a rookie salary scale that looks roughly like this for the first round ($m):

  1. 5.9
  2. 5.6
  3. 5.5
  4. 5.3
  5. 4.9
  6. 4.3
  7. 3.8
  8. 3.4
  9. 3.3
  10. 3.1
  11. 2.9
  12. 2.7
  13. 2.6
  14. 2.5
  15. 2.4
  16. 2.3
  17. 2.2
  18. 2.2
  19. 2.2
  20. 2.1
  21. 2.1
  22. 2.1
  23. 2.1
  24. 2.0
  25. 2.0
  26. 2.0
  27. 2.0
  28. 1.9
  29. 1.8
  30. 1.8
  31. 1.8
  32. 1.7

but keep in mind that the current nfl salary averages by position look like this:


rGn2ji4.png







so now that we know: 1) higher picks get more salary regardless of position and 2) running backs have the lowest average salary in the league, lets look back at this original chart again

Ym1JzYn.png



and you see this box where you its easy to think a player is going to be great and massively overpay for production that isn't remotely worth it.
 
Eboue said:
UH8RI7A.png



here is a quick little chart i put together. y axis is career accumulated value. x axis is order of RB picked in draft. so the best players are on top and the higher picks are to the left. the size of dot is the count. so for example, at (16,0) there are 5 backs picked 16th in their class who never accumulated any value so the dot is bigger. but at (4,1) there are 2 running backs who were picked 4th but only had a career AV of 1. you can see the top picks perform better than lower picks but not at near enough trend as you would hope if nfl teams could evaluate running backs coming out college very well.




now the nfl and nflpa have negotiated a rookie salary scale that looks roughly like this for the first round ($m):

  1. 5.9
  2. 5.6
  3. 5.5
  4. 5.3
  5. 4.9
  6. 4.3
  7. 3.8
  8. 3.4
  9. 3.3
  10. 3.1
  11. 2.9
  12. 2.7
  13. 2.6
  14. 2.5
  15. 2.4
  16. 2.3
  17. 2.2
  18. 2.2
  19. 2.2
  20. 2.1
  21. 2.1
  22. 2.1
  23. 2.1
  24. 2.0
  25. 2.0
  26. 2.0
  27. 2.0
  28. 1.9
  29. 1.8
  30. 1.8
  31. 1.8
  32. 1.7

but keep in mind that the current nfl salary averages by position look like this:


rGn2ji4.png







so now that we know: 1) higher picks get more salary regardless of position and 2) running backs have the lowest average salary in the league, lets look back at this original chart again

Ym1JzYn.png



and you see this box where you its easy to think a player is going to be great and massively overpay for production that isn't remotely worth it.
Click to expand...
Such a @Damien
Have some respect for yourself.
 
Eboue said:
UH8RI7A.png



here is a quick little chart i put together. y axis is career accumulated value. x axis is order of RB picked in draft. so the best players are on top and the higher picks are to the left. the size of dot is the count. so for example, at (16,0) there are 5 backs picked 16th in their class who never accumulated any value so the dot is bigger. but at (4,1) there are 2 running backs who were picked 4th but only had a career AV of 1. you can see the top picks perform better than lower picks but not at near enough trend as you would hope if nfl teams could evaluate running backs coming out college very well.




now the nfl and nflpa have negotiated a rookie salary scale that looks roughly like this for the first round ($m):

  1. 5.9
  2. 5.6
  3. 5.5
  4. 5.3
  5. 4.9
  6. 4.3
  7. 3.8
  8. 3.4
  9. 3.3
  10. 3.1
  11. 2.9
  12. 2.7
  13. 2.6
  14. 2.5
  15. 2.4
  16. 2.3
  17. 2.2
  18. 2.2
  19. 2.2
  20. 2.1
  21. 2.1
  22. 2.1
  23. 2.1
  24. 2.0
  25. 2.0
  26. 2.0
  27. 2.0
  28. 1.9
  29. 1.8
  30. 1.8
  31. 1.8
  32. 1.7

but keep in mind that the current nfl salary averages by position look like this:


rGn2ji4.png







so now that we know: 1) higher picks get more salary regardless of position and 2) running backs have the lowest average salary in the league, lets look back at this original chart again

Ym1JzYn.png



and you see this box where you its easy to think a player is going to be great and massively overpay for production that isn't remotely worth it.
Click to expand...
Nerd.
 
The Rams should trade Todd Gurley for a bunch of picks. His production could easily be replaced by a platoon of Chris Ivory and Carlos Hyde. Rams must have been crazy to waste the 10th pick of the draft on a running back.
 
James Connor is proving this season how Rb's are replaceable, of course he isn't as good as Bell but in the same offense he can provide good enough value and Steelers would be foolish to pay Bell any sort of crazy money
 
Really annoyed that Eagles lost Reich to Colts . He is building a really good team in Indianapolis
 
Time will tell if the Barkley pick was the right call. That said, its really hard to pass on a QB if you are in the Giants situation unless you dont think any of them this year were any good.
 
GloryHunter07 said:
Time will tell if the Barkley pick was the right call. That said, its really hard to pass on a QB if you are in the Giants situation unless you dont think any of them this year were any good.
Click to expand...

They would've been better off trading for an established QB - someone like Foles, Bridgewater or the like.
 
Raoul said:
They would've been better off trading for an established QB - someone like Foles, Bridgewater or the like.
Click to expand...
I disagree - their roster is in no shape to compete. Better to suck a few years and build a cheap elite defense.
 
Raoul said:
They would've been better off trading for an established QB - someone like Foles, Bridgewater or the like.
Click to expand...

No, they shouldn't. QBs on their rookie contract are far more valuable. The Rams wouldn't have been able to build a team like they have, if Goff was on a bigger contract. Once he gets paid, they need to let go of some of their best earners. It will be the same thing for the Eagles or the Chiefs.
 
bucky said:
No, they shouldn't. QBs on their rookie contract are far more valuable. The Rams wouldn't have been able to build a team like they have, if Goff was on a bigger contract. Once he gets paid, they need to let go of some of their best earners. It will be the same thing for the Eagles or the Chiefs.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's part of the reason Seattle has declined after Wilson got paid.
 
bucky said:
No, they shouldn't. QBs on their rookie contract are far more valuable. The Rams wouldn't have been able to build a team like they have, if Goff was on a bigger contract. Once he gets paid, they need to let go of some of their best earners. It will be the same thing for the Eagles or the Chiefs.
Click to expand...

100% agree
 
Why the feck would you bring it out?! Dumbass
 
Reminder why Aaron Rodgers isn't considered the best ever. His teammates.
 
Rams are such a well coached team man , so similar to the Pats . They clearly seem to have prepared for scenarios and make very few basic mistakes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.