Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍

Todd Gurley, RB Georgia

Playoffs

Hall of Fame
Past time for a Gurley thread...


Greg Cosell's NFL draft preview: Todd Gurley may be best prospect in class

By Greg Cosell
Georgia’s Todd Gurley is clearly the best running back in this class, but I think he might be even more than that.

I think you can make the argument that Gurley is the best prospect, at any position, in the draft.

That doesn’t mean he’ll be drafted first, of course. But I think he’s a great prospect. There are no negatives about Todd Gurley on the field.

I say “on the field” because there’s the matter of his knee injury. He tore his ACL late last season. Based on history, with how guys get treated for this, it doesn’t seem like it will be a big issue. You have to assume he’ll be fine. I don’t know the answer because I’m not a doctor, but that injury doesn’t derail careers anymore. All I can do is analyze his game film, which is fantastic.

If he’s healthy there’s no reason to think that he can’t be a foundation back for a team that wants the running game to be the starting point of its offense. There’s a lot to like about Gurley, but let’s start with how refined and advanced he is in the subtleties of running, like pressing the hole or using his downhill path to impact the defense.

Here on this 40-yard run against South Carolina, Gurley (No. 3) does a great job using his downhill path to impact the second-level defenders and set up his blocks (the run comes at 2:25 of the video after the screen shots):

(YouTube.com screen shot h/t Gurley 4 Heisman)


On that run – and many others – there are a lot of his skills on display. And he has many skills.

At Georgia he did practically all of the runs he will be asked to do in the NFL: inside zone, zone lead, toss and power (gap schemes). The Georgia offense featured a lot of two-back straight “I” formation.

Gurley is a big back at 225 pounds and he shows solid traits of a power back with good size and natural toughness, but he also moves like man much smaller than 225 pounds.

He has great downhill power, possessing a strong lower body with the power and strength to shed and break tackles. He showed the ability to defeat quick penetration with his strong thighs and legs. He consistently ran with power inside, and delivered a blow on contact which jarred second-level defenders.

He also showed the burst and acceleration to get to the perimeter. He has a fluid change of direction and reacts easily to backfield penetration. Gurley has a short area burst through the hole with the speed to take it to the house.

To compare him to another top back in this draft, Gurley is a naturally more powerful runner than Wisconsin’s Melvin Gordon, as he is stronger through his thighs and legs. For an NFL comparison, he is a much smoother runner than Eddie Lacy but not quite as physical; Gurley is a more fluid mover with naturally looser hips and more make-you-miss ability in the open field.

I talk often about being a sustaining back, one that can consistently keep drives moving. He has all the traits of a sustaining NFL back: big frame, patience, vision, contact balance, physical toughness, downhill conviction and determination. He has elements of Stephen Jackson and Marshawn Lynch in his running style. As I said at the beginning, there are no clear negatives to his game.

The question then becomes where Gurley will be drafted. No running back has gone in the first round either of the past two drafts. In my opinion you shouldn’t pass a running back to draft a player ranked significantly lower on your draft board because of this notion that you don’t draft running backs high. If you have Gurley ranked, say, eighth on your draft board and he’s still available (and is the top player left on your board) when you pick in the 20s, you draft Gurley. It’s that simple.

Whoever does draft Gurley will be getting a big-time prospect. He’s a terrific back, a great player and arguably the best prospect in this draft.

- - - - - - -

NFL analyst and NFL Films senior producer Greg Cosell watches as much NFL game film as anyone. Throughout the season, Cosell will join Shutdown Corner to share his observations on the teams, schemes and personnel from around the league.
 
Whoever does draft Gurley will be getting a big-time prospect. He’s a terrific back, a great player and arguably the best prospect in this draft.
*****
Whoever it is I'm very confidant it won't be the Texans with the injury issues they have had with recent Drafts picks, most notably is of course Clowney. Besides this is one position where the Texans have gotten great value, with the exception of Ben Tate but Foster certainly offsets any negatives of that pick.
 
Whoever does draft Gurley will be getting a big-time prospect. He’s a terrific back, a great player and arguably the best prospect in this draft.
*****
Whoever it is I'm very confidant it won't be the Texans with the injury issues they have had with recent Drafts picks, most notably is of course Clowney. Besides this is one position where the Texans have gotten great value, with the exception of Ben Tate but Foster certainly offsets any negatives of that pick.

Yep,

Gotta pass at 16, great talent but the Texans should be wary of a RB that has had 2 ACL's in the last 2 yrs.
 
