Week 8: Non-Packers

[Newz]

I basically take the BPA besides RB/K/P until round 3/4. Then I throw RB into the mix. Around round 6/7 I consider K/P.

So if AD was in this draft at our 2nd rounder, say pick 60, you pass?

Do I know he is going to be Adrian Peterson?

If I do, then yeah. I'd probably take him early in the first. I'm not sure how you just know a guy is going to be the best player at his position before the draft even occurs though.

[Newz]

You aren't getting logical answers (from me at least) because you aren't being logical. EVERYONE here agrees RBs can be found cheaply and shouldn't be given massive deals because their careers are very short. That being said, if you can get an elite back like Peterson, Foster, Jackson, Forte, Gore, etc. you do it because they can be game changers.

Did I say I wouldn't want those guys on my team or something?

Saying a RB, no matter how talented, is barely more valuable than a punter is flat out ridiculous.

When did I say they were 'barely more valuable than a punter'? WTF are you babbling about?

Maybe you should learn to read and then you wouldn't think I was so illogical.

[PkrsBcksGphsMqt]

When did I ever say Adrian Peterson wasn't a great player or had an impact on a team winning games?

Well you pointed to the fact that the Vikings were 2-6 as an example of why a RB doesn't win you games and was barely as valuable as a kicker/punter.

[LUKE23]

I basically take the BPA besides RB/K/P until round 3/4. Then I throw RB into the mix. Around round 6/7 I consider K/P.

So if AD was in this draft at our 2nd rounder, say pick 60, you pass?

Do I know he is going to be Adrian Peterson?

If I do, then yeah. I'd probably take him early in the first. I'm not sure how you just know a guy is going to be the best player at his position before the draft even occurs though.

Doesn't that contradict what you just said (again)? What do you mean, "do I know he's going to be AD"? You don't' know what ANY player is going to be. I'm talking if AD is in this draft coming out of Oklahama.

I kind of agree with ****. You're not getting logical answers because your assertions aren't logical.

[Newz]

When did I ever say Adrian Peterson wasn't a great player or had an impact on a team winning games?

Well you pointed to the fact that the Vikings were 2-6 as an example of why a RB doesn't win you games and was barely as valuable as a kicker/punter.

Holy **** ****.

I am honestly about ready to put you on ignore. You (or someone) said "How much worse can they be without Adrian Peterson." so I replied "Well, they are already 2-6.". It was to point out that they can't get much worse without him, they suck either way.

I have no **** idea why you think I think they are 'barely as valuable as a kicker/punter'. What the **** are you talking about? What is the position you value the least besides K/P? Center? Safety? MLB? So does that mean you think Pouncey or Polomalu or Patrick Willis are only 'barely more valuable than a kicker/punter'?

Use some common sense. Jesus christ man.

[Newz]

Doesn't that contradict what you just said (again)? What do you mean, "do I know he's going to be AD"? You don't' know what ANY player is going to be. I'm talking if AD is in this draft coming out of Oklahama.

I kind of agree with ****. You're not getting logical answers because your assertions aren't logical.

Yes. If a running back that was projected to be a top 5-15 pick dropped to the 60th pick, I would take them. Thanks for "proving your point" by presenting something totally illogical in the first place.

Yes, if a guy at any position drops 45 spots later than they are supposed to I would take them. What the hell does that prove?

[LUKE23]

So let me get this straight:

1. You'd trade AD for the top player at any position other than K/P
2. You basically take the BPA besides RB/K/P until round 3/4. Then I throw RB into the mix. Around round 6/7 I consider K/P.
3. AD is so good, that you would completely forget about your hard lined ruled in #2, yet you'd still do the trade listed in #1

Sorry if I'm not following. It doesn't make sense at all man. It's completely contradictory.

[Newz]

So let me get this straight:

1. You'd trade AD for the top player at any position other than K/P
2. You basically take the BPA besides RB/K/P until round 3/4. Then I throw RB into the mix. Around round 6/7 I consider K/P.
3. AD is so good, that you would completely forget about your hard lined ruled in #2, yet you'd still do the trade listed in #1

Sorry if I'm not following. It doesn't make sense at all man. It's completely contradictory.

But it makes sense that a prospect projected in the top 10 picks in a draft would drop to 60?

I'm glad that you and I have no where near the same definition of something "making sense".

[LUKE23]

But it makes sense that a prospect projected in the top 10 picks in a draft would drop to 60?

Mine is a hypothetical, not a prediction, that is pretty clear. I'm not the one who said it would happen, but I was wondering about your ridiculous rule of not even considering any RB until round 3 (which was then reversed). You're the one making the absolute claims about draft position, which apparently aren't that absolute at all.

