Here's an article for people that want a 2nd RB

[Git'er Done]

Well, he does name himself after Larry The Cable Guy. That provides him the utmost authority, and lets us know that he once slept with his sister.

The joke was on me.

I was originally "Paid the Bills". I kept seeing "git'er done" in posts and couldn't stand it.

So I posted

"Git'er done isn't funny anymore" Subtitled "It's over".

Pissed off ALOT of buck tooth's. So just for kicks, I changed my name to "Git'er Done".

 

I didn't read the fine print. Apparently, I can't change my name for another six months. Kinda sucks, but I don't see many "git'er done"s at the end of posts anymore.

[Christopher Capolupo]

you fail to mention the great 1st round RBs like Curtis Enis, Rashaan Salaam, Lawerence Phillips, KiJana Carter.. And in recent Buffalo Bills history, Willis McGahee wasn't too hot a pick for us. We have some really pressing needs, and RB is one of them, but this year isn't the year to pick a RB in round 1.

[tennesseeboy]

I think the poster has a point. Chances are of all positions watched in a college career, (except for QB) the most important is running back. By the time an RB is draft eligible he is pretty well analyzed. The combines give a little more information, as do the various bowl and all star games. In this draft we have about six rbs with the potential to start and who could go in the first or early to middle second round. Peterson and Lynch will probably be gone for us (IF NOT...take them!) but I think we'll get one of the Irons, Pittman group in the second and be happy with them. LB, RB, Corner are the areas of most need...Don't everyone get crazy or anything, but I could live with us taking even a great cornerback if he were available at twelve.

[billybob]

I wish it was that simple (actually I do not want that because the complexity of figuring out how a team becomes a TEAM is a lot of the fun of following the NFL) but it simply isn't.

 

A real assessment of your theory would involve the laborious process of trying to confirm it by looking at each roster for the 3 premiere skill players. This would take some time though so to start lets look at a couple of examples in the real world to decide whether it is worthwhile to spend the time on a more exhaustive look.

 

Looking at successful teams is a good start because it should easily confirm your theory. Unfortunately in this decade that means looking at the roster of the NE Patriots which won 3 SBs in a mere 4 years.

 

They have had a ton of good players (though in many ways this is self-defining as good means successful so care should taken in going too far with this example in terms of looking for even indications of applicability to a general case- never mind that one data point does not make a trend or even a coincidence).

 

For premiere players though they are great so they probably stuck with a team for a number of years.

 

The three premiere players who meet whatever criteria you want to articulate for premiere players are: Tom Brady, and, and, and, must be those crickets.

 

They have won because in many ways their performance defines the concept of TEAM (form the introduction of the group which won the 2001 season SB which did not bring attention to individual skill players but to the fact they were a team. There certainly have been examples of good skill players because generally they are good and winning 3 SBs self defines premiere players. Yet, it is difficult to identify 3 premier players among the TEs, WRs, RBs, or whatever to go along with Brady for these three teams.

 

In fact if one were to try to pick someone like a Corey Dillon, in the 1st SB it really was more Antowain Smith at RB, Dillon credibly could be called the premier player in two SBs, but they fit the model of going with 2 RBs mentioned above. Even if you want to expand your theory to D to find the premier players, this is a team which found a way one year to win an SB with their premier D player Rodney Harrison out with an injury.

 

Your theory simply does not fit the singular best example from this decade. (maybe you mean Venateri as the 2nd premier player, we're still short one).

 

It may well be the Pats are a singular team and not worth trying to imitate because most teams cannot do this.

 

Let's look at the current SB champ Colts to try to figure out whether your theory demands or even suggests more in depth analysis.

 

The Colts have Peyton, and Harrison so far so good with the theory. However, looking at their roster for a third premier skill player of the type you describe is a little troubling. The best case can be made that an RB like Edgerrin James clearly fits your theory for the whole three player layout.

 

However, their SB win (finally!) just happened to coincide with this third premiere player getting a huge contract to go elswhwere. They certainly found players to play well to fit in, but i think that few would describe Joseph Addai, Dallas Clark or the seeming other skill players as being premier players.

 

Your theory may be borne out if one inspects the other 30 teams but certainly a deeper look at the current champs or the most successful team this decade does not bear out your theory as obvious or even supportable without some bending and twisting.

I think this theory that the Pats can win with Brady and nothing else is just hogwash- Cory Dillion was a very good player he's lost a step and they have tried to conpensate with Faulk and Mauroney (sp) - Branch was a very good player and they lose him and it hurt them this year but they are taking steps to correct the weakness at WR- Daniel Graham and Ben Watson were a better than ave tight end pairing- it seems to me you write much more than you think.

