Why I am against taking RBs high in the draft

[The Pencil Neck]

People are talking about DEs and LBs and drafting them high... and I know this isn't the greatest stat to use and that there are a zillion mitigating circumstances... but let's look at where the top 10 sackers were drafted.

Elvis Dumerville - 4th round
Jared Allen - 4th round
Dwight Freeney - 1st round
LaMarr Woodley - 2nd round
Will Smith - 1st round
Trent Cole - 5th round
Andre Carter - 1st round
Brian Orakpo - 1st round
Demarcus Ware - 1st round
Julius Peppers - 1st round

Still a lot of high draft picks, but there's more of a showing for the lower rounds.

Linebackers and linemen (both OL and DL) generally have longer careers than running backs but they can also be developed more. Running backs can usually come in and be starting the first year. A really good running back can make a moderate line look good... and vice versa.

[Ole Miss Texan]

Originally Posted by The Pencil Neck

People are talking about DEs and LBs and drafting them high... and I know this isn't the greatest stat to use and that there are a zillion mitigating circumstances... but let's look at where the top 10 sackers were drafted.

Elvis Dumerville - 4th round
Jared Allen - 4th round
Dwight Freeney - 1st round
LaMarr Woodley - 2nd round
Will Smith - 1st round
Trent Cole - 5th round
Andre Carter - 1st round
Brian Orakpo - 1st round
Demarcus Ware - 1st round
Julius Peppers - 1st round

Still a lot of high draft picks, but there's more of a showing for the lower rounds.

Linebackers and linemen (both OL and DL) generally have longer careers than running backs but they can also be developed more. Running backs can usually come in and be starting the first year. A really good running back can make a moderate line look good... and vice versa.

Like you said, there's a ton of circumstances to look at. What players do they have around them? What defense strategy is the DC using?

Another thing is, looking at the players career stats, what sort of trend can be extrapolated? Do DE's drafted early have higher sack totals earlier in their career than those drafted mid-late round? This MAY help reflect a player's (or what round he was selected in) development.

Jared Allen has produced since his first season. But I would suspect that the avg. 4th round DE may take a few years before becoming acclimated to the NFL. I'd put any 5 year veteran on equal footing regardless of what round he was selected in. Early in their careers, I'd suspect a 1st/2nd round DE would consistently outproduce a 4th/5th round DE, with all else equal. I think the round they go in partly displays what the GM believes their length to impact (LTI) is... or how long/short they believe that player will produce for the team.

[badboy]

Originally Posted by Ole Miss Texan

I think, barring a trade down, we're going to get a playmaker in the 1st round (FS,CB,RB...maaaybe WR) or we're going to get a DT. I don't know how the front office veiws the pressure of this being Kubiak's contract year but as fans we feel the urgency that they get the running game going at all costs (screw ANY development players, each early draft pick must make a huge contribution). I don't think we're going OL with the #20 pick, I really don't. I think the FO is desperate to add another gamechanger to this team.

I think you're dead on with our OL situation though. Brisiel/Pitts/Myers/Caldwell. If we could add a bonafide starter through FA, it frees up our draft SO much. I think if they franchise/extend Dunta, it frees up the Draft A LOT. Our OL/Running Game should be better next year than this year, strictly due to the assumption Brisiel/Pitts will be healthy.

I think if there wasn't this added pressure of year 5 for Kubiak, our draft would go in a different direction. I'm afraid (no, anxious) of this draft... yet optimistic though that we're going to add some real players early in the draft and possibly in FA.

You nail it. I see going for impact players (RB, CB or FS) or players that increase potential of impact players (LG) early.

[badboy]

Originally Posted by The Pencil Neck

People are talking about DEs and LBs and drafting them high... and I know this isn't the greatest stat to use and that there are a zillion mitigating circumstances... but let's look at where the top 10 sackers were drafted.

Elvis Dumerville - 4th round
Jared Allen - 4th round
Dwight Freeney - 1st round
LaMarr Woodley - 2nd round
Will Smith - 1st round
Trent Cole - 5th round
Andre Carter - 1st round
Brian Orakpo - 1st round
Demarcus Ware - 1st round
Julius Peppers - 1st round

Still a lot of high draft picks, but there's more of a showing for the lower rounds.

