Originally Posted by The Pencil Neck
So what's so wrong with making a first or second round investment in a running back with the knowledge that you're just going to have to do it again in 3-5 years? If it helps to make your running game top notch, why not just accept that as a cost of doing business?
I'd even say that you should draft a running back almost every year, sometimes using a low draft choice and other times using a high one. I'd love to be in a position like the Cowboys where you've got Barber, Jones, and Choice and you're having to make a hard decision as to which one should be getting the most carries. Or a position like the Vikes where you've got a couple of guys that would be starters on most teams (even though they didn't actually draft Taylor.)
This isn't like a QB where, if you've got a couple of guys, you've got no guys and a controversy that splits the locker room. This is the RB where you've got to expect guys to go down and you want to have someone else just as good to plug in.
I think that high draft picks should be in positions where you can get a lot of years out of them. Sure the idea of having three great backs is great, but wouldn't it be better to have multiple really good DLineman? or DBs? That way you are always rotating guys in and out. You can keep guys fresh and not have a drop off in play. Then if you get to a point where you have too many good players in a position, you can trade high for additional picks. So, in essence, you continuously reload your supply. When the younger guys are ready, trade the older ones. As long as you pick smart in the draft, you will always be in good shape.
And you can't do that with Running backs, since they wear out too fast. I see the draft as a way to replenish your team and this is the way you do it.