Week 8: Non-Packers

Kerb Hohl · Post #401 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Tue Nov 1, 2011 8:18 pm

I misread what chuckles was saying, I guess. I'm not trying to make bogus arguments to piss you off here, no **** a substitute at any position will fill in and provide replacement level for X player.

I'm not trying to manipulate things with silly arguments, I hastily gave a false number in the Vikings leads at half, and I didn't read what was said before chuck's thing I guess.

Point is, given draft position, dollars paid, etc. I am pretty sure the league values running backs more than centers and guards. Not to say those positions haven't had a little surge as of late if identified as valuable, but to say I'd look at the center position before RB when building is kinda insane.

You're also doing the same bringing up records to judge Peterson and Forte saying "it couldn't be much worse" with Peterson.

I think the Vikings with McNabb and without Peterson was probably the worst offense in football. Throw in Mangold and they're still 0-8.

chuckleslove · Post #402 » by **chuckleslove** » Tue Nov 1, 2011 8:23 pm

Eh, I think the Colts are worse than the Vikings but yeah they would be near the bottom just arguing semantics at that point, the Colts are really really bad.

WRau1 · Post #403 » by **WRau1** » Tue Nov 1, 2011 8:25 pm

The difference between a great HB and a serviceable HB is pretty small, I'm not a fan of spending early picks or large amounts of $ on them.

Newz · Post #404 » by **Newz** » Tue Nov 1, 2011 8:31 pm

Grendon,

I think I'm a bit annoyed by this conversation due to what LUKE and the other guy said. I'm sick of people taking something I say and then twisting it so that they can respond with something lacking any common sense.

I put a HUGE emphasis on the offensive and defensive lines when it comes to the NFL. With a good offensive line, you can both protect your QB and make a mediocre RB put up very good numbers. I realize one center doesn't do that on his own, but if you have a guy like Pouncey it is a great start.

I'd agree AP has more talent and at times can be more dominant. However, I'd go with the guy who can protect my QB, help open up my run game and will (in most cases) have a much longer career than the RB as a whole, a much longer prime as the RB, etc.

I have said SEVERAL times I didn't bring up the record thing as a way to say "Peterson isn't good". He is good, very good. I'd love to have him on any team if I was a GM, obviously. I was just pointing out that the Vikings sucked regardless of him. Like you said, that could be said about most players at most positions. I ALREADY SAID I AGREE WITH THAT. Like other people brought up, Jake Long being on a **** team doesn't make him a **** player.

So again... I AGREE, AGREE, AGREE TIMES 230874092734092734 **** TIMES.

I'm not sure how many times I have to type it out for people to get it.

Kerb Hohl · Post #405 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Tue Nov 1, 2011 8:39 pm

I'm annoyed by your LaRussa-esque paranoia. I'm not twisting anything you're saying.

You brought up their record, and I noted that without him, they'd be disgustingly bad. I don't think a center has ever changed a team that much. The fact that the rest of AP's team sucks doesn't downgrade his importance.

Newz · Post #406 » by **Newz** » Tue Nov 1, 2011 8:42 pm

GrendonJennings wrote:I'm annoyed by your LaRussa-esque paranoia. I'm not twisting anything you're saying.

I never said you did. Hence the "I think I'm a bit annoyed by this conversation due to what LUKE and the other guy said. ".

The other guy not being you, being the other guy I was telling to STFU on the other page because he was saying I thought AP was 'slightly more valuable' than a kicker. Can anyone on here read today? What the hell is going on?

You brought up their record, and I noted that without him, they'd be disgustingly bad. I don't think a center has ever changed a team that much. The fact that the rest of AP's team sucks doesn't downgrade his importance.

Also copied from my last post:

"I have said SEVERAL times I didn't bring up the record thing as a way to say "Peterson isn't good". He is good, very good. I'd love to have him on any team if I was a GM, obviously. I was just pointing out that the Vikings sucked regardless of him. Like you said, that could be said about most players at most positions. I ALREADY SAID I AGREE WITH THAT. Like other people brought up, Jake Long being on a **** team doesn't make him a **** player.

So again... I AGREE, AGREE, AGREE TIMES 230874092734092734 **** TIMES.

I'm not sure how many times I have to type it out for people to get it."

Read plz? PLZ????

