That second round pick from last year. Sheesh

[w280sax]

We did trade down with our 2nd last year to get a 2nd this year which turned into scourton before trading up (giving up very little) to get brooks.  Yet people second guess it that we moved up to get brooks.  That trade down was a great trade imo.

[TD alt]

2 hours ago, Panthero said:

Taking an injured guy at a position that is neither a need or has much positional value is dumb. Why are you trying to argue this? It's a bad position. Showing me up for being negative isn't worth taking a bad angle. 

RBs have always had a lot of positional value, especially the top ones in a class. On the field, they are key. Their value only comes into question at the time of contract renewal for different reasons, but their positional value in regards to the actual dynamics of the game is as important as ever.

[rmoneyg35]

How can you give up on a player already after one season? Thomas Davis played after tearing his ACL 4 times in a row. 
 

he was considered the top RB. No one could have predicted him getting injured in the future. Still he could easily come back and dominate. Until we see what he does after he comes off this injury, I think it’s not smart to judge the pick.

[Proudiddy]

Damn, I forgot all about Brooks.  And now we took Ettiene today after signing what’s his face from Dallas.  I guess they’re really banking on Brooks not coming back next year, or ever.

[UnluckyforSome]

I would be very surprised if Brooks plays at all next season. Considering when it happened, and now being the 2nd to the same knee, he is probably on the shelf next year. But hey, we screwed old Jerruh out of picking him!

Davis was, and may be the exception to multiple occurrences of that injury. Different player, different position as well. Eh. Who knows?

Edited 6 hours ago by UnluckyforSome

[Panthero]

5 hours ago, TD alt said:

RBs have always had a lot of positional value, especially the top ones in a class. On the field, they are key. Their value only comes into question at the time of contract renewal for different reasons, but their positional value in regards to the actual dynamics of the game is as important as ever.

"Different reasons".

Positional value is realized in the market. Either there isn't much demand or there's too much supply. In either event, most runningbacks (other than maybe two or three in the entire league) are not prioritized. 

[TD alt]

3 minutes ago, Panthero said:

"Different reasons".

Positional value is realized in the market. Either there isn't much demand or there's too much supply. In either event, most runningbacks (other than maybe two or three in the entire league) are not prioritized. 

You see that's where we disagree. Nearly almost every year there is at least one or two backs taken in the first round. If was as you say, then this wouldn't be. Runningbacks are very much prioritized until teams can get one better. It's just the nature of the beast, just like their wear and tear, which causes most of them to lose value by the time of their contract renewals. But the special ones still retain value, if not with their original teams with another.

[CBDellinger]

8 hours ago, Panthero said:

Seems like nfl GMs should quit trying to "outthink" everyone. Right now looks like an absolute lost pick. Could have a rookie starting center or middle linebacker instead of a dude with a bum fuging leg collecting a check.....and doing fuging nothing 

Hindsight is 50/50 my man. 

[Panthero]

44 minutes ago, TD alt said:

You see that's where we disagree. Nearly almost every year there is at least one or two backs taken in the first round. If was as you say, then this wouldn't be. Runningbacks are very much prioritized until teams can get one better. It's just the nature of the beast, just like their wear and tear, which causes most of them to lose value by the time of their contract renewals. But the special ones still retain value, if not with their original teams with another.

It's not about disagreeing. Your position is factually incorrect. Driven in large part by a pass happy league. Taking one or two data points doesn't refute the rule. 

[TD alt]

2 minutes ago, Panthero said:

It's not about disagreeing. Your position is factually incorrect. Driven in large part by a pass happy league. Taking one or two data points doesn't refute the rule. 

Shall we go draft by draft? Shall we talk about Saquon, King Henry, McCaffrey and Josh Jacobs?

[WhoKnows]

9 hours ago, Coheed said:

Tearing an ACL is not looked at nearly like it used to. There was no real expectation or indications that his knee would be an issue and he was the top RB in the class.

 

Not saying it was the right move, I would’ve loved the center Pitt took, but it’s one of those “understandable at the time, but looks awful with hindsight” kind of moves IMO

No need to keep rehashing it but it wasn’t understandable because of the 2025 RB class. It makes no sense to take an injury risk that likely wasn’t going to have any impact in 2024 in the 2nd when you could have a healthy Johnathan Brooks in 2025 with a later pick. Getting re-injured was just the icing on top of the bad value pick.