[Pyrite Gal]

I think this theory that the Pats can win with Brady and nothing else is just hogwash- Cory Dillion was a very good player he's lost a step and they have tried to conpensate with Faulk and Mauroney (sp) - Branch was a very good player and they lose him and it hurt them this year but they are taking steps to correct the weakness at WR- Daniel Graham and Ben Watson were a better than ave tight end pairing- it seems to me you write much more than you think.

 

The very small thing I was thinking about (and I heartily admit to being limited but fortunately I have a significant other who is not reluctant to correct me when I fall short) was the theory you proposed that its all about having three premier skill players.

 

This broad supposition is most authoritatively checked by reviewing the successful teams to identify the three premier skill players. Before I jumped into this lengthy to do it authoritatively analysis, i tool a look at the most successful team this decade the Pats, and the most recent success the Colts.

 

As neither team really fit your theory (including interestingly the Colts winning it all coincidental or perhaps because of in terms of cap allocations, made a decision to let their third premier skill player take a walk rather than them spending big cap bucks to endorse your model). I did not think it was likely to be worthwhile to do a broader analysis since the most successful recent examples from last year and this decade do not fit it.

 

Perhaps I am wrong and I would very much enjoy reading a real and broader analysis of successful teams (my personal bias is that the 4 teams which make the conference championship game can be called successful).

 

However, you are correct that my thinking is limited so I cannot take the time to do the broader analysis which might support your theory. In fact my brain is so little that I stated my point so poorly that I must have given you the rediculous impression that I was saying Brady did it alone, when actually I was saying the opposite that it is not all about Brady nor is it all about three premier players in fact it is all about the TEAM as a whole.

 

I look forward to your next nugget of wisdom even thought an analysis of the most successful team last year and the most successful team this decade indicates that the three premier player theory is not correct. It must be that if a thinking person did a broader analysis it would support the theory even if immediate reality does not.

[The Dean]

The very small thing I was thinking about (and I heartily admit to being limited but fortunately I have a significant other who is not reluctant to correct me when I fall short) was the theory you proposed that its all about having three premier skill players.

 

This broad supposition is most authoritatively checked by reviewing the successful teams to identify the three premier skill players. Before I jumped into this lengthy to do it authoritatively analysis, i tool a look at the most successful team this decade the Pats, and the most recent success the Colts.

 

As neither team really fit your theory (including interestingly the Colts winning it all coincidental or perhaps because of in terms of cap allocations, made a decision to let their third premier skill player take a walk rather than them spending big cap bucks to endorse your model). I did not think it was likely to be worthwhile to do a broader analysis since the most successful recent examples from last year and this decade do not fit it.

 

Perhaps I am wrong and I would very much enjoy reading a real and broader analysis of successful teams (my personal bias is that the 4 teams which make the conference championship game can be called successful).

 

However, you are correct that my thinking is limited so I cannot take the time to do the broader analysis which might support your theory. In fact my brain is so little that I stated my point so poorly that I must have given you the rediculous impression that I was saying Brady did it alone, when actually I was saying the opposite that it is not all about Brady nor is it all about three premier players in fact it is all about the TEAM as a whole.

 

I look forward to your next nugget of wisdom even thought an analysis of the most successful team last year and the most successful team this decade indicates that the three premier player theory is not correct. It must be that if a thinking person did a broader analysis it would support the theory even if immediate reality does not.

 

 

Very nicely said, Gal.

[Git'er Done]

The very small thing I was thinking about (and I heartily admit to being limited but fortunately I have a significant other who is not reluctant to correct me when I fall short) was the theory you proposed that its all about having three premier skill players.

 

This broad supposition is most authoritatively checked by reviewing the successful teams to identify the three premier skill players. Before I jumped into this lengthy to do it authoritatively analysis, i tool a look at the most successful team this decade the Pats, and the most recent success the Colts.

 

As neither team really fit your theory (including interestingly the Colts winning it all coincidental or perhaps because of in terms of cap allocations, made a decision to let their third premier skill player take a walk rather than them spending big cap bucks to endorse your model). I did not think it was likely to be worthwhile to do a broader analysis since the most successful recent examples from last year and this decade do not fit it.

 

Perhaps I am wrong and I would very much enjoy reading a real and broader analysis of successful teams (my personal bias is that the 4 teams which make the conference championship game can be called successful).

 

However, you are correct that my thinking is limited so I cannot take the time to do the broader analysis which might support your theory. In fact my brain is so little that I stated my point so poorly that I must have given you the rediculous impression that I was saying Brady did it alone, when actually I was saying the opposite that it is not all about Brady nor is it all about three premier players in fact it is all about the TEAM as a whole.

