Would you consider Josh Jacobs at 29?

[staylor26]

Just got done watching his tape, and I’d have to say I’d be tempted. Normally I’m against a RB in the 1st, but this guy truly has elite upside. He runs very hard, he’s quick with good speed, he can catch the ball out of the backfield and is damgerous in space, and he can block/pass protect very well. He has some ridiculous blocks in his highlight video.

Would you trade our 1st for a guy like Kamara on a 4 year rookie contract with the 5th year option? That’s incredible value that we’re honestly unlikely to get at corner or safety all the way down at 29 for instance.

I still probably wouldn’t do it, but I’d be lying if I said I wouldn’t consider it.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by UChieffyBugger

Because it's been proven that the vast majority of the elite rb's playing today were taken in the first round. Hunt and Kamara seem to have given folks the false notion that it's easy to get a very good rb in the later rounds but there's a big difference between "elite" and "good" imo.

As for the question. Yes, i'd do it if we are getting the next Zeke/Gurley/Bell/Gordon etc. Becaise as much as the defense needs help, I think the offesnse needs some pieces too just to keep it at a high level for next year.

There just isn't that big of a difference between a good back and an elite one. They don't bring that much value.

[staylor26]

Originally Posted by O.city

There just isn't that big of a difference between a good back and an elite one. They don't bring that much value.

While there’s some truth to that, Gurley/Kamara/Hunt/Elliot/Gordon were all in the playoffs (not Hunt technically but the team was you get the point) and the Steelers missed out without Bell.

Elite RB’s certainly make a difference in terms of winning football games, and there’s no denying that. Just because they’re not entirely difficult to replace doesn’t mean they don’t make a big difference.

[staylor26]

Again, I’m with you guys on the don’t take a RB high thing, but we’re talking about pick 29 here. If you can get an elite RB at 29 I think you’d be silly not to at least consider it. I’m pretty sure there will be a defensive player that I’d prefer still on the board, but the truth is a guy like Dee Ford is probably as good as it gets there.

If a genius like Bill was willing to do it last year for a guy that’s not even elite, I don’t understand why people think it’s so crazy.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by staylor26

While there’s some truth to that, Gurley/Kamara/Hunt/Elliot/Gordon were all in the playoffs (not Hunt technically but the team was you get the point) and the Steelers missed out without Bell.

Elite RB’s certainly make a difference in terms of winning football games, and there’s no denying that. Just because they’re not entirely difficult to replace doesn’t mean they don’t make a big difference.

Eh, that's true.

I'm not trying to come off saying they aren't good to have. Sure, if you have one it's nice.

But I'm not spending a first looking for one. Atleast at 29, you can maybe justify it because there isn't going to be a lot of elite blue chippers left by then, but still.

There is just too much evidence every year that they can be found everywhere.

And in terms of Hunt, doesn't that kind of reiterate my point? The Chiefs lost Hunt, threw in a RB they signed for pennies and he did what he did in the playoffs.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by staylor26

Again, I’m with you guys on the don’t take a RB high thing, but we’re talking about pick 29 here. If you can get an elite RB at 29 I think you’d be silly not to at least consider it. I’m pretty sure there will be a defensive player that I’d prefer still on the board, but the truth is a guy like Dee Ford is probably as good as it gets there.

If a genius like Bill was willing to do it last year for a guy that’s not even elite, I don’t understand why people think it’s so crazy.

That's the problem though. A Dee Ford player brings just as much value, if not more, than an elite level RB. From a usage standpoint, from a money standpoint etc.

Getting a Dee Ford type player on a 5 year contract for cheap is super ass valuable, especially when you can get say, 80% of (insert elite RB) in the 3rd or 4th round.

[staylor26]

Originally Posted by O.city

That's the problem though. A Dee Ford player brings just as much value, if not more, than an elite level RB. From a usage standpoint, from a money standpoint etc.

Getting a Dee Ford type player on a 5 year contract for cheap is super ass valuable, especially when you can get say, 80% of (insert elite RB) in the 3rd or 4th round.

A Dee Ford is also likely going to take much more time and development, where RB could give you elite play from day 1. Would you really take Dee Ford’s 5 years over those elite RB’s?