Linebackers and linemen (both OL and DL) generally have longer careers than running backs but they can also be developed more. Running backs can usually come in and be starting the first year. A really good running back can make a moderate line look good... and vice versa.

Now name all the teams that wanted to draft a LB or DE or RB or whatever in each round but could not because the player had already been drafted. Get what you want when you KNOW the guy is there.

[disaacks3]

Originally Posted by Hervoyel

Yes your RB is going to take a beating and likely be completely useless in 5-6 years. That's why he's the last piece of the puzzle you pick up. I look at the Texans and wonder how many more years Andre Johnson will play in the league. He's played 7 years already and this wonderful ride he's on could end in one play. Matt Schaub is putting up "should have gone to the Pro Bowl" numbers now. The offensive line could use a little help but they are capable of protecting him and a running game would go a long, long way toward keeping the pass rush from eating him alive.

It's time to draft a running back. Taking one in the first round this year would be (IMO) actually a little late. We could have picked up Benson in 2008 and not had to go through using a draft pick. We didn't and we won't likely get another shot at a franchise running back with so few miles on him again. We'll end up having to draft somebody and while I generally agree with the points you made to reach your conclusion I don't agree with never taking a RB early. There's a time to make that move and for the Texans it's very much now.

Originally Posted by Vinny

just a couple of comments....you don't draft a player based on what you think you will get out of him 8 years from now. You get a guy who can play up to his draft position since the money is obscene early in the draft. Most Coaches won't even be with the same teams 8 years from now.

If you have a force holding the ball, everybody is a better player. A dynamic feature back and elite QB's make the difference when two squads are otherwise evenly matched.

These two are where I'm at. It's obvious that the Texans aren't nearly as effective at the RB-by-committee that the old Denver teams were. I'm still in the NEED vs. BPA mode for this particular draft. The Texans aren't trying to simply be competitive anymore, they're trying to "get over the hump". It takes a playmaker to do that - Complaining about an RB being less useful 5-6 years down the road is stating the obvious (in most cases), but if it gets you to the playoffs NOW, then it's the right move.

[Hervoyel]

Originally Posted by Corrosion

I agree that RB is best left until the other things are in place due to shelf life.


I agree that there is a time to make that move.


Im not sure that I agree that now is that time because I think the majority of the troubles in the Texans ground attack are related to the interior OL.

Unless they can upgrade two of the three interior OL spots via draft or FA I'm not sold on the idea of an early round RB - especially in a draft devoid of "Special Players" at the position.

I can respect that take. We just disagree on where the line is.

After watching the Texans try to put together a line for most of a decade I've concluded that I'm looking for something to happen that's never going to happen. Who's "set" on their OL across the board in this league? Almost nobody I'd wager. Everyone's working a rookie in here or a free agent in there. Everybody loses a player in camp or during the season. Everybody's trying to get more out of the offensive line.

I watched the best running back I ever saw play behind a line that wasn't even as good as the one the Texans field these days. That was of course Earl Campbell but his line was just absolute garbage and no amount of fond memories can wipe that memory away. After Earl was almost entirely used up the Oilers got serious about drafting offensive linemen in a big, big way and before long put together what might very well be the best line I'll ever see play football in my lifetime. Then I watched a bunch of lesser backs do very little behind that line. R&S offense or not Mike Rozier, Alonzo Highsmith, Allen Pinkett, and Lorenzo White all looked pretty damned ordinary back there.

The way I see it the Texans line is good enough to get the job done in terms of personnel. You put a guy back there with some vision and some burst and you can make trouble for people. Slaton proved that in 2008 and Arian Foster drove home the concept over the last three weeks of 2009. Our running game is functional as it is with a back playing the system correctly. Now Foster was an UDFA but he looked pretty good back there. Not much speed but he made the cuts and he got the yards.. Slaton was a 3rd and appeared to be getting his running game back but just couldn't stop putting the ball on the ground. They're guys with obvious flaws but they're solid runners (when Slaton isn't fumbling).

I want to see what a legitimate franchise running back does behind this line. I predict that with a real back this group (assuming Pitts and Brisiel come back) are more than enough line to get it done. Nothing is absolute or without an exception to the rule but I think more often than not a great running back can go a long way towards hiding an offensive lines warts. At the same time I don't think there's a line in the world that can make a bad running back look good. It just doesn't happen.