Kerb Hohl · Post #407 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Tue Nov 1, 2011 8:42 pm

WRau1 wrote:The difference between a great HB and a serviceable HB is pretty small, I'm not a fan of spending early picks or large amounts of $ on them.

For the most part I'm not either.

But that also applies to centers, most guards, most safeties, most MLBs.

There are elite ones at all positions and in these positions of lesser need, it is even more irrelevant.

Kerb Hohl · Post #408 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Tue Nov 1, 2011 8:43 pm

Newz, you are really not understanding what I'm saying.

Kerb Hohl · Post #409 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Tue Nov 1, 2011 8:44 pm

How about this:

I'd prefer Adrian Peterson and Scott Wells over Mangold and Starks.

1/15 at each position, I'd venture to guess...right?

Newz · Post #410 » by **Newz** » Tue Nov 1, 2011 8:58 pm

GrendonJennings wrote:How about this:

I'd prefer Adrian Peterson and Scott Wells over Mangold and Starks.

1/15 at each position, I'd venture to guess...right?

I'm not sure Starks is 15 and Wells is probably higher than 15th in terms of centers. The Packers rated him as their best offensive lineman last year and Josh Sitton is on our team.

So I'd rather have Wells and Peterson if we are using those players.

However, if it was Mangold and Starks against Peterson and whoever the actual 15th best center is... I'd probably rather have Mangold and Starks.

That one is tough though, because AP really is a freak and exceeds the normal value of his position. But I still think I'd rather take the start on having a great offensive line while still having a good back as opposed to having a great back and just a solid center.

LUKE23 · Post #411 » by **LUKE23** » Tue Nov 1, 2011 9:00 pm

However, if it was Mangold and Starks against Peterson and whoever the actual 15th best center is... I'd probably rather have Mangold and Starks.

This is insane to me.

Newz · Post #412 » by **Newz** » Tue Nov 1, 2011 9:11 pm

LUKE23 wrote:
However, if it was Mangold and Starks against Peterson and whoever the actual 15th best center is... I'd probably rather have Mangold and Starks.

This is insane to me.

The way I look at it is I have:

Mangold playing at an elite level for probably 8 more years and then probably at a decent level (possibly elite) for 3-4 more. I have Starks playing well for 3-5 years.

With whoever the 15th best center is I have a guy playing well for probably 8 more years. Then I have AP being the best player at his position for 2-3 more seasons before he inevitably burns out like every other running back when they hit 30. Maybe he squeezes out a year or two more of being elite, but most likely not.

I clearly place more of an emphasis on the offensive line than you do. I believe all five spots are incredibly important. The league is becoming more and more pass heavy. I think protecting your QB, especially with the strict concussion rules, is very important. In addition, the better your offensive line is, the less you have to worry about having a great running back to have an effective running game.

I think RBs will start to become more important once again as they continue to evolve. I think pass blocking and the ability to catch out of the backfield is extremely important in today's NFL and it will only become more and more important. I think guys who can split out and play some slot WR adds a lot of value as well.

I realize how much I value the offensive line probably isn't very popular, but I don't really care.

LUKE23 · Post #413 » by **LUKE23** » Tue Nov 1, 2011 9:16 pm

Nobody has said OL isn't important. There is a difference between that, and saying you'd take the top C over the top RB, when the top RB (especially added to this offense) for example, is far more impactful on improving the points scored. To me, if you're saying you'd take Mangold and Starks over the #15 C and AD, you think we'd put up more points with Mangold and Starks. And there is just simply no way that is true.

If the current Packers had AD, they would be pushing 40 PPG. Hell, might be over it. That isn't the case moving from Wells to Mangold.

chuckleslove · Post #414 » by **chuckleslove** » Tue Nov 1, 2011 9:18 pm

I don't think AP added to our offense would increase the scoring nearly as much as you think. We would run the ball more(maybe) and be more effective at it(definitely) but that means we are throwing less which is where we really score our quick points.

I think we would have more time of possession and our defense would be off the field and perform better but I don't think we would necessarily be scoring more points with a running back of his caliber.

LUKE23 · Post #415 » by **LUKE23** » Tue Nov 1, 2011 9:20 pm

chuckleslove wrote:I don't think AP added to our offense would increase the scoring nearly as much as you think. We would run the ball more(maybe) and be more effective at it(definitely) but that means we are throwing less which is where we really score our quick points.