 

I look forward to your next nugget of wisdom even thought an analysis of the most successful team last year and the most successful team this decade indicates that the three premier player theory is not correct. It must be that if a thinking person did a broader analysis it would support the theory even if immediate reality does not.

Joseph Addai was a first rounder, Marvin Harrison was a first rounder, Peyton MAnning was a first rounder, edgerrin james was a first rounder?

[The Dean]

Joseph Addai was a first rounder, Marvin Harrison was a first rounder, Peyton MAnning was a first rounder, edgerrin james was a first rounder?

 

 

My uncle has a red pencil box.

[Dibs]

Joseph Addai was a first rounder, Marvin Harrison was a first rounder, Peyton MAnning was a first rounder, edgerrin james was a first rounder?

You forgot about Reggie Wayne.....Dallas Clarke was 1st round as well. I'd say from what billybob originally wrote, Manning, Harrison & Wayne would fit.

 

Your problem is not that a 'big three' isn't desirable, it is that billybob generalized in his initial post by saying....

You don't need an all star RB to win but you really need 3 premire skill players - it could be WR, TE, really good 2nd WR and then a couple of RBs who can bang- right now the Bills got 1 great WR Lee Evans and that's it-

Since this generalization is obviously wrong(many teams have succeeded without 3 premiere skills players), it is open to justified contradiction.

[JimBob2232]

Ya'll missing the point. Its not that you need 3 skill positions that were first round picks, its that you need to HIT on your first round picks.

 

1996: Harrison

1997: Tarik Glenn

1998: Peyton Manning

1999: Edgarrin James

2000: Rob Morris

2001: Reggie Wayne

2002: Dwight Freeney

2003: Dallas Clark

2004: Bob Sanders

2005: Marlin Jackson

2006: Joseph Addai

 

Not sure if Rob Morris is a starter, but, EVERY ONE of them is a productive player, and all but one is still on the team. Thats the key. Dont miss on draft picks, and keep them on your team. Supplement as necessary through Free Agency.

 

But while we are talking about 2nd round RBs....here are the running backs selected in the 2nd ronud since 2000

2000: None

2001: Anthony Thomas, Travis Henry

2002: Deshawn Foster, Clinton Portis, Maurice Morris, Ladell Betts,

2003: None

2004: Tatum Bell, Julius Jones, Greg Jones

2005: JJ Arrington, Eric Shelton

2006: Lendale White, Maurice Drew

 

Third Round Running Backs

2000: Travis Prentice, Ruben Droughns, Doug Chapman

2001: James Jackson, Kevan Barlow, Travis Minor

2002: Brian Westbrook, Lamar Gordon

2003: Musa Smith, Chris Brown, Justin Fargas

2004: None

2005: Frank Gore, Vernand Morency, Ryan Moats, Maurice Clarett

2006: Brian Calhoun, Jerius Norwood,

[sarmanuscg07]

I agree with the basic concept of what you are saying. Just look around the league & add up the number of good starters at RB drafted in the 1st first round. It's by far the majority of them.

 

This last point however I disagree with.....or at least I think it should be looked at in a more realistic sense. i.e. the question should not be "which premium picks become total washouts"......it should perhaps be "which premium picks do not pan out for the teams selecting them". I put it this way so as to directly correlate it to the situation we are in.....that is.....we can draft a premium RB in the 1st, is that likely to solve our RB problems?

 

From 1986-2005.....bold = non success for team selecting RBs in top 12

 

LaDainian Tomlinson, Jamal Lewis, Thomas Jones, Ron Dayne, Edgerrin James, Ricky Williams, Curtis Enis, Fred Taylor, Warrick Dunn(????), Lawrence Phillips, Tim Biakabutuka, Ki-Jana Carter, Marshall Faulk, Garrison Hearst, Jerome Bettis, Tommy Vardell, Blair Thomas, Barry Sanders, Tim Worley, Sammie Smith, Alonzo Highsmith, Brent Fullwood, Bo Jackson

 

That's 23 RBs.

Only 6 of them panned out for the team selecting them.

 

What does this mean?

It means that I agree that the best place to find a premium long term answer at RB is early in the 1st round......but......if we use our #12 on a RB we should realize that there is a 1 in 4 chance that the RB will not attain the level expected from us.

 

id deff put warrick dunn on the non bold list and bo jackson was on his way there but that whole injury bug.... can't really count that one against him.

[RuntheDamnBall]

I agree with the basic concept of what you are saying. Just look around the league & add up the number of good starters at RB drafted in the 1st first round. It's by far the majority of them.