That running back has to have something to begin with in order to take advantage of what he's given. He has to have some quality to leverage be it speed, "burst", vision, strength, what have you. We'll never get that guy though if we spend forever looking for the perfect replacement for every imperfect lineman we have.

[badboy]

Originally Posted by Hervoyel

I can respect that take. We just disagree on where the line is.

After watching the Texans try to put together a line for most of a decade I've concluded that I'm looking for something to happen that's never going to happen. Who's "set" on their OL across the board in this league? Almost nobody I'd wager. Everyone's working a rookie in here or a free agent in there. Everybody loses a player in camp or during the season. Everybody's trying to get more out of the offensive line.

I watched the best running back I ever saw play behind a line that wasn't even as good as the one the Texans field these days. That was of course Earl Campbell but his line was just absolute garbage and no amount of fond memories can wipe that memory away. After Earl was almost entirely used up the Oilers got serious about drafting offensive linemen in a big, big way and before long put together what might very well be the best line I'll ever see play football in my lifetime. Then I watched a bunch of lesser backs do very little behind that line. R&S offense or not Mike Rozier, Alonzo Highsmith, Allen Pinkett, and Lorenzo White all looked pretty damned ordinary back there.

The way I see it the Texans line is good enough to get the job done in terms of personnel. You put a guy back there with some vision and some burst and you can make trouble for people. Slaton proved that in 2008 and Arian Foster drove home the concept over the last three weeks of 2009. Our running game is functional as it is with a back playing the system correctly. Now Foster was an UDFA but he looked pretty good back there. Not much speed but he made the cuts and he got the yards.. Slaton was a 3rd and appeared to be getting his running game back but just couldn't stop putting the ball on the ground. They're guys with obvious flaws but they're solid runners (when Slaton isn't fumbling).

I want to see what a legitimate franchise running back does behind this line. I predict that with a real back this group (assuming Pitts and Brisiel come back) are more than enough line to get it done. Nothing is absolute or without an exception to the rule but I think more often than not a great running back can go a long way towards hiding an offensive lines warts. At the same time I don't think there's a line in the world that can make a bad running back look good. It just doesn't happen.

That running back has to have something to begin with in order to take advantage of what he's given. He has to have some quality to leverage be it speed, "burst", vision, strength, what have you. We'll never get that guy though if we spend forever looking for the perfect replacement for every imperfect lineman we have.

Well said.

[Hervoyel]

Hey I want to add that I'm not saying that Corrosion (or anyone else here) is saying that we should just keep building the offensive line forever. I didn't say that and don't mean that. I mean that if you see a guy you want to have in your backfield sitting there on draft day then you take him if you've got your line "more or less" established. You don't waste that pick on a RB if you have nobody to block for him but if you're ok then get the back you want without regrets.

And yeah you keep trying to get better on the line just like everywhere else but you can do that with a 2 or a 3 this year and use the 1 on your RB if you see someone there you like. Next year we probably start working Caldwell in as a regular starter somewhere in the interior. We aren't done improving the line (nobody is ever done). We're just at a normal pace like the rest of the league where we try and improve one position a year, maybe two.

[JB]

Originally Posted by Hervoyel

I can respect that take. We just disagree on where the line is.

After watching the Texans try to put together a line for most of a decade I've concluded that I'm looking for something to happen that's never going to happen. Who's "set" on their OL across the board in this league? Almost nobody I'd wager. Everyone's working a rookie in here or a free agent in there. Everybody loses a player in camp or during the season. Everybody's trying to get more out of the offensive line.

I watched the best running back I ever saw play behind a line that wasn't even as good as the one the Texans field these days. That was of course Earl Campbell but his line was just absolute garbage and no amount of fond memories can wipe that memory away. After Earl was almost entirely used up the Oilers got serious about drafting offensive linemen in a big, big way and before long put together what might very well be the best line I'll ever see play football in my lifetime. Then I watched a bunch of lesser backs do very little behind that line. R&S offense or not Mike Rozier, Alonzo Highsmith, Allen Pinkett, and Lorenzo White all looked pretty damned ordinary back there.

