Perry Will Surprise

[BengalszoneBilly]

Sure, the NFL is a passing league. No argument offered.

Nice to see you finally got it.

But it is ruled by teams that have a balanced attack. Otherwise Indianapolis would be the champs instead of the chumps!

[HairOnFire]

Yup, they do. Funny thing, tho, is they pay more for QBs. And WRs. Al offensive linemen. In fact, on offense, only the TE franchise tag is lower than the RBs'. Nope, sorry, the big money for elite players isn't going to the run game.

Wow, you're numbers prove once again that QB's are highly paid. That's some groundbreaking stuff you've got going.

So all of the tagged offensive lineman are mere pass blockers, right? None of their value is derived from the blocking they do in the running game, right? Plus, TE's get tagged all the time, don't they? Well, actually they don't. The rare example gets tagged about as often as we observe solar eclipses. And a funny thing about those WR's. Like with TE's the wideouts who get tagged make huge coin. However, there probably isn't a skill position in the NFL that sees more movement and turnover than the WR position. Need some cap space? Dump a wideout. Everybody does it, right? They're practically interchangable. In fact, if you want to find a position that can be filled with a coupon look no further than WR. The teams that win big know that they can win championships with rosters filled with 2nd and 3rd tier talent at wideout as long as the QB and RB positions are set. Doesn't hurt to have a defense, too.

It's funny, you're numbers point to whose getting paid the most, but ignore the makeup of the teams that win the most. Joisey, don't you "value" winnng more than other factors?

Thanks for playing.

[HoosierCat]

Sure, the NFL is a passing league. No argument offered.

Nice to see you finally got it.

But it is ruled by teams that have a balanced attack.

Of course. Where did I ever say anything different? But that's just the point: today's running game is all about "providing balance." How much do we talk about the need to control or run out the clock? Meanwhile, it's the job of the passing game to rack up the points. As the saying goes, teams don't win when they run...they run when they win. Thus a 20-year trend in the draft away from runners and run defenders and toward passers, wideouts, and pass defenders. Thus the higher costs for an elite wideout or QB versus an elite RB.

Hair:

Joisey, don't you "value" winnng more than other factors?

Oh, I do. Which is yet another reason I frown on the focus on "franchise" RBs. Just look around our division. We had one of 'em, right? For quite some time. Didn't get us anywhere, did it? Oh, I know, I know, we didn't have a D. Well, the Baltimore Ravens have perhaps the best back in the game, and a defense to boot...yet the only time they were able to get anywhere was when they had a half-decent passing game.

Last year, the Eagles got to the Super Bowl without a 1,000-yeard rusher. The Pats did it -- and won -- the year before. In 2003, somehow both Oakland and Tampa managed to make the big game without an elite RB. Yes, I care about winning...so do NFL teams...and that's why their priorities have shifted.

[BengalszoneBilly]

Sure, the NFL is a passing league. No argument offered.

Nice to see you finally got it.

But it is ruled by teams that have a balanced attack.

Of course. Where did I ever say anything different? But that's just the point: today's running game is all about "providing balance."

I didn't say it as a point of contention. It was just a comment of observation on the "NFL is a passing league" which you and Hairy agreed (how uncommon is that!) upon.

[HairOnFire]

I didn't say it as a point of contention. It was just a comment of observation on the "NFL is a passing league" which you and Hairy agreed (how uncommon is that!) upon.

We agree all the time. I've never once argued that the modern NFL isn't a pass first league...so no change of my opinion was ever required on that rather broad point. But I see no evidence that suggests the NFL has devalued the RB position. In fact, I actually see plenty of evidence that suggests they still value it as much as they ever did.

Does the above somehow mean other positions haven't become more important than they once were? Nope? What it means in my most humble of opinions...ahem...is I see the WR position becoming more important at the expense of positions like FB or TE. Nobody in the NFL has much use for the FB position and many teams, including the Bengals, either use their TE's to block or remove them altogether in favor of 3 and 4 WR sets. But do you see teams like the Bengals trying to go to war without a top RB? No, you don't. What you see is them trading a top RB only after they've developed another one. What you see is them going back to the 1st round well, to the surprise of many, for even more RB depth and versatility.