Granted, I drafted him for the NYGiants in the TT mock draft in the first round... but... I don't like him for us. I think the risk with him is just too high. I think the whole injury history with him is too scary.
 
we need to keep playing that we will take him.
16 is about right for him to drop. hopefully we can a trade down option? :)
 
Physically he's the most talented RB since Peterson. But he was injured every year in college including 2 serious injuries. Don't want to take that kind of risk on a position like RB.
 
Why, we almost unanimously took it on OLB?

You talking about Clowney? He had a rib injury and bone spurs in his foot and he still played through it. He missed 3 games in his college career. The hernia stuff wasn't known until after the draft IIRC and he still missed zero games from it (preseason doesn't count).

Gurley missed almost half of his college career with injuries. Despite his absurd amount of talent, he only had one 1,000 yard season because of injuries.

Also, OLB (pass rusher) is a much more important position than RB and it is much harder to find top talent for the position.
 
You talking about Clowney? He had a rib injury and bone spurs in his foot and he still played through it. He missed 3 games in his college career. The hernia stuff wasn't known until after the draft IIRC and he still missed zero games from it (preseason doesn't count).

No. The history is there for you to look at. Bone spurs are a symptom of an underlying problem. I and others called it.

Also, OLB (pass rusher) is a much more important position than RB and it is much harder to find top talent for the position.

No it's not. It may be easier to fill. Even that train of thought is being debunked this offseason.
 
Give me Melvin Gordon. His vision and moves are so damn impressive and no injury history. He'll be special at the next level for sure.
 
Give me Melvin Gordon. His vision and moves are so damn impressive and no injury history. He'll be special at the next level for sure.

Agreed. If you go RB it should be Gordon. He is going to be great.

Then you just draft JJ's little brother in a late round to block for him just like college
 
Gonna have to wait a year to get your hands on Derek Watt. He still has a year left at Wisconsin.
 
#Georgia RB Todd Gurley (ACL), who had medical rechecks yesterday & today, checked out fine, source said. Viewed as good to go for the draft.
"Good to go" as in ready for a predraft workout? Or just that there were no complications? I'd want to see the guy move around a bit before spending a 1st rounder on him.
 
"Good to go" as in ready for a predraft workout? Or just that there were no complications? I'd want to see the guy move around a bit before spending a 1st rounder on him.

You gotta propose before getting the rose, here. Hopes to return during training camp.
 
No. The history is there for you to look at. Bone spurs are a symptom of an underlying problem. I and others called it.

Bone spurs in a foot = knee issues? Uh well OK buddy, keep being salty about the Clowney pick.

No it's not. It may be easier to fill. Even that train of thought is being debunked this offseason.

Gurley is arguably the best player in the draft, but I doubt he would be a better pick in terms of need + talent over a guy like Randy Gregory, Bud Dupree, or a wideout like Parker. Melvin Gordon is honestly the only RB I'd look at in the first, and even then there are other players I'm looking at first.

Running backs in general end up taking a lot of punishment compared to almost any other position on the field, so Gurley's injury history is a major turn-off for me. If we were drafting later in the first or if he somehow fell to the second, sure, but not at 16th overall. The fact that they can't confirm that he'll be ready for training camp really hurts his case as a first-round RB.
 
Bone spurs in a foot = knee issues? Uh well OK buddy, keep being salty about the Clowney pick.

Bone spurs are secondary to an underlying cause.

Doc has told us a million times pretty much any injury will often result in compensatory injuries in the affected system. So yeah, foot, ankle, knee and hip along with hamstring and tendon injuries often contribute to a second leg injury.

So nobody is saying bone spurs=knee issues. But bone spurs up the chances of another leg injury.
 
Bone spurs are secondary to an underlying cause.

Doc has told us a million times pretty much any injury will often result in compensatory injuries in the affected system. So yeah, foot, ankle, knee and hip along with hamstring and tendon injuries often contribute to a second leg injury.

So nobody is saying bone spurs=knee issues. But bone spurs up the chances of another leg injury.

I remain unconvinced by second-hand medical advice, sorry. And I respect Doc but they still drafted Clowney knowing about the bone spur issue, so I think that says all that needs to be said.
 
I remain unconvinced by second-hand medical advice, sorry. And I respect Doc but they still drafted Clowney knowing about the bone spur issue, so I think that says all that needs to be said.

Are you saying their incompetent?
 
Are you saying they're incompetent?

Getting poor medical advice, yes.

Scout’s/coaches have to rely on the medicals.

Now the level of arthritis in his knee, that's another story. But there were breadcrumbs leading a prudent, conservative physician to investigate further and/or offer up a red flag.
 