The way I see it the Texans line is good enough to get the job done in terms of personnel. You put a guy back there with some vision and some burst and you can make trouble for people. Slaton proved that in 2008 and Arian Foster drove home the concept over the last three weeks of 2009. Our running game is functional as it is with a back playing the system correctly. Now Foster was an UDFA but he looked pretty good back there. Not much speed but he made the cuts and he got the yards.. Slaton was a 3rd and appeared to be getting his running game back but just couldn't stop putting the ball on the ground. They're guys with obvious flaws but they're solid runners (when Slaton isn't fumbling).

I want to see what a legitimate franchise running back does behind this line. I predict that with a real back this group (assuming Pitts and Brisiel come back) are more than enough line to get it done. Nothing is absolute or without an exception to the rule but I think more often than not a great running back can go a long way towards hiding an offensive lines warts. At the same time I don't think there's a line in the world that can make a bad running back look good. It just doesn't happen.

That running back has to have something to begin with in order to take advantage of what he's given. He has to have some quality to leverage be it speed, "burst", vision, strength, what have you. We'll never get that guy though if we spend forever looking for the perfect replacement for every imperfect lineman we have.

[Corrosion]

Originally Posted by Hervoyel

I can respect that take. We just disagree on where the line is.

After watching the Texans try to put together a line for most of a decade I've concluded that I'm looking for something to happen that's never going to happen. Who's "set" on their OL across the board in this league? Almost nobody I'd wager. Everyone's working a rookie in here or a free agent in there. Everybody loses a player in camp or during the season. Everybody's trying to get more out of the offensive line.

I watched the best running back I ever saw play behind a line that wasn't even as good as the one the Texans field these days. That was of course Earl Campbell but his line was just absolute garbage and no amount of fond memories can wipe that memory away. After Earl was almost entirely used up the Oilers got serious about drafting offensive linemen in a big, big way and before long put together what might very well be the best line I'll ever see play football in my lifetime. Then I watched a bunch of lesser backs do very little behind that line. R&S offense or not Mike Rozier, Alonzo Highsmith, Allen Pinkett, and Lorenzo White all looked pretty damned ordinary back there.

The way I see it the Texans line is good enough to get the job done in terms of personnel. You put a guy back there with some vision and some burst and you can make trouble for people. Slaton proved that in 2008 and Arian Foster drove home the concept over the last three weeks of 2009. Our running game is functional as it is with a back playing the system correctly. Now Foster was an UDFA but he looked pretty good back there. Not much speed but he made the cuts and he got the yards.. Slaton was a 3rd and appeared to be getting his running game back but just couldn't stop putting the ball on the ground. They're guys with obvious flaws but they're solid runners (when Slaton isn't fumbling).

I want to see what a legitimate franchise running back does behind this line. I predict that with a real back this group (assuming Pitts and Brisiel come back) are more than enough line to get it done. Nothing is absolute or without an exception to the rule but I think more often than not a great running back can go a long way towards hiding an offensive lines warts. At the same time I don't think there's a line in the world that can make a bad running back look good. It just doesn't happen.

That running back has to have something to begin with in order to take advantage of what he's given. He has to have some quality to leverage be it speed, "burst", vision, strength, what have you. We'll never get that guy though if we spend forever looking for the perfect replacement for every imperfect lineman we have.

I pretty much agree with you - thing is that I see three glaring holes on the OL.

I really dont see Pitts coming back , Brisiel wasnt a world beater prior to his injury and likely wont be as effective post injury and Myers although he gets to the second level very well just cant hold the point of attack.

I really think they need to address at least two of those three at some point during this offseason - If they do and get a top flight back too - all the better. If they dont , then we will likely see nest years rushing attack be just as anemic as the past seasons.

Im not sure looking at this RB class that there is a really special player to be had. There are some good ones but they all have their faults. If the Texans are going to spend a #1 on a RB I'd like it to be a special player , not just a good one.

[steelbtexan]

Originally Posted by Hervoyel

I can respect that take. We just disagree on where the line is.

