Week 8: Non-Packers

[Newz]

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.

So you respond to that whole post just to say that? I'm not saying it's incredibly hard to get a serviceable center either. I was just pointing that out about running backs.

I'm not surprised you didn't respond to the rest of it though, because there isn't really any debating it.

[Kerb Hohl]

No **** I realize you think there are good and bad players at every position, though. Everybody knows that.

What we're saying is that you're a bit insane for thinking that comparable players at center are more valuable than comparable players at RB.

I'll take AP over Mangold.

I'll take Starks (or whoever is the #15 RB) over the #15 C.

I don't care what the primes are of the players, because I can replace my running back with a tandem back that takes over when his prime ends.

I'd prefer to have a really good player for 4-7 years than a guy at the least important position for 10-20.

[Kerb Hohl]

I'm not surprised you didn't respond to the rest of it though, because there isn't really any debating it.

Oh there was plenty more to say. Basically, since Wells is a really good center, why should it matter? Gaining yardage should be defined by him. I realize Bulaga has emerged and Lang, but we've had a consistent center and a relatively consistent line.

I just had to make the one point that nobody values centers so unless you find the top tier one, you wait until the 5th or later.

[Kerb Hohl]

BTW, the Jets can't run this year and Nick Mangold is their center.

[Newz]

No **** I realize you think there are good and bad players at every position, though. Everybody knows that.

What we're saying is that you're a bit insane for thinking that comparable players at center are more valuable than comparable players at RB.

I'll take AP over Mangold.

I'll take Starks over the #15 C.

I don't care what the primes are of the players, because I can replace my running back with a tandem back that takes over when his prime ends.

I'd prefer to have a really good player for 4-7 years than a guy at the least important position for 10-20.

If everyone knows that then why did you bring up Brandon Jackson and John Kuhn as primary backs? Obviously they aren't going to put up good yardage regardless... because they both suck as primary ball carriers. If don't want me to say things that make perfect sense to counter your argument, then don't bring them up in the first place.

By also just looking at YPC of those guys, you completely ignore the impact Wells has on the passing game as he has been a very good pass blocker.

You'll take AP over Mangold, I won't. I'll take the center who is going to be very good to great for 10-20 years and then draft some guys late, get some undrafted FAs or sign some guys on the cheap to split carries.

[Kerb Hohl]

Yeah, I'll take the hall of fame runner and find an undrafted center.

[Newz]

BTW, the Jets can't run this year and Nick Mangold is their center.

BTW, the Titans can't run this year and Chris Johnson is their running back.

[Newz]

Yeah, I'll take the hall of fame runner and find an undrafted center.

Sure.

How many times do you want to say that? I'm providing reasoning behind why I believe things. I've typed out paragraphs and your response is always pretty much:

"Lol. I'd rather take the running back and just get a center later."

Like I said, we obviously value positions differently. You haven't presented anything to change my mind or even come close to it.

[Kerb Hohl]

So these centers can block...does putting 8 in the box to stop AP not help?

[Newz]

So these centers can block...does putting 8 in the box to stop AP not help?

It sure does help his team. Never said it didn't.

[emunney]

I think we can all agree that, apart from QB, for any given team no position is particularly important or unimportant unless you have either a really good or a really bad player there.

For the teams that have really good RBs (which Chris Johnson suddenly is not anymore, and it has very little to do with his O-Line for most impartial observers), RB is very important to their success. Particularly if they also do not have a good QB. For the teams that have really good Cs, C is important to them, because of the things that player allows them to do as a team.

I guess my point all along has really been that there may be a hierarchy in terms of positional importance on a football field, but that after QB, it's awfully muddy and is far more often determined by the relative values of the players in those positions and their specific abilities (and even how those abilities mesh with those of their teammates) than it is by some arbitrary chart or list or salary rank. Regardless of position, a great player isn't going to have a lot of success on a bad team, and a bad player isn't going to be able to drag down a team full of great players.

[Newz]

I definitely agree with that, emunney.