 

This last point however I disagree with.....or at least I think it should be looked at in a more realistic sense. i.e. the question should not be "which premium picks become total washouts"......it should perhaps be "which premium picks do not pan out for the teams selecting them". I put it this way so as to directly correlate it to the situation we are in.....that is.....we can draft a premium RB in the 1st, is that likely to solve our RB problems?

 

From 1986-2005.....bold = non success for team selecting RBs in top 12

 

LaDainian Tomlinson, Jamal Lewis, Thomas Jones, Ron Dayne, Edgerrin James, Ricky Williams, Curtis Enis, Fred Taylor, Warrick Dunn(????), Lawrence Phillips, Tim Biakabutuka, Ki-Jana Carter, Marshall Faulk, Garrison Hearst, Jerome Bettis, Tommy Vardell, Blair Thomas, Barry Sanders, Tim Worley, Sammie Smith, Alonzo Highsmith, Brent Fullwood, Bo Jackson

 

That's 23 RBs.

Only 6 of them panned out for the team selecting them.

Bettis was doing fine for the Rams, he just was wanted by the Steelers. Dunn also was well-regarded in TB. Ricky Williams was running well for the Saints but they didn't like his personality. Hearst and Bo Jackson looked like monsters before succumbing to injury. No way to know that before the draft. And as far as Thomas Jones goes, history proves him to be a decent back, and the Cardinals to be a terrible team. Whose fault is this? Basically, you add six guys who can produce to your list, and that makes 12 of the 23 good backs in this league -- about 50%. Which makes perfect sense.

[The Senator]

My uncle has a red pencil box.

I find this fascinating. Is the box red, or does your uncle use it to store red pencils?

[Dibs]

Bettis was doing fine for the Rams, he just was wanted by the Steelers. Dunn also was well-regarded in TB. Ricky Williams was running well for the Saints but they didn't like his personality. Hearst and Bo Jackson looked like monsters before succumbing to injury. No way to know that before the draft. And as far as Thomas Jones goes, history proves him to be a decent back, and the Cardinals to be a terrible team. Whose fault is this? Basically, you add six guys who can produce to your list, and that makes 12 of the 23 good backs in this league -- about 50%. Which makes perfect sense.

No.

This was my criteria.....as I stated.

"which premium picks do not pan out for the teams selecting them"

I asked that specific question because that is the only real one that relates to us drafting a RB in round 1. Everyone assumes it will be the answer when in fact the odds of getting a successful RB for the team are very slim.

 

The only question mark on the list was Dunn.......when he wasn't injured he was productive. Gone after 5 years(2 1000 yards seasons)

Hearst was a bust at Arizona.......no question.

Thomas Jones was a bust at Arizona......no question.

Bo Jackson never played more than 11 games in his 4 years at the Raiders. He certainly wasn't a long term solution for them.

 

I don't care if we draft a RB that will be gone in 4 years & produce for the next team......ala(potentially) WM......or get injured due to the transition to the pro level......I want us to have a RB that can produce for us for a good decade.

[JAMIEBUF12]

yeah that second round draft pick thurman thomas didn't work out all that well for the bills.he would have been the mvp for the first superbowl had we not missed that last second field goal and last i checked he is headed to canton this year.

[The Dean]

I find this fascinating. Is the box red, or does your uncle use it to store red pencils?

 

 

Excellent question, Senator. Allow me to share a little more of the story, as it as at least important to what the Bills may do in this year's draft (and to their ultimate success) as the stated theme of this thread.

 

The "box" is red. It is used ONLY to store red pencils that write in red. He acquired it for a treasured, but aging, green basket he used to store ONLY green vegetables. What was odd, was, everyone was shocked that he got a RED pencil box as he already had an acceptable, albeit unspectacular, red pencil box. His YELLOW pencils (standard #2s...the backbone of any great pencil and vegetable collection) were well organized and protected...but his BLUE pencils (rare and valuable) were scattered around, willy nilly. It was, most thought, the blue pencil collection that needed tending.

 

My uncle, in his typical idiosyncratic style, ignored the nay sayers, noting the blue pencils get the least use. "PROTECT THE RED" became his bizarre mantra.

 

We will never know if his strategy was a sound one. The NPVL (National Pencil and Vegetable League) was build on a house of cards, and folded two weeks after my uncled acquired his prized red pencil box. My uncle lost his life's savings and the work that drove him.

 

I'm sad to report, he was found dead yesterday. The cause is unknown, but the circumstances are suspicious. He was found with, of all things, a GREEN pencil shoved down his throat and a bright orange carrot shoved up his ass. He was clutching that red pencil box in his arms. He died, PROTECTING THE RED!