I’m kind of playing devil’s advocate here, but I’m open to it.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by staylor26

A Dee Ford is also likely going to take much more time and development, where RB could give you elite play from day 1. Would you really take Dee Ford’s 5 years over those elite RB’s?

I’m kind of playing devil’s advocate here, but I’m open to it.

Sure, that's not wrong.

But I can also find an UDFA RB that can give me good play at RB from day one as well while said Dee Ford player is developing a little.

I think Ford's developmental curve was a little stunted due to injury and playing time, hopefully that wouldn't be the norm.

[staylor26]

Originally Posted by O.city

Sure, that's not wrong.

But I can also find an UDFA RB that can give me good play at RB from day one as well while said Dee Ford player is developing a little.

I think Ford's developmental curve was a little stunted due to injury and playing time, hopefully that wouldn't be the norm.

Both good points, like I said I’d lean against it, but I can see a scenario where he’s in my top 5.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by staylor26

Both good points, like I said I’d lean against it, but I can see a scenario where he’s in my top 5.

I'm kind of at the point where I just want them to take a good player that can help, pretty quickly.

Be it a ILB, Safety, Guard whatever.

I won't be pissed if they take a RB that late in the first, once you get back there it is what it is.

But if they take Jacobs with Hockerson or someone like that on the board, that would suck.

[staylor26]

Originally Posted by O.city

I'm kind of at the point where I just want them to take a good player that can help, pretty quickly.

Be it a ILB, Safety, Guard whatever.

I won't be pissed if they take a RB that late in the first, once you get back there it is what it is.

But if they take Jacobs with Hockerson or someone like that on the board, that would suck.

Agreed. Ideally, Jacobs goes before our pick and pushes a defensive prospect down.

[O.city]

One other thing with taking a RB there, is that while you do get 5 cheap years, you pretty much aren't going to think about resigning them after that. 5 years of wear and tear and they'll be worn down.

It's probably a non factor, what with how short careers are anyway, but it's alteast a talking point i'm bringing up after having 2 cups of coffee this morning.

[O.city]

I just don't think Andy values them high enough to take one in the first. That to me kind of makes it a non starter.

I just don't think he'd ever allocate that resource to one there, with how good he is at scheming them.

[RunKC]

Originally Posted by O.city

Eh, that's true.

I'm not trying to come off saying they aren't good to have. Sure, if you have one it's nice.

But I'm not spending a first looking for one. Atleast at 29, you can maybe justify it because there isn't going to be a lot of elite blue chippers left by then, but still.

There is just too much evidence every year that they can be found everywhere.

And in terms of Hunt, doesn't that kind of reiterate my point? The Chiefs lost Hunt, threw in a RB they signed for pennies and he did what he did in the playoffs.

30 yards on 10 carries?

Damien is a really good receiving back, but he’s not a tough between the tackles, get extra yards by breaking tackles back.

I’m with staylor here. Jacobs isn’t my first choice, but he should be considered. I see him and think “man that guy really is a faster Kareem Hunt.”

Board should have multiple defensive stars for us though. It’s a deep class.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by RunKC

30 yards on 10 carries?

Damien is a really good receiving back, but he’s not a tough between the tackles, get extra yards by breaking tackles back.

I’m with staylor here. Jacobs isn’t my first choice, but he should be considered. I see him and think “man that guy really is a faster Kareem Hunt.”

Board should have multiple defensive stars for us though. It’s a deep class.

In the playoffs, Williams had 35 carries for 160 yards and 2 TD's, caught 10 passes for 91 yards and 2 TD's.

And that is supposed to make me want to spend a first round pick on a RB to replace him because player runs better between the tackles?

Nah, no thanks.

Grab a guy in the 3rd or 4th round to do that if you want to.

[Best22]

Our offense “struggled” without Kareem?

I think that’s because we played tougher opponents. Once Hunt was cut, we played Oaklandx2, Chargers, Seattle, Ravens, Colts, and Pats. 5 playoff teams. And we still averaged 29.6ppg vs those playoff teams.

We need premier, starting caliber defensive players. We have a great shot at getting one in the first round. It can’t be wasted on an offensive luxury

Which RB actually won the Superbowl? Burkhead, White, and Michel.