Pretend You're A General Manager in the NFL

Would you dish out serious cash for a RB?

I know I wouldnt and have thought this for a long time. RB is the most overrated position in the NFL by far. Maybe once a decade a player comes along that can change games. Peterson would be the only one for me to give a lot of money to right now.

Look at LT. He is easily replaceable to me. He is a great player, but it is hard for me to not see Turner doing just as well. Addai went out for a few weeks so what happens? Some guy named Keith comes in and rushed for 100 yards each week. I am assuming a lot of these guys get huge contracts because of other money they bring in, see LT.

 

I may have to disagree with you here. See how much of a hit the Saints offense took with Deuce out? RB is a very crucial position, unless you run a pass happy offense (see New England). I don't think I would put Michael Turner in the same league as LT, though. I can't understand why the Chargers were willing to pay a backup RB so much money for one year. LT is worlds ahead of Turner in terms of playmaking ability, if you ask me.

The bottom line is that in today's NFL, you need a strong running game to open up the passing game. Most teams just aren't able to rely on the QB and receivers alone.

 

I agree, but that wasn't my point. I was saying that certain RB's like LT, Emmit, or whomever don't make as much of a difference as the media like to tell you. Seriously, if Ryan Grant played the first quarter of the season he would have won the rushing title. Ryan fing Grant.

 

Okay, I'm Mickey, Bye Bye Reggie...Hello Mr. Dorsey...

:grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin:

 

Who was Emmitt Smith's backup in Dallas? Exactly. You bring up Ryan Grant. But the thing is, Green Bay never really had a number 1 back this season, IIRC. Ryan Grant stepped into a wide open job if you ask me and he performed his butt off, no doubt. Sure, Michael Turner stepped in and got the job done for SD today, but LT is the best back in the league. No way you can put them on the same page. Luckily for SD, their defense shut down the Indy offense. But I say a lot of those RBs that the media says make a difference, do, in fact, make a difference. Like my earlier reference to Deuce. I guarantee that the Saints would've made the playoffs this season had Deuce not gone down with an injury this season. I'd say for the most part, starting RBs in this league make a tremendous difference for their teams.

 

I think we are going to start seeing more and more teams doing the 2 RB setup, like NE. Heavy reliance on 1 superstar RB is getting way too dangerous. Plus, with a 2 back system, you have have both the bruiser and then a speedster to clean up.

That is the idea behind the Deuce/Bush setup but the more i watch Reggie play, i am not sure that he is the right player for that setup. A Deuce/Pierre Thomas setup might work a bit better.

 

First thing, the Saints only make the playoffs if Deuce becomes an All Pro CB. A good way to look mat is Fantasy football. Look at when big time RB's go down...People grab the backups and succeed because they know the RB drop off isn't there.

Every big time RB that went down this year had a successful backup come in. Larry Johnson, Joe Addai, Carnell Williams, Shaun Alexander, Adrian Peterson, Dominic Rhodes, Rudi Johnson...I'm sure there are more.

Seriously, maybe 1 back every 5-10 years should get the money he does.

 

I agree that a lot of times, backups will come in and post good numbers, but I just don't think they make the same difference as the starters do.

And yes, the Saints needed a CB, but with Deuce in the offense, I believe we score enough points to make up for our lack of a shutdown corner, just like last year.

 

I wouldn't dish out loads of money on RB if the team's offense has a proven system, ala, Denver, for instance. Look at the Colts, where the RB isn't the focal point. Find a decent guy, who does all the right things (pass protection, etc) to compliment Peyton and his WR's, and you have a winning combo. Only a team in the Colts position would have the gull to give up a Marshall Faulk.

There are plenty instances where a team or general manager should dish out the money for a RB. LT in San Diego is a prime example. Sure, they beat the Colts on Sunday. But, if they were go a whole season without him, no way are they competitive in the post-season. They would still make it since their division is a joke and their defense is talented.

 

No offense, but Deuce played 3 games and the Saints scored 10, 14 and 14 in those games and were a dominant 0-3.

That's a whopping 12+ points per game.

In those 3 games, he had 92 yards rushing, so I don't think the Saints offense suffered without him, but rather got much better without him, averaging 26 points per game.

But to the point at hand, RB is one of the least important aspects in the NFL.

A great offensive line can make a decent RB great
A bad offensive line can make a great RB look decent.

Point is, you need a hole to run through, so O-Line is most important, imo, behind the obvious No. 1 important position, quarterback.