So again, it may be a pass first league, but the teams who win the most do so without elite WR talent. With almost no exceptions the secret to each teams success stems from a combination of strong defenses, strong running back play, and elite QB production. And that wouldn't be a bad description of how most championship teams have been built...even those from the 50's.

[HoosierCat]

It was just a comment of observation on the "NFL is a passing league" which you and Hairy agreed (how uncommon is that!) upon.

"Hairy" Heh heh. Dunno why but that strikes me as funny...

Actually, we probably agree more than we disagree...but the offseason clearly leaves us both with way too much time on our hands.

[HairOnFire]

Well, the Baltimore Ravens have perhaps the best back in the game, and a defense to boot...yet the only time they were able to get anywhere was when they had a half-decent passing game.

The Ravens won a Super Bowl with a crappy passing game. The only real difference between then and now is they used to have a defense even more outstanding than they do now. If they had the same defense they once had Kyle Boller could be the next Trent Dilfer without a great deal of problems. Just dumb it down and spoon feed the QB like the 15-1 Steelers just did and let the defense and running game win games for you.

[HoosierCat]

But I see no evidence that suggests the NFL has devalued the RB position.

Well, neither have I. I haven't been arguing that. Teams haven't devalued the position, they've devalued the need to have a superstar filling it (hence other offensive positions becoming more expensive than RB, etc.). C'mon, it's a fairly uncontroversial point. There are those that it hasn't gone far enough (like this guy http://slate.msn.com/id/2106074 ) and those that think it's a bad move (like this guy http://www.bermudasun.bm/archives/2005-04-22/06Sports06/ ) but I've yet to see anyone (besides yourself, of course) question the basic idea that it's happened.

[HairOnFire]

Last year, the Eagles got to the Super Bowl without a 1,000-yeard rusher. The Pats did it -- and won -- the year before. In 2003, somehow both Oakland and Tampa managed to make the big game without an elite RB. Yes, I care about winning...so do NFL teams...and that's why their priorities have shifted.

Didn't ALL of those teams make it to the Super Bowl without top WR talent?

Yes, they did. Only Philly boasted one elite WR...one who wasn't a 1st round pick...and they were a team that previously got to three NFC championship games without a legit #1 WR. Plus, they finally got past the Conference Championship game without the help of Owens. Didn't need him to get that far...didn't need him to get farther. And having him in the biggest game of all didn't mean they could beat the Patriots, a team that completely lacks elite talent at the WR position.

So how do any of those teams make your point that the RB position has been devalued at the expense of the passing game? Philly may lack a 1000 yard rusher but the RB they do have is one of the leaders in combined pass and run yardage. Do you think they devalue the RB position?

They don't, right? In fact, even a Ram Super Bowl team that invested heavily in the WR position boasted an elite RB on it's roster.

[HairOnFire]

"Hairy" Heh heh. Dunno why but that strikes me as funny...

I don't mind it. In fact, I think it beats Heat Miser by a wide margin.

PrinceHairyOnFire?

[HairOnFire]

But I see no evidence that suggests the NFL has devalued the RB position.

Well, neither have I. I haven't been arguing that.

Don't you mean you don't argue that point as much as you did before Lamont Jordan signed for twice as much as you thought he'd get?

Thanks for playing.

[The_Next_Big_Thing]

Hrmn.... Chris Perry's job could be in trouble. His jersey is for sale for 1/3rd off at the Pro Shop!

[HoosierCat]

Last year, the Eagles got to the Super Bowl without a 1,000-yeard rusher. The Pats did it -- and won -- the year before. In 2003, somehow both Oakland and Tampa managed to make the big game without an elite RB. Yes, I care about winning...so do NFL teams...and that's why their priorities have shifted.

Didn't ALL of those teams make it to the Super Bowl without top WR talent?

Actually, only the Pats didn't boast a 1,000-yard wideout.

Don't you mean you don't argue that point as much as you did before Lamont Jordan signed for twice as much as you thought he'd get?

No, I mean I never argued it at all, before or after Jordan.

While we're on the subject of the raiders, tho...yeah, they paid (too much, IMHO) for Jordan...but gee, what position did they pay big bucks and give up a player and two draft picks (including their first) for?