I think we would have more time of possession and our defense would be off the field and perform better but I don't think we would necessarily be scoring more points with a running back of his caliber.

The Packers would never punt if they had a RB that was elusive AND powerful AND quick. There would simply be no way to stop them. I agree their possessions would be longer, but they would also be punting/kicking FG's far less frequently, and the D would be performing better, which helps TOP.

Kerb Hohl · Post #416 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Tue Nov 1, 2011 9:22 pm

Wells has been constantly in there the past 2 years and we couldn't run with Jackson/Kuhn yet we can run at least at a nice clip with Starks/Grant.

EDIT: Maybe not. Haven't looked at YPC.

Newz · Post #417 » by **Newz** » Tue Nov 1, 2011 9:22 pm

LUKE23 wrote:Nobody has said OL isn't important. There is a difference between that, and saying you'd take the top C over the top RB, when the top RB (especially added to this offense) for example, is far more impactful on improving the points scored. To me, if you're saying you'd take Mangold and Starks over the #15 C and AD, you think we'd put up more points with Mangold and Starks. And there is just simply no way that is true.

If the current Packers had AD, they would be pushing 40 PPG. Hell, might be over it. That isn't the case moving from Wells to Mangold.

If it was a matter of just this year, I might rather have AD/15th best center. But when I factor in value, I factor in that RBs usually have very short primes. They tend to get hurt and burn out often if you run them a ton.

So I'd rather go with the center who is more likely to give me 10-20 years of greatness than the RB who is likely to give me 4-7.

I'd also be far more willing to resign a center to top center money than I would be to sign a top RB to top RB money, because I trust the center a lot more to live up to his contract.

Kerb Hohl · Post #418 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Tue Nov 1, 2011 9:24 pm

So last year, Jackson ran for 3.7 YPC. Kuhn was at 3.3.

This year Starks is at 4.5 and Grant is at 4.

Both years, we had the same yards/game and yards/carry because Aaron Rodgers ran a lot more.

Newz · Post #419 » by **Newz** » Tue Nov 1, 2011 9:26 pm

GrendonJennings wrote:Wells has been constantly in there the past 2 years and we couldn't run with Jackson/Kuhn yet we can run at least at a nice clip with Starks/Grant.

EDIT: Maybe not. Haven't looked at YPC.

Grant is at 4.0 this year and Starks is at 4.5. The emergence of Lang at LG and Bulaga continuing to get better at RT also has an impact.

However, Kuhn isn't even a HB, he is a FB that was put in as a HB. Brandon Jackson I loved as a player (because of his blitz pick up and hands)... but he was an absolutely horrendous runner. Having him in on passing downs was great, on first or second he was terrible.

Just because I value it the least of positions doesn't mean I don't think there are good and bad players at RB. Though I do think it's rather easy to get solid RBs. (Starks in the 6th, trading a 7th or whatever it was for Grant being a good example)

You went from talking about "how about having an average RB and a top tier C" to "how about having a full back and one of the worst actual runners in football". There's a big difference and you know it.

Kerb Hohl · Post #420 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Tue Nov 1, 2011 9:27 pm

Newz wrote:
GrendonJennings wrote:Wells has been constantly in there the past 2 years and we couldn't run with Jackson/Kuhn yet we can run at least at a nice clip with Starks/Grant.

EDIT: Maybe not. Haven't looked at YPC.

Grant is at 4.0 this year and Starks is at 4.5. The emergence of Lang at LG and Bulaga continuing to get better at RT also has an impact.

However, Kuhn isn't even a HB, he is a FB that was put in as a HB. Brandon Jackson I loved as a player (because of his blitz pick up and hands)... but he was an absolutely horrendous runner. Having him in on passing downs was great, on first or second he was terrible.

Just because I value it the least of positions doesn't mean I don't think there are good and bad players at RB. Though I do think it's rather easy to get solid RBs. (Starks in the 6th, trading a 7th or whatever it was for Grant being a good example)

You went from talking about "how about having an average RB and a top tier C" to "how about having a full back and one of the worst actual runners in football". There's a big difference and you know it.

Basically every center outside of the 2 or 3 elite ones is a low round pick as well.