 

My uncle was an idiot.

[The Senator]

Excellent question, Senator. Allow me to share a little more of the story, as it as at least important to what the Bills may do in this year's draft (and to their ultimate success) as the stated theme of this thread.

 

The "box" is red. It is used ONLY to store red pencils that write in red. He acquired it for a treasured, but aging, green basket he used to store ONLY green vegetables. What was odd, was, everyone was shocked that he got a RED pencil box as he already had an acceptable, albeit unspectacular, red pencil box. His YELLOW pencils (standard #2s...the backbone of any great pencil and vegetable collection) were well organized and protected...but his BLUE pencils (rare and valuable) were scattered around, willy nilly. It was, most thought, the blue pencil collection that needed tending.

 

My uncle, in his typical idiosyncratic style, ignored the nay sayers, noting the blue pencils get the least use. "PROTECT THE RED" became his bizarre mantra.

 

We will never know if his strategy was a sound one. The NPVL (National Pencil and Vegetable League) was built on a house of cards, and folded two weeks after my uncle acquired his prized red pencil box. My uncle lost his life's savings and the work that drove him.

 

I'm sad to report, he was found dead yesterday. The cause is unknown, but the circumstances are suspicious. He was found with, of all things, a GREEN pencil shoved down his throat and a bright orange carrot shoved up his ass. He was clutching that red pencil box in his arms. He died, PROTECTING THE RED!

 

My uncle was an idiot.

I am most saddened to hear of your uncle's tragic end. He seemed like a wise man. I shall quaff a fine Canadian ale and shout...

 

"Posluszny!!!"

 

...at the top of my lungs, in your late uncle's honour!

 

On a somewhat related note, I ordered the Red Razor yesterday, in honour or your late uncle ("PROTECT THE RED") - and also to get that idiot Bono to stop clapping.

[BillsCelticsAngelsBama]

Excellent question, Senator. Allow me to share a little more of the story, as it as at least important to what the Bills may do in this year's draft (and to their ultimate success) as the stated theme of this thread.

 

The "box" is red. It is used ONLY to store red pencils that write in red. He acquired it for a treasured, but aging, green basket he used to store ONLY green vegetables. What was odd, was, everyone was shocked that he got a RED pencil box as he already had an acceptable, albeit unspectacular, red pencil box. His YELLOW pencils (standard #2s...the backbone of any great pencil and vegetable collection) were well organized and protected...but his BLUE pencils (rare and valuable) were scattered around, willy nilly. It was, most thought, the blue pencil collection that needed tending.

 

My uncle, in his typical idiosyncratic style, ignored the nay sayers, noting the blue pencils get the least use. "PROTECT THE RED" became his bizarre mantra.

 

We will never know if his strategy was a sound one. The NPVL (National Pencil and Vegetable League) was build on a house of cards, and folded two weeks after my uncled acquired his prized red pencil box. My uncle lost his life's savings and the work that drove him.

 

I'm sad to report, he was found dead yesterday. The cause is unknown, but the circumstances are suspicious. He was found with, of all things, a GREEN pencil shoved down his throat and a bright orange carrot shoved up his ass. He was clutching that red pencil box in his arms. He died, PROTECTING THE RED!

 

My uncle was an idiot.

Your story brought back memories that I have been hiding about my upbringing. Though it hurt greatly to read your story.. it also brought a healing that I thought would never occur. The healing power from hearing another's life tragedy can never be underestimated.

God Bless You for sharing this with all of us !! Also, what do you think about trading down in the first round to add more depth ??

[The Dean]

I am most saddened to hear of your uncle's tragic end. He seemed like a wise man. I shall quaff a fine Candadian ale and shout...

 

"Posluszny!!!"

 

...at the top of my lungs, in your late uncle's honour!

 

On a somewhat related note, I ordered the Red Razor yesterday, in honour or your late uncle ("PROTECT THE RED") - and also to get that idiot Bono to stop clapping.

 

 

Bravo! Way to take one for the team, Sen.

[The Senator]

Your story brought back memories that I have been hiding about my upbringing. Though it hurt greatly to read your story.. it also brought a healing that I thought would never occur. The healing power from hearing another's life tragedy can never be underestimated.

God Bless You for sharing this with all of us !! Also, what do you think about trading down in the first round to add more depth ??

I had to go away for a while, to watch Chevys and Fords drive around in circles which - in The Dean's home state - is called a "sport".

 

I would also like to know what The Dean's late uncle would have thought about trading down in the first round - I suspect the late Uncle Dean would want to see who's available at #12 before offering it up, along with his red pencil box, for more picks.