[HairOnFire]

Hrmn.... Chris Perry's job could be in trouble. His jersey is for sale for 1/3rd off at the Pro Shop!

True, but the really great thing about Chris Perry being a Bengal is the fact that you get your choice of two different replica uniforms to not purchase.

[HairOnFire]

While we're on the subject of the raiders, tho...yeah, they paid (too much, IMHO) for Jordan...but gee, what position did they pay big bucks and give up a player and two draft picks (including their first) for?

Sorry, that's not a good example of a team that has suddenly embraced the passing game. The Raiders were one of the most pass happy teams from the old AFL days and they've always jumped through any hoop that would better their deep passing game. Their QB's have to have strong arms or they get replaced in short order and they've always made sure they have more than one very good WR on their roster. Usually have a jet receiver in a role playing position too.

That said, the Raiders also know the importance of the running game and if they just overspent for a RB it hardly helps the undervalued RB rant you're now claiming you never made.

Thanks for playing.

[jamesbrooks21]

Hrmn.... Chris Perry's job could be in trouble.  His jersey is for sale for 1/3rd off at the Pro Shop!

No hes not.........Perry changed his number to 23 thus making all number 26s outdated and lower priced. Perry isn't going anywhere.

[BengalszoneBilly]

Hrmn.... Chris Perry's job could be in trouble.  His jersey is for sale for 1/3rd off at the Pro Shop!

No hes not.........Perry changed his number to 23 thus making all number 26s outdated and lower priced. Perry isn't going anywhere.

Dammit! I hate it when someone shows up with facts and just KILLS our little rumor mill!

[WHO DEY AGAIN?]

Perry isn't going anywhere.

That was his motto last year. I hope the # change means he goes somewhere this year!

[schweinhart]

Perry isn't going anywhere.

That was his motto last year. I hope the # change means he goes somewhere this year!

No doubt

[HoosierCat]

helps the undervalued RB rant you're now claiming you never made.

Claim? I never did. Period. And anyone who bothers to actually read this thread can see that. And again, my point that teams appear increasingly blase about having an elite RB these days is hardly a novel one. Hell, here's a pfw column from 5 years ago decrying the trend:

http://archive.profootballweekly.com/conte...aily_052301.asp

Try to keep up, will ya?

[The_Next_Big_Thing]

Hrmn.... Chris Perry's job could be in trouble.  His jersey is for sale for 1/3rd off at the Pro Shop!

No hes not.........Perry changed his number to 23 thus making all number 26s outdated and lower priced. Perry isn't going anywhere.

Dammit! I hate it when someone shows up with facts and just KILLS our little rumor mill!

No kidding. I was hoping people would actually buy this load of crap

[TecmoFever]

Ok, i hate to get back into this rudi/perry/etc debate, but...got to. First of all, I'm not "bashing" rudi. I like the guy. He's a DECENT, productive back who will hit the hole hard and do well if his line opens the holes.

The reason myself and others don't feel as excited about him as some of you does not come from his production or numbers. Obviously he's "broken the single season rushing record." Yes, we know that. He racked up a nice season's worth of yardage. Problem is how he did it -- and the fact that if he could have bounced a few outside when the hole closed on 3rd and 1, or improvised and managed to get in the endzone on a few plays where he couldn't just run downhill, we might have been 10-6. It's not all about production, it's about variety, keeping the defense guessing, clutch performance, and the ability to take a game over if you're getting paid like he is. He simply doesn't scare anybody, and it's not hard to game plan for him because he hits the hole straight on and if its not there he hits it anyway. Credit our offensive line for much of his yardage totals last year.

Anyhow, with any luck we will get to see Perry do what he can do. I would love to see the dump off pass be an actual option, would love to see a broken play turn into a 12 yarder, and would love to see those 3rd and 1, 4th and inches plays not stuffed nearly every time. Rudi's a good back, he's just not what we might call a "playmaker." he's blue collar back who does what he's told/supposed to do and nothing more. He can't make anything happen on his own and he is not versatile enough to keep a defense guessing which is rather important nowadays. A straight downhill runner, if given the