[Newz]

But it makes sense that a prospect projected in the top 10 picks in a draft would drop to 60?

Mine is a hypothetical, not a prediction, that is pretty clear. I'm not the one who said it would happen, but I was wondering about your ridiculous rule of not even considering any RB until round 3 (which was then reversed). You're the one making the absolute claims about draft position, which apparently aren't that absolute at all.

When did I say those claims were "absolute"?

Yes, if a running back is available that was supposed to go 50 spots ago in the draft drops to me, I will take them. No, I will not take a running back that was slotted to go around 40-55 when I am drafting 60.

I didn't realize I had to clarify something so obvious for you, but there it is. You got me, you caught me in a bold face lie.

You and PkrsBcksGphsMqt win for the day. One of you idiots figured out that I would draft a top 10 prospect with the 60th pick and the other one figured out that I apparently 'value Adrian Peterson "slightly more" than Mason Crosby'.

Give me a **** break.

[LUKE23]

I find it odd you are getting this worked up, when your claims made in this thread are the reason so many people are responding. Many of the claims are highly questionable. But to each his own, I'll bow out here.

[Newz]

I find it odd you are getting this worked up, when your claims made in this thread are the reason so many people are responding. Many of the claims are highly questionable. But to each his own, I'll bow out here.

You would bow out.

I don't mind if people respond to what I say and have a constructive conversation. Not "Oh, Newz wouldn't take a top 10 draft prospect at 60 because he doesn't value running backs!" or "Oh! Newz thinks Adrian Peterson is only slightly more valuable than a kicker.".

Sorry if I bring out a lack of common sense in you.

[Turk Nowitzki]

WTF is going on this thread?

[Ayt]

Both of those teams win more because of their defenses than their running backs.

Also the Bears are only 4-3 with wins over Minnesota and Carolina.

I would hardly say the Bears have some dominant running back that is carrying them to a great season.

The 49ers I agree Gore has played a huge role in their record, but they have the best defense(in terms of PPG allowed) in the NFL.

The 49ers have scored 43 less points than the Packers and the Bears have scored 60 less points than the Packers, both in 7 games. So if the point of offense is to score points those "dominant" running backs you are pointing out really aren't helping the Bears and 49ers score a lot of points.

Forte leads the league in yards from scrimmage. If the Bears didn't have him, they'd only get past midfield via STs, interceptions, and fumble returns.

[chuckleslove]

Both of those teams win more because of their defenses than their running backs.

Also the Bears are only 4-3 with wins over Minnesota and Carolina.

I would hardly say the Bears have some dominant running back that is carrying them to a great season.

The 49ers I agree Gore has played a huge role in their record, but they have the best defense(in terms of PPG allowed) in the NFL.

The 49ers have scored 43 less points than the Packers and the Bears have scored 60 less points than the Packers, both in 7 games. So if the point of offense is to score points those "dominant" running backs you are pointing out really aren't helping the Bears and 49ers score a lot of points.

Forte leads the league in yards from scrimmage. If the Bears didn't have him, they'd only get past midfield via STs, interceptions, and fumble returns.

Sure if you assume his replacement would get 0 yards but his replacement would get them something.

[Kerb Hohl]

And would a replacement level center just olay guys in place of Mangold or Pouncey?

[emunney]

Give the Bears or 9ers Aaron Rodgers and see how many points they'd score.

Again, this isn't about whether RBs are more important than QBs. Of course the Packers score more points than those teams; they are superior at almost every position apart from RB.

[chuckleslove]

And would a replacement level center just olay guys in place of Mangold or Pouncey?

I don't know why you are asking me that, I already said that was overboard and I agreed with how you ranked the players.

[Kerb Hohl]

I don't know why we're still arguing. Everybody but Newz has placed similar emphasis on RBs.

[Newz]

And would a replacement level center just olay guys in place of Mangold or Pouncey?

Why would you even ask that when he said nothing about it?

This is what I mean when it comes to this argument. You guys are the ones saying ridiculous things. Yes, those teams could (probably would) still be acceptable if Mangold/Pouncey (though I think Pouncey is incredibly valuable to the Steelers because the rest of their line is constantly hurt/is poop) was replaced by a decent center.

The Bears would still be a mediocre team most likely if you replaced Matt Forte with a average RB like James Starks too. Do you just think they'd stop feeding their RB the ball? I don't think Starks is as good as Forte, but I think he could be good enough in that system to put up huge yardage if they just constantly gave him the ball.