Getting poor medical advice, yes.

Scout’s/coaches have to rely on the medicals.

Now the level of arthritis in his knee, that's another story. But there were breadcrumbs leading a prudent, conservative physician to investigate further and/or offer up a red flag.

Doesn't sound like any Texans Dr. I've heard of
 
My only point was Clowney was a player with risk. The higher the upside, maybe you take more risk.

Sometimes they pan out and sometimes they don't. Doesn't have to be anyone's fault when they don't.
 
Physically he's the most talented RB since Peterson. But he was injured every year in college including 2 serious injuries. Don't want to take that kind of risk on a position like RB.
Avoid this injury prone RB. 2 ACL's, the most serious injury after a severed head? His ability to cut has to be affected despite what the kid-yourself optimists say. We haven't even addressed whether he can block a blitzing linebacker.
 
Avoid this injury prone RB. 2 ACL's, the most serious injury after a severed head? His ability to cut has to be affected despite what the kid-yourself optimists say. We haven't even addressed whether he can block a blitzing linebacker.

He does have two ACL's, but he's only torn either of them once.
 
... after a severed head?

That's gotta smart.
homer_doh.gif
 
Bone spurs are secondary to an underlying cause.

Doc has told us a million times pretty much any injury will often result in compensatory injuries in the affected system. So yeah, foot, ankle, knee and hip along with hamstring and tendon injuries often contribute to a second leg injury.

So nobody is saying bone spurs=knee issues. But bone spurs up the chances of another leg injury.

I thought the bone spurs were the underlying cause for other injuries like groins, hammies, & could cause complications while rehabbing from just about any injury to the:-)lower extremities.
 
I thought the bone spurs were the underlying cause for other injuries like groins, hammies, & could cause complications while rehabbing from just about any injury to the:-)lower extremities.

No bone spurs are themselves a result of an underlying cause. They and the underlying cause can are then a potential primary injury causing secondary compensatory injuries.
 
I remain unconvinced by second-hand medical advice, sorry. And I respect Doc but they still drafted Clowney knowing about the bone spur issue, so I think that says all that needs to be said.

In other words you don't consider very educated opinions to be informative?

I bet your a hoot to work with/be around.

Doc's medical opinions are right about 90% of the time or more. In fact he gets injuries right alot more than the Texans medical staff with very little info.

To quote Steve Perry (Keep on Believe in, hold on to that feelin)
 
Avoid this injury prone RB. 2 ACL's, the most serious injury after a severed head? His ability to cut has to be affected despite what the kid-yourself optimists say. We haven't even addressed whether he can block a blitzing linebacker.

In fairness, most running backs coming out don't have much experience in pass protection.

But yeah, if this were another position other than running back, I'd potentially be fine with a 1st round pick EDIT: Didn't finish this, apparently. But yeah, an ACL tear doesn't worry me as much for a wide receiver or lineman or even potentially a cornerback, but in a running back it leaves me nervous, especially with his ankle injury.

In other words you don't consider very educated opinions to be informative?

I bet your a hoot to work with/be around.

Doc's medical opinions are right about 90% of the time or more. In fact he gets injuries right alot more than the Texans medical staff with very little info.

No, my point was that Cak was getting his info second-hand from a well-informed poster, but ultimately one who is not working with Clowney personally, to continue to have sour grapes about Clowney being drafted (especially when the injuries being compared aren't similar other than being leg injuries). IDK, I took some time away from this website after the draft to deal with real life stuff and people are STILL complaining about the pick? JFC, the past is the past, people.

And the level of medical diagnosing to go from bone spurs to potential knee injury when Clowney was supposedly unaware of it seems almost superhuman going from my experience in the medical profession, but I will admit that any such opinion doesn't even reach amateur status.

To quote Steve Perry (Keep on Believe in, hold on to that feelin)

:ahhaha:
 
No, my point was that Cak was getting his info second-hand from a well-informed poster, but ultimately one who is not working with Clowney personally, to continue to have sour grapes about Clowney being drafted (especially when the injuries being compared aren't similar other than being leg injuries). IDK, I took some time away from this website after the draft to deal with real life stuff and people are STILL complaining about the pick? JFC, the past is the past, people.:

I didn’t criticize the pick now or any other time. Wasn't the one I would have made but that isn't my standard for saying a pick is bad. It was a perfectly fine pick with risks.
 
In fairness, most running backs coming out don't have much experience in pass protection.

