Oh yeah! Forgot about that. He was trying to decide who to pick up last night - the options were seriously underwhelming. He's doomed.
think before you post. foster was the 34th player slected overall in the 2002 draft and williams was a first rounder this past april. and i would think mike holgrem, brett favre, mark brunell and a host of others would vehemently disagree with your eschewing the importance of a productive back.
Add John Elway and Kurt Warner to the list. I don't think it's so obvious that RB's are less important than DE's. You will need quality players at both positions to win.
DeShaun Foster was a stud in college and is a big time name. I look for him to have a breakout season this year. Ric is the man.
Anybody remember what Ol' Simmons had to say in his NBA Draft diary the night the Rockets picked Yao over Jay Williams? How'd that turn out? I enjoy reading Bill Simmons, but there are times he's WAAAAAY off base. At least, unlike many writers, he's man enought to admit when he blew it.
If by "breakout" you mean part of his body breaking and him being out most the season, then I agree with you.
I'm not just talking about now. How many times over the past few years has Carolina plugged in some guy who was 4th on the depth chart, and he ran for 80 yards in a game. I've watched them do it over and over again.
my guess is that you're referring to goings' 4 or 5 100+-yard games to finish out the 2004 season. duly noted. however, his performance was the exception, not the rule, and it certainly doesn't compare to what the broncos have done. the panthers have had exactly 1 1k-yard rusher since 2002 (davis hit 1.4k+ in '03). otherwise, they've only had two players average more than 62.5 ypg since 2002 (beyond davis in '03). pedestrian backs. pedestrian results. guess that's why they used a first round pick on a back, huh?
Absolutely - but it's a lot easier to find quality at RB off the waivers or with later round draft picks than it is it find quality at DE. There's a reason DE is one of the highest paid positions.
Looking at this http://www.theredzone.org/2002top_ten.asp It appears RB's are one of the highest paid positons a swell. 3rd highest behind QBs and DEs.
hmmmm…. (long, nerd post to follow) here are the top 10 rushers each of the last 4 years and the round they were drafted: 2005: 1. alexander (1). 2. tiki (2) 3. lj (1) 4. portis (2) 5. james (1) 6. ldt (1) 7. r. johnson (4) 8. dunn (1) 9. t. jones (1) 10. magahee (1) 2004: 1. martin (3) 2. alexander (1) 3. dillon (2) 4. james (1) 5. tiki (2) 6. r. johnson (4) 7. ldt (1) 8. portis (2) 9. droughns (3) 10. taylor (1) 2003: 1. j. lewis (1) 2. a. green (3) 3. ldt (1) 4. deuce (1) 5. portis (2) 6. taylor (1) 7. s. davis (4) 8. alexander (1) 9. priest (fa) 10. williams (1) 2002: 1. williams (1) 2. ldt (1) 3. priest (fa) 4. portis (2) 5. henry (2) 6. deuce (1) 7. tiki (2) 8. j. lewis (1) 9. taylor (1) 10. dillon (2) here’s the breakdown: 21 unique backs 11 first rounders 5 second rounders 2 third rounders 2 fourth rounders 1 ufa * ldt (1) and portis (2) are the only backs to finish in the top 10 all four years. * alexander (1), taylor (1) and tiki (2) are the only backs to finish in the top 10 in 3 of the 4 years. * and of those appearing at least twice (7 excluding the above – james, r. johnson, dillon, j. lewis, deuce, priest, williams), 4 were first round picks. so if you conclude these 12 are the cream of the crop the past 4 years, 10 were taken in the first two rounds of the draft. additionally, 3 of the last 4 rushing leaders have been first round picks. in fact, 13 of the last 16 rushing leaders have been first round picks. conversely, 12 of the last 16 sack leaders have not been first round picks and many were not even DEs. among that group of 12 was a fifth rounder 3 times, a sixth rounder twice, a ninth rounder once and an undrafted free agent once. no, sacks are not the only measure of a defensive player’s worth, but it shows how schemes and additional DL-support can make-up for a lack of individual talent far more often than a scheme or OL-support can make ordinary backs great.
To me, discussions that take the "well history has shown..." method of argument are silly. History has no bearing on what Reggie Bush or Mario Williams will do. What has bearing on what they will do is there teams, their abilities, who they play, etc. I know that stuff has been discussed ad nauseum around here before and after the draft, but to me it is the only thing that is really relevant if you want to argue over the impact and careers that Mario and Bush will have, specifically. Personally, I don't think Bush will be a world beater. I think he will be very good, maybe have one or two really impressive years, but ultimately not move New Orleans that much closer to Superbowl contention. Mario, unfortunately up to this point, doesn't look much better. But I have more confidence that Mario can improve to the point of being a perenial pro-bowler than I do that Bush will (based on what I have seen of both during preseason). Edit: I understand that as it pertains to the discussion of team systems and drafting strategy, the RB/DE history has some argumentive merit. I'm merely talking about that as it applies to the "We should have drafted Bush" arguments.
they are. barry sanders has no bearing on reggie bush. same for bruce smith and mario williams. that was perhaps the laziest, and for me, most frustrating aspect of the draft build-up. "how many super bowls did barry sanders play in? what about bruce smith? or reggie white?" john mclane lowered himself to this often; it's so egregiously false, and, frankly, stupid, that it made me weep. history of any kind, if given a large enough swath of space, can be twisted, contorted and pulled violently from its context. sanders never played in a super bowl; to then conclude that bush will not either is borderline mental r****dation.