After watching the Texans try to put together a line for most of a decade I've concluded that I'm looking for something to happen that's never going to happen. Who's "set" on their OL across the board in this league? Almost nobody I'd wager. Everyone's working a rookie in here or a free agent in there. Everybody loses a player in camp or during the season. Everybody's trying to get more out of the offensive line.

I watched the best running back I ever saw play behind a line that wasn't even as good as the one the Texans field these days. That was of course Earl Campbell but his line was just absolute garbage and no amount of fond memories can wipe that memory away. After Earl was almost entirely used up the Oilers got serious about drafting offensive linemen in a big, big way and before long put together what might very well be the best line I'll ever see play football in my lifetime. Then I watched a bunch of lesser backs do very little behind that line. R&S offense or not Mike Rozier, Alonzo Highsmith, Allen Pinkett, and Lorenzo White all looked pretty damned ordinary back there.

The way I see it the Texans line is good enough to get the job done in terms of personnel. You put a guy back there with some vision and some burst and you can make trouble for people. Slaton proved that in 2008 and Arian Foster drove home the concept over the last three weeks of 2009. Our running game is functional as it is with a back playing the system correctly. Now Foster was an UDFA but he looked pretty good back there. Not much speed but he made the cuts and he got the yards.. Slaton was a 3rd and appeared to be getting his running game back but just couldn't stop putting the ball on the ground. They're guys with obvious flaws but they're solid runners (when Slaton isn't fumbling).

I want to see what a legitimate franchise running back does behind this line. I predict that with a real back this group (assuming Pitts and Brisiel come back) are more than enough line to get it done. Nothing is absolute or without an exception to the rule but I think more often than not a great running back can go a long way towards hiding an offensive lines warts. At the same time I don't think there's a line in the world that can make a bad running back look good. It just doesn't happen.

That running back has to have something to begin with in order to take advantage of what he's given. He has to have some quality to leverage be it speed, "burst", vision, strength, what have you. We'll never get that guy though if we spend forever looking for the perfect replacement for every imperfect lineman we have.

The teams that are still playing have invested heavily in their OL.

Jets Woody Fa Faneca FA Mangold 1st rd pick Moore (dont know) Ferguson 1st rd pick

Colts Deim and Ugoh were high picks, Saturday is the exception to the rule They signed one of their G's in FA. Plus Manning could make any OL look good.

Minny. McKinney 1st rd pick Hutchinson FA (highest contract ever signed by a G) Sullivan 4th rd pick Herrrera (dont know) Loadholt 2nd rd pick.

Dont know about the Saints

As for Campbell that he didn't have a good OL is a mis conception. his OL was this.

Leon Gray All pro (one of the greatest OL of his time) OG Bob Young former pro bowler (later became Oilers OL coach) C Carl Mauck Leader of the OL and one of the toughest OL you could ever have. OG John Schumacher an average OG but a good and tough run blocker. RT Conway Hayman A very underrated RT IMO.

Also when you factor in Tim Wilson who was the best blocking FB of his time and they ran a 2 TE set with Mike Barber above Avg run blocker and Dave Casper who was a great blocking TE you can see why they had success running the ball. Not taking anything away from Earl because he was the best RB I have ever seen for a 6/7 yr period.

If I told you that the Texans could finally fix their OL problems by trading a 3rd rd pick for Chris Kuper and spending a 1st rd pick on Iupati would you be willing to do that? The OL would be set for the next 8-10 yrs. Next years draft is the one that you want to spend a high draft pick. Ingram,Royster,etc.

I'm not saying dont take a RB this year. Take one in the middle rds and get the franchise RB after your OL is set next year.

Thoughts

[infantrycak]

Originally Posted by steelbtexan

If I told you that the Texans could finally fix their OL problems by trading a 3rd rd pick for Chris Kuper and spending a 1st rd pick on Iupati would you be willing to do that? The OL would be set for the next 8-10 yrs. Next years draft is the one that you want to spend a high draft pick. Ingram,Royster,etc.

I'm not saying dont take a RB this year. Take one in the middle rds and get the franchise RB after your OL is set next year.

Thoughts

This wasn't directed to me but for my two cents, this seems like a variation of the need v. BPA debate.

At #20 what are you going to get?

