Jonathon Brooks staying patient, playing the long game

[Tbe]

5 hours ago, TD alt said:

We agree a lot, but not here. Brooks, pre-injury, was on pace to be a first round pick. In theory, he has the type of talent. Drafting is about getting value: I'm not gonna say "getting something for nothing," but getting more for little. Top-tier backs can make a helluva difference on the field, irrespective of an overblown philosophy about their positional value dwindling. Jahmyr Gibbs is the latest evidence of this. And mind you, we didn't have to spend a first, but a second (and received a 2025 second to boot). For me, whether or not we made the right decision will come down to his play (especially that in 2025 and beyond). If things go right, we'll have Brooks for the next seven to 10 years as a premier three-down back that can take it to the house on any given play.

Running backs don’t last 7-10 years.

If we’re lucky, he’s got 2-3 years of good production in him.

Also, the search for ‘value in the draft’ has been part of why our drafting has sucked for years.

Coaches and GMs trying to be smarter than everyone else.

[strato]

7 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

Regardless of injury status, taking a RB in the second is a luxury pick. Quality/starting caliber RB's were available in the 3rd/4th rounds.

This is classic bad roster management. Ignoring positional value.

Yeah. Agreed.

But in the big scheme of things, if he works out there is a round difference and if he fails there is a round difference.

At the same time he was part of a series of moves that worked out pretty well I think. I’d call the trade up putting some of your winnings back down. 

I would have gone Kamara (third round) in the CMC draft all day. I hear the people saying this was not wise. But again it is just one round’s worth of value. Probably not crippling. He may not be the best RB in the draft but they want pass catching too. They are trying to help the QB. If he works out it won’t be any kind of big deal. 

The only thing I get really upset about is future picks. Trading them for today. That’s when you have my unwanted attention for fuging up. 

 

Edited July 21 by strato

[TD alt]

54 minutes ago, Tbe said:

Running backs don’t last 7-10 years.

If we’re lucky, he’s got 2-3 years of good production in him.

Also, the search for ‘value in the draft’ has been part of why our drafting has sucked for years.

Coaches and GMs trying to be smarter than everyone else.

Not quite sure why you're saying that RBs don't last 7-10 years. Plenty have been in the league that long.

No, value in the draft is of utmost importance. Where teams fail is either just making the wrong decision, or overthinking what should be an easy decision. Not to mention that the draft by its very mature is a dart's throw. 

[strato]

I think 30 is the going age that people give as the top of the hill for RBs and they fall off fast. Usually. Whatever that math turns out to be in Brooks’ case... there it is. 

There IS a variable of college carries, tread on the tires, and some people feel like more tread left after college is more you’ll have for the NFL.

Edited July 21 by strato

[PNW_PantherMan]

12 minutes ago, TD alt said:

Not to mention that the draft by its very mature is a dart's throw. 

There’s luck involved but it helps if you aim at the correct spot.  Poker is literally gambling but people can become good at it.  Saying the draft is a crapshoot doesn’t really excuse taking a RB in the 2nd anymore than it does taking a kicker in the 3rd 

[strato]

And they just weren’t drafting a C they would start, this year. Too much on Bryce. I want one but saw that coming. 

[kungfoodude]

48 minutes ago, strato said:

And they just weren’t drafting a C they would start, this year. Too much on Bryce. I want one but saw that coming. 

Maybe. Or maybe he would have been far better than a guy who has never played center before.

[strato]

well yeah, that is a maybe. It’s just what I thought they would do, not necessarily what I would do. They have done so much that I would never do, the equation would have completely different variables. I’ll stop there. 

Edited July 22 by strato

[Iceup]

1 hour ago, kungfoodude said:

Maybe. Or maybe he would have been far better than a guy who has never played center before.

Do they have anyone on the roster that played center last year besides that that rookie UDFA? I am surprised they haven’t added anyone with experience at that position as depth or insurance. There are a couple of FA options still available.

[strato]

We’re first in the waiver line

Edited July 22 by strato

[TD alt]

9 hours ago, PNW_PantherMan said:

There’s luck involved but it helps if you aim at the correct spot.  Poker is literally gambling but people can become good at it.  Saying the draft is a crapshoot doesn’t really excuse taking a RB in the 2nd anymore than it does taking a kicker in the 3rd 

Teams take RBs in the first. There's really no need for an excuse to take a player that should have a profound impact upon the game. People were dragging Dan Campbell for taking Jahmyr Gibbs on the first, but his play went a long way towards moving them forward. Arguably they should've fed him the ball more in the conference championship. We made foolish moves that led us to trading away CMC who has certainly moved the needle for the 49ers. Again, he should've been fed more, and perhaps they'd be champs today. I don't think you need an excuse to draft good football players on day one or two. Sure, you can get lucky in a later round, but you're more likely to draft just a guy (JAG). You can get away with that if you have a QB that can put the team on his shoulders, but every team wants a prolific RB, whether they 'fess up to it or not. 

 

[Iceup]

If the running game is the focus of the new scheme I have no problem bringing in a young talented back to make it work, if he’s the right back for this scheme in round 2.
 

The injury bothers me and I’m not sure Brooks is the right guy. When I watch the tape he is patient, sure-footed, and has pretty good hands. Perhaps most importantly he doesn’t hesitate to make a cut and get upfield (even though he’s patient he doesn’t hesitate to hit the hole)
He is faster than , say Kamara, but not real fast. I He also doesn’t seem to have elite burst. Also, he’s not small, but doesn’t play line a 215 pound back either.

I thinks it’s a bit of a gamble because of the injury, his youth, and the fact that he may not have enough elite traits.

I didn’t view this has a good draft for backs though and he probably was the best one available this past year. (Him or Benson I guess). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 22 by Iceup

[Johnstonny]

20 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

Regardless of injury status, taking a RB in the second is a luxury pick. Quality/starting caliber RB's were available in the 3rd/4th rounds.

This is classic bad roster management. Ignoring positional value.

Right now he looks more like half of Milli Vanilli than a running back. Unless hes the reincarnation of Adrian Peterson or Dalvin Cook I see mediocrity and a wasted pick, again. I wonder if the severity of the injury has any bearing on how successful they are upon return..... I just don't think you can buy a car with a bent axle and expect to drive it for very long.  

Disclaimer: I really hope it works out for the kid. He just turned 21.

[strato]

Not saying I know but maybe these days the ACL is more like a flat tire than that axle. Or, like a broken belt. I try to stay open minded until I just can’t anymore. 

These are the last days of not knowing, truth is coming. You know, like winter is coming. We are going to see more truth in about maybe 4-5 weeks

Edited July 22 by strato