But yeah, if this were another position other than running back, I'd potentially be fine with a 1st round pick



No, my point was that Cak was getting his info second-hand from a well-informed poster, but ultimately one who is not working with Clowney personally, to continue to have sour grapes about Clowney being drafted (especially when the injuries being compared aren't similar other than being leg injuries). IDK, I took some time away from this website after the draft to deal with real life stuff and people are STILL complaining about the pick? JFC, the past is the past, people.

And the level of medical diagnosing to go from bone spurs to potential knee injury when Clowney was supposedly unaware of it seems almost superhuman going from my experience in the medical profession, but I will admit that any such opinion doesn't even reach amateur status.



:ahhaha:

I was referring to Gurley. Sorry for the misunderstanding.


CND said that he would take Clowney #1 only if he had the bone spurs removed and that was before the draft.
 
I didn’t criticize the pick now or any other time. Wasn't the one I would have made but that isn't my standard for saying a pick is bad. It was a perfectly fine pick with risks.

Fair enough, I guess I read your post and it sounded all-too-much like some less-than-informed opinions I'd come across on the dreaded comment section of a news website, and the like. :p

I was referring to Gurley. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

No worries.
 
I clicked on the Todd Gurley thread but all I'm reading about is Clowney's injury history. Must have clicked the wrong thread because this can't be right.

Every player injury is now devolving into a Clowney - what were you thinking thread - we should have picked a QB thread. Some people will never get over not wasting a pick on a second rate QB.
 
Without being injured, Gurley should have been drafted somewhere in the teens.

Being injured he should be drafted in the late teens, low 20's.

Any team who takes a RB, even Gurley in the top 10 is asking for trouble.

The last time a RB was taken in the top 10 was in 2012, Trent Richardson @ 3. Before that, 2010, CJ Spiller @ 9. Before that, 2008, McFadden @4.

With the devaluation of the RB position, the short shelf life, and high costs taking a RB in the top 10 of the first round hurts your team more than it helps.
 
Without being injured, Gurley should have been drafted somewhere in the teens.

Being injured he should be drafted in the late teens, low 20's.


Any team who takes a RB, even Gurley in the top 10 is asking for trouble.

The last time a RB was taken in the top 10 was in 2012, Trent Richardson @ 3. Before that, 2010, CJ Spiller @ 9. Before that, 2008, McFadden @4.

With the devaluation of the RB position, the short shelf life, and high costs taking a RB in the top 10 of the first round hurts your team more than it helps.

I don't get this formula. So teams who happen to draft from about 11-17 or so who want to draft Gurley should be looked at funny just because they don't draft 6 or 7 spots lower?
 
Without being injured, Gurley should have been drafted somewhere in the teens.

Being injured he should be drafted in the late teens, low 20's.

Way too precise. Like Mollywhopper asked, you really going to criticize a team for taking a player at 16 instead of 23?

Any team who takes a RB, even Gurley in the top 10 is asking for trouble.

The last time a RB was taken in the top 10 was in 2012, Trent Richardson @ 3. Before that, 2010, CJ Spiller @ 9. Before that, 2008, McFadden @4.

With the devaluation of the RB position, the short shelf life, and high costs taking a RB in the top 10 of the first round hurts your team more than it helps.

Or those were just bad evaluations. And we aren't in the top 10 anyway.
 
I don't get this formula. So teams who happen to draft from about 11-17 or so who want to draft Gurley should be looked at funny just because they don't draft 6 or 7 spots lower?

Its not a hard rule. But IMO from a value standpoint yes. I just explained that the RB position has been devalued.

If a team wants to take him top 10 or 15 then thats fine. I just dont agree that its a smart decision as usually teams in the top 10 are there for a reason. Your team sucks.

Way too precise. Like Mollywhopper asked, you really going to criticize a team for taking a player at 16 instead of 23?

A player that is at a position like RB? A player coming back from an ACL tear? Yeah. i think its fair that if you gamble with your #16 pick then criticism is perfectly reasonable.

Or those were just bad evaluations. And we aren't in the top 10 anyway.

Or maybe a team that is bad enough to earn a top 5 pick shouldn't be taking a RB in the first place.

And I never said we were in the top 10.
 
Its not a hard rule. But IMO from a value standpoint yes. I just explained that the RB position has been devalued.

If a team wants to take him top 10 or 15 then thats fine. I just dont agree that its a smart decision as usually teams in the top 10 are there for a reason. Your team sucks.

So at what exact position does it cross the line from not being a smart decision to being reasonable? 16? 18? 21?
 
A player that is at a position like RB? A player coming back from an ACL tear? Yeah. i think its fair that if you gamble with your #16 pick then criticism is perfectly reasonable.

