Jump to content

parcells said rb was "disposable position"


hytrewqasdfg
 Share

Recommended Posts

this was during the discusson of how poorly alexander has played since his contract extension. parcells came out and said (pretty bluntly) that you don't tie up big money in a rb because it is a "disposable position". his reasoning:

1. the average life of a running back in the nfl is only 4 years, you can not count on a rb being around longer than that (said it repeatedly, was a major point with him.)

2. gave several examples of teams that have had consistent, quality running games but never had a "franchise" rb, but instead had used several backs over the years (i did notice the teams he menitoned were known for having excellent offensive lines.)

his point was that sinking a lot of money into a rb was (in his opinion) a bad investment, because the rb position was a "disposable position".

agree or disagree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have to agree, even though it's not fair to the rb's themselves. if i was a gm i would give large 1 or 2 year contracts to guys, but not large long term contracts. rb's deserve to be paid well for each season they play because they take such a beating and tend to have such a short lifespan, but that doesn't mean that a team should be obligated to give them a long term deal. if i was a team in need of a good starting rb i'd try to find a guy i could get for 1 or 2 years at a high salary for each year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

another point about rb's is that it seems to be the most oversaturated position in the nfl talentwise. it's kind of like shooting guard in the nba. lots of nba teams have good shooting guards, but finding a good center is much much harder kind if like finding a good qb is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this was during the discusson of how poorly alexander has played since his contract extension. parcells came out and said (pretty bluntly) that you don't tie up big money in a rb because it is a "disposable position". his reasoning:

1. the average life of a running back in the nfl is only 4 years, you can not count on a rb being around longer than that (said it repeatedly, was a major point with him.)

2. gave several examples of teams that have had consistent, quality running games but never had a "franchise" rb, but instead had used several backs over the years (i did notice the teams he menitoned were known for having excellent offensive lines.)

his point was that sinking a lot of money into a rb was (in his opinion) a bad investment, because the rb position was a "disposable position".

agree or disagree?

i agree in general with his points. the average of most players is low. not because of injury as much, but because of failing out of the nfl. there are alot of nfl running backs with 7 -10 years of effective service.

i do feel rb is a spot that can be effectively filled in rounds 2-4 though.

guys like ap, dmc etc are exceptions to this rule though. much like reed, taylor ect are exceptions to the rule that it is bad value to take a s high in the draft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it says that the seahawks were foolish for paying a running back in his prime like he was only getting better, but that does not at all say that running backs are "disposable." teams that people site as being successful by changing running backs, indy, new england, pittsburg, also change out offensive linemen frequently, and none of those teams use many high picks to find starters on the line. yet new england traded to get a running back, indy drafted both of their last two starters in the first round, and pittsburg seems just fine sticking with parker for the forseeable future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

most rbs are disposable in the nfl. as is the case with wr and lb, there are a few, however, who are night and day above the rest. these are the ones who can anchor a franchise. it's not coincidence that 8 out of the top 15 rbs in the league in terms of rushing yardage are first round picks for this reason.

rbs and offensive line are not an either/or proposition. you need both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

most rbs are disposable in the nfl. as is the case with wr and lb, there are a few, however, who are night and day above the rest. these are the ones who can anchor a franchise. it's not coincidence that 8 out of the top 15 rbs in the league in terms of rushing yardage are first round picks for this reason.

rbs and offensive line are not an either/or proposition. you need both.

wr is far from a disposable position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i dont think rb's are disposable as such... but i think they are easily replaceable compared to other positions. one of

the reasons for this is, they can be drafted and start from day one and still be effective... also there seems to be

more rb's in each draft compared to other important positions...

i certainly dont think parcells is saying 'never draft a top 10 rb', i think he is questioning the reasons on giving a rb

a long term contract after 4-5 years service when they 'could' be banged up some what. what you get out of an

adrian peterson is vastly different to that of a 3rd round rb, and if it wasnt all rb's would be drafted in the later rounds...

if you look at this year, all the leading rushing teams just about have a 1st rounder spearheading their rushing game.

having a great ol certainly helps the rushing game, but nate illowa(sp?) isnt going to do what ad does behind that line...

another thing that isnt disposable about some rb's, is their effectiveness in the passing game and also blocking in the

passing game... i hardly think brian westbrook would be easily replaced in philly, he is not only the rushing game, but

pretty much the passing game as well. without him, or a similar quality rb, the eagles wouldnt win half the games they do...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think he's saying a rb is like a tv nowadays... you don't keep your tv for 15 years, and you don't sink a bunch of money into it later, you replace it. that doesn't mean you shouldn't get a nice tv if you can.

haha! i like the analogy! i do think that unless we have a shot at mcfadden, we won't go after a running back until the 3rd or 4th round. and i'd be okay with that, because mckay seems at his best in the middle rounds - we grabbed norwood in the 3rd, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the fact that "elite" running backs will always be in demand makes it o.k. to not feel sorry for them...staying healthy and being a team fit can insure u atleast a 4 year tenure with that franchise but with that great amount of pounding they takes its no wonder an excellent back like ap is seriously injured that makes me feel like we don't really need a superstar back...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the thing is, it seems like there is an "elite" junior rb at every year's draft who has a very successful college career and amazing combine. it's not just ad and now mcfadden. the year before, it was reggie bush, it was ronnie brown the year before, and steven jackson the year before. next year, it'll be either chris wells or p.j. hill, and the next year it'll be someone like demarco murray out of oklahoma. it happens every single year, and every year it's a "can't-miss prospect". here's the thing: usually, they have very good production in the nfl. i'm not saying that we can't get one, i'm just saying that we have a lot more to worry about this year than rb, and to be quite honest, i'd much rather have somebody like wells or hill playing for us at rb, they're beasts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its funny how some people are arguing with a man who is one of the greatest nfl coaches and talent evaluators ever....lol

but anyway. i agree with him. i think the best anology someone said was the shooting guard one. there are so many running backs who come out of college every year with basically measurables between them that you can get a guy in the 4th round who might be just ask skilled as mcfadden but went to a smaller school and maybe runs a 4.5 instead of a 4.3. it happens every year. willie parker went undrafted cause he was from a smaller program and smaller sized. westbrook went behind a few rbs for the same reason. they are 2 of the most productive rbs this year. linemen and qbs are valued before rbs unless you are insane. i am sorry. all the ap is nice in minnesota but they would be alot better with brady quinn that line and chester taylor. and if you dont agree, i think you are insane as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its funny how some people are arguing with a man who is one of the greatest nfl coaches and talent evaluators ever....lol

but anyway. i agree with him. i think the best anology someone said was the shooting guard one. there are so many running backs who come out of college every year with basically measurables between them that you can get a guy in the 4th round who might be just ask skilled as mcfadden but went to a smaller school and maybe runs a 4.5 instead of a 4.3. it happens every year. willie parker went undrafted cause he was from a smaller program and smaller sized. westbrook went behind a few rbs for the same reason. they are 2 of the most productive rbs this year. linemen and qbs are valued before rbs unless you are insane. i am sorry. all the ap is nice in minnesota but they would be alot better with brady quinn that line and chester taylor. and if you dont agree, i think you are insane as well.

i noted several examples of elite current teams drafting running backs highly while constantly replacing linemen, none of whom were drafted in the first round. i the pats and colts are not as well run as parcell's usual teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...