2008 - Mendenhall or CJ v. Chilo Rachal
2007 - Kenny Irons v. Joe Staley or Ben Grubbs
2006 - Maroney or DeAngelo v. Davin Joseph or Nick Mangold
2005 - Arrington or Shelton v. Chris Spencer or Login Mankins

That's forcing a comparison of two needs and discounting the squeals of draftniks around the globe on how some would have been reaches at #20. Still seems like you have to let quality overcome need at some point or you are going to be screwed no matter how you rank the higher need.

[steelbtexan]

Originally Posted by infantrycak

This wasn't directed to me but for my two cents, this seems like a variation of the need v. BPA debate.

At #20 what are you going to get?

2008 - Mendenhall or CJ v. Chilo Rachal
2007 - Kenny Irons v. Joe Staley or Ben Grubbs
2006 - Maroney or DeAngelo v. Davin Joseph or Nick Mangold
2005 - Arrington or Shelton v. Chris Spencer or Login Mankins

That's forcing a comparison of two needs and discounting the squeals of draftniks around the globe on how some would have been reaches at #20. Still seems like you have to let quality overcome need at some point or you are going to be screwed no matter how you rank the higher need.

The only 1st rd to 1st rd comparisons are Maroney DeAngelo vs Spencer and Mangold. They are pretty = IMO

What I'm saying is while we need a RB this year is the year to finally fix the OL. The RB's are much better in the 2010 draft IMO.

This is if I'm understanding what you're saying.

Check out my thread in the mock draft section and tell me what you think.

[infantrycak]

Originally Posted by steelbtexan

What I'm saying is while we need a RB this year is the year to finally fix the OL. The RB's are much better in the 2010 draft IMO.

This is if I'm understanding what you're saying.

I'm just saying I hear or see a lot of discussion about RB or OL in the abstract. To me that's only good for an ideal world of equal talent. At some point no matter what position you'd like to pick you have to concede the talent difference if the actual talent in the draft stacks up that way.

[awtysst]

Originally Posted by theanswer000

what do we do when Dan Williams, Brian Price, C.J. Spiller, Dez Bryant are all on the board when we pick?

Trade down. We can get additional picks and better value.

[steelbtexan]

Originally Posted by infantrycak

I'm just saying I hear or see a lot of discussion about RB or OL in the abstract. To me that's only good for an ideal world of equal talent. At some point no matter what position you'd like to pick you have to concede the talent difference if the actual talent in the draft stacks up that way.

I believe that if a OL like Bulaga or Iupati falls to the Texans they are> than any RB Dwyer or Spiller in this draft. IMO

The OL I mentioned can be high level starters for 8-10 yrs imo.

I see Spiller more in the Reggie Bush mold. A dynamic game changer but has very little substance. I like Dwyer alot but given the choice I would take the OL.

The Texans are lucky in that this draft is very deep in the DB's (best S class that I've seen) and OL (at the top) and DL (thoughout) IMHO

[disaacks3]

Originally Posted by theanswer000

what do we do when Dan Williams, Brian Price, C.J. Spiller, Dez Bryant are all on the board when we pick?

I doubt they all would be. As things look right now, IF it fell that way, I'd be sorely tempted to take Spiller @20. the consensus (right now, pre-combine) is that he won't last till 20.

[beerlover]

Originally Posted by disaacks3

I doubt they all would be. As things look right now, IF it fell that way, I'd be sorely tempted to take Spiller @20. the consensus (right now, pre-combine) is that he won't last till 20.

guess that makes me a contrarian

http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68712

[Corrosion]

Originally Posted by infantrycak

I'm just saying I hear or see a lot of discussion about RB or OL in the abstract. To me that's only good for an ideal world of equal talent. At some point no matter what position you'd like to pick you have to concede the talent difference if the actual talent in the draft stacks up that way.

Of course if there is a player on the board who grades out significantly higher at a different position - you take that player.

In cases where the talent of the players is equal you take the player who best fills a need or best fits your system.

[infantrycak]

Originally Posted by Corrosion

Of course if there is a player on the board who grades out significantly higher at a different position - you take that player.

In cases where the talent of the players is equal you take the player who best fills a need or best fits your system.

Sure, my comments were made in the context of two camps arguing RB v. OL with virtually no discussion of who the specific prospects were. That's the wrong way to analyze things.