Gurley is really good, forst rounder, great running back.

He was obviously better, but in terms of long term value added to your team, how much more valuable is he than David johnson, a 3rd rounder?

Obviously, yeah, he's a better runner, but say gurley is a 90 value guy and johnson is a 75. Is that 15 hypothetical value worth the pick on a spot that has longevity issues from the beating they take? I dunno.

If you hit on any player, you aren't gonna regret it but you still could have gone about it differently

I mean yea that works in hindsight, but you can do that with just about any position. Of course it happens a little more often with RB's, but it's still the same thing.

Nobody knew David Johnson was going to be that good, or else he would've been draft much higher. (I also need to see him do it again next season to be completely sold that there isn't a huge difference)

And yea if there's a better (or equal) player there at a more premium position like OLB, you go in a different direction, but if Cook is clearly BPA, I'm not passing him up because of the position he plays. That just silly IMO.

I agree your draft board should reflect what you're talking about, but you still stick with it and don't completely exclude a talent like Cook in the 1st simply because he's a RB.

Go back and look at how many lesser prospects were drafted ahead of Gurley and you'll see not only did the Rams hit, they got great value also.

Drafting at the end of the first sucks, but if I can get a top 15 talent there, then I'm going to take it and run.

I believe you're overrating the positional value and underrating the talent value.

Possibly.

But the chiefs were example 1a last year. Charles is a much better talent and player than ware or west.

But in the overall scheme it wasn't a huge letdown.

I think the chiefs are better with charles, but as to how much, I dunno.

I personally wouldn't draft a rb in the first round.

I understand and somewhat agree with your argument, which is why it'll be reflected on my big board.

Check out Corey Clement though, if you really like Cook aside from all that, you'll love the value that could possibly be had in Clement a round later.

The 'value' of a draft pick only matters for the first 4-5 years and after that you're paying FA prices for them anyway.

So who cares if the guy ages poorly; all the draft pick itself really matters for is what you're able to get from him early and maybe a little marginal value to be gained by the chance that familiarity and an exclusive negotiating window gets you a slightly reduced contract.

And as Staylor has pointed out, it's hardly fair to point out the late round hits and compare them to the early rounders. Why not ask what Gurley gives you that Duke Johnson doesn't? Should we not be impressed by the Marcus Peters pick since Carolina got Josh Norman in like the 5th? Or the Seahawks late round hit on Richard Sherman? Should the Eagles avoid drafting WRs in the early rounds because Maclin wasn't a better player than Antonio Brown?

It's just an odd way to look at things. In a vacuum, if you can get a guy that will step seamlessly into your system and potentially be a big time contributor in year 1, he's a fine first round pick. If the team sees Cook as a true home-run hitter and possible immediate 1,000 yard RB with the ability to catch 40 balls for 3-400 yards, that's an obvious first round value.

Now if they believe they already have that in Ware, the calculus changes, but that's a team needs question and not a positional value question.

I suspect it's because of the number that's used, but late round running backs arent the same as the others you've mentioned.

It seems every year there's 3 or 4 late round running backs churned out. Yearly, on average I'd say I can find an adequate late round running back.

Now, this is where it gets interesting to me. On a pure war type value, whats the difference in say, what you get from cook in your above numbers (say an a in numerical value) and a guy later that fits what you do and would be a b?

I don't know the answer, I'm posing the question

Here's my opinion...

Charles has tremendous value because of his value in all 3 facets of the game (running for a high average, blocking efficiency, and pass receiving). Gurley has shown he can be that type of player. Elliott will be a similar back in the NFL. I think Cook possesses most of that ability.

When you use running back by committee, and you use later round guys, they are incomplete players most of the time. So, what are you willing to sacrifice on any given play in order to gain that round value compromise?

It is rarely significant rushing production you are giving up. Cook might run for, say, 4.8 yards per carry, whereas a 5th round back might run for 4.0 because of lack of similar vision, speed, and power. Even if you're a team heavily reliant on the run, that's still not going to be significant over the course of 17 carries during a game or 275 carries during a season. A 1,300 yard back vs. an 1,100 yard back. If 10 yards rushing decides a game, there are bigger problems.

Now, Cook might have 5 catches per game for 40 yards. Will that 5th round back be a complete player and be able to catch the ball well? What if that back sucks at catching, averages 1 catch for 5 yards per game? Now you need a complimentary back to offset that extra production. You need 2 players instead of one to get the same on-field production. However, you're also tipping your hand to the likely play call. You have to use your complimentary back in the run game to keep the defense honest, and you might have a guy that can only churn out 3.0 yards per carry. Now, you're losing to gain.

What about blocking? Can either of your 2 bargain backs pass block? What if your ace receiving back can't pass block? You put in your "lead" back and now you have a guy that can't function well as a receiver in an audible situation, on the field for his pass blocking.

A complete player is always a better value than an incomplete player. Again, the only question is based on how much are you willing to give up in field value to gain round value. You will give something up.

This is all true.

It's easier to find all around players earlier. But in my opinion, it's easier to find capable backs later to assemble my 2 or whatever guus that can play. Some of that stuff I can teach them to do (pass protections, blocking etc). You can find capable backs late in every draft.

I think it's alot more difficult to find say, capable qbs or capable olb later than it is to find rbs.

As you've said, there's value in being able to have 1 guy do what it could take 3 to get done. But, I think it's more difficult to find that one pass rusher or qb than it is rb.

Basically, it's positional value to me.

'One pass rusher' isn't an all around player; it's a pass rusher. And it's not common to find a 'do everything' pass rusher in the late 1st. Justin Houston's don't come along everyday.

I just don't think you're holding every position to the same standard. A CB that's as good in press as he is in zone, as good in coverage as he is in run support, plays physical but has good closing speed - those guys aren't popping up in the 3rd. A 3-down ILB isn't popping up in the 3rd. Those guys are going way high in the draft and it's a very similar story for RBs.

I think the RB positions is slowly morphing into an extreme market inefficiency. I don't think you can get a guy that projects to be a rounded OLB in the mid-late 20s these days. Or a premier shutdown CB. I don't think you find many positions with prospects that project to be top 5 guys past the teens; I'm not so sure that's the case at RB.

Every position has guys that outplay their projections but when you're talking draft value, don't you have to stay w/ their projected value?

Well, I think we're getting into alot of stuff that's more development than what they're actually coming in with. Alot of those late round picks are gonna be guys that need to be developed one way or another, or they wouldn't be available there.

But that's a different conversation all together, that the teams that seem to draft the best actually develop the best.

I do think obviously the firat round is your best place to find the best talent, I just don't know that great running back talent is that much more valuable than simply good running back talent.

This will never ever happen.

Demarcus walker is very intriguing to me. He abused Miami last year.

I like Walker, he's just a tweener. He's too undersized to be an every down DL, but yet not quite athletic enough to play OLB. I'd say value wise, he's a similar prospect to Sheldon Day. He'd be a great mid round pick.

If he could add 10 pounds, he'd be nice.

Looks more of a fit in a 43 under type dl where he can attack but he's really good.

Yea I agree that's where he fits best. He could be a really good interior pass rusher in sub packages.