Not true. You can still give Richardson 20-25 touches a game and Charles 15-20.

I guess I just don't see the sense in drafting an AP type RB to split carries.

Even last year when AP only played 12 games he was averaging 19 touches a game.

Vikes #2 who started the rest and played in all 16 averaged 8. If you take out the games he didn't start he was averaging 4 touches a game with AP healthy.

Now, Charles is better than Gerhart but hes not a 3 down back and sitting an AP type runner to accommodate someone else, even if it is Charles, just doesn't make sense to me.

you can't take a ****ing guard at #11

I don't care if he has lazer beam eyes and a 90 foot cock that doubles as an apartment complex for pets...


never...****ing...ever

you: "hey, what's KC's biggest need?"
me: "QB"
you: "hey, the best option at #11 is a guard"
me: "this is the button for apocalypse...I'm pushing it, nice knowing y'all"

Are we going to be the Denver Broncos now?

A couple of guards were taken at #17 (Steve Hutchinson, Mike Iupati) and #23 (Davin Joseph, Danny Watkins) and Chris Naeole was taken #10 overall.

It's a weak draft this year and DeCastro is a great prospect. I wouldn't be upset with him at #11.

Do you understand the difference between touches and carries?

Do you understand the ratio of rushes to catches RBs get?

The Broncos averaged 34 rushes a game.

Taking the best reception years of both Charles and Peterson and adding the ratio of rushes:catches to fit the 15-20 range for Charles and 20-25 range for Peterson you are looking at 30-36 rushes a game and about 5 catches combined.

I don't personally see how Richardson and Charles splitting touches/carries is a bad thing at all. Keeps them both healthier and fresh, so when and if we can sneak into the playoffs with Castle/or be a top 5 offense with Manning, we have to stud running backs who are both fresh and ready to run in the 3 games in the postseason.

i'm not drafting the least important player on the field in the first round (without trading down), unless my team is set everywhere else...guards are the easiest position in football to find in the draft...and you don't need all-pro guards anyways...unless your QB and RB both suck ass, in which case you should be drafting a QB or RB

for a team with our needs, it's a giant ****ing waste...not to mention it just makes me sick on principal, a team that won't draft QBs but will draft guards..


*edit*

I'm not trying to be argumentative in this thread or derail it...this my second favorite thread of the year...just blowing off QB-related steam which sprays indiscriminately...

Disagree. A big, strong guard who can block giant tackles that is also athletic enough to pull and smart enough to pick up blitzes can open up the offense quite a bit. Sure, you can find guards late. I also think you can find RBs late. In a normal draft DeCastro wouldn't need to be taken this high, but it's a very weak draft.

You do realize that you're talking about an offense that has less balance than the 2010 offense, right?

I think with the thought of Matt Cassel being the starter fresh in their minds, that's the only option people see.

Myself, I'd rather not take Richardson...

Nope. Check his wall.

To be fair, Cassel's actually a halfway decent QB when the run game is on.

Richardson/Charles ensures that it's on for all 16 games.

You'll get nothing but 27/7 seasons out of him with that kind of consistency running the ball.

Seahawks badly need a QB or a DE. Both positions have been overdrafted so far. ROFL

SNR's in a bad place.

If he were comfortable with their character concerns, I'd go with either of the stud corners here.

Kuechly wouldn't be too bad of a fit, either. And there's always DeCastro, since Robert Gallery sucks the penis.

It just sucks SNR has to settle for this kind of bullshit.