You're leaving off half the equation - and it is perfectly reasonable to take him at 23?

I think your drop 6-7 spots is way too narrow. A team should either decide the risk is small enough to take him on talent or drop him a whole lot more than 6-7 spots - down to where he is far, far below his talent level among players he is up against.

Or maybe a team that is bad enough to earn a top 5 pick shouldn't be taking a RB in the first place.

What's with changing the number constantly? We draft at 16. First you go to 10, now you are at 5.

The bottom line is if you make a good draft pick, even at 5 a RB is worthwhile. It's a huge savings over the contracts given to Murray and McCoy. I don't think the lesson to take away from where RBs have been drafted is to devalue them - it's that teams have had real problems scouting them.
 
Last edited:
Its not a hard rule. But IMO from a value standpoint yes. I just explained that the RB position has been devalued.




Or maybe a team that is bad enough to earn a top 5 pick shouldn't be taking a RB in the first place.

I wonder if there was a ladanian Tomlinson or Adrian Peterson in the draft would they be taken in the top 10?

I think they would. It's not that the value of RBs have been devalued, but the quality of RBs that has fallen.


Gurly is supposed to be that guy.
 
So at what exact position does it cross the line from not being a smart decision to being reasonable? 16? 18? 21?

Does there have to be an EXACT point? No. This isnt a rule. More of a guideline. My premise is that a top 10 team should not use a pick on a RB. Personally I don't think this particular running back with this particular injury should be taken until roughly the late teens or lower by a team that has a solid core of players and can afford to take what I would call a luxury pick that may be able to put them over the top. You are going to have to get past needing a specific number of where it is OK to take a RB as these guidelines are based upon my opinion.

Without injury, I'd take him if I were Tennessee and I'd take him if I were Jacksonville.

I think he's special, and a young QB's best friend. JMO.

I can understand that logic. I just think you can get your QB a best friend later in the draft without much of a drop off in talent.

You're leaving off half the equation - and it is perfectly reasonable to take him at 23?

What's with changing the number constantly? We draft at 16. First you go to 10, now you are at 5.

infantrycak, you are making things confusing. What number am I changing? I never changed. You are the one bringing up new numbers.

Blake said: Don't draft a RB in the top 10.

Last time I checked 5 is in the top 10.

Blake said: I don't think its wise to draft one at 16 either.

The bottom line is if you make a good draft pick, even at 5 a RB is worthwhile. It's a huge savings over the contracts given to Murray and McCoy. I don't think the lesson to take away from where RBs have been drafted is to devalue them - it's that teams have had real problems scouting them.

The same contract savings goes to any position. Running backs are not the only players getting fat contracts.

I think it boils down to teams in the top 10 have bigger needs than someone to run the ball.
 
Does there have to be an EXACT point? No. This isnt a rule. More of a guideline. My premise is that a top 10 team should not use a pick on a RB. Personally I don't think this particular running back with this particular injury should be taken until roughly the late teens or lower by a team that has a solid core of players and can afford to take what I would call a luxury pick that may be able to put them over the top. You are going to have to get past needing a specific number of where it is OK to take a RB as these guidelines are based upon my opinion.

I don't personally need a specific number when I'm considering where a talent should go. I was just asking how you govern throwing shade arbitrarily.
 
I wonder if there was a ladanian Tomlinson or Adrian Peterson in the draft would they be taken in the top 10?

I think they would. It's not that the value of RBs have been devalued, but the quality of RBs that has fallen.

Gurly is supposed to be that guy.

I feel like you think they would because you know what they have become. Right now Todd Gurley is untapped potential just like the rest of these guys.

I dont agree that RB quality has fallen. Using infantrycak's big money guys, LeSean Mccoy didnt go till 53. Demarco Murray went 71!
 
I don't personally need a specific number when I'm considering where a talent should go. I was just asking how you govern throwing shade arbitrarily.

Then why are you pressing me with random numbers? These are my personal opinions, not hard rules.

I am going to assume I know WTF throwing shade even means. :P
 
Then why are you pressing me with random numbers? These are my personal opinions, not hard rules.

I am going to assume I know WTF throwing shade even means. :P

You were making definitive statements regarding specific numbers. Specifically that 16 was unwise to draft a rb. Is it unreasonable then to ask what specific number is no longer unwise?
 
You were making definitive statements regarding specific numbers. Specifically that 16 was unwise to draft a rb. Is it unreasonable then to ask what specific number is no longer unwise?

I guess its not unreasonable to ask, as long as you realize that these numbers are based upon my opinions. And that those things differ from person to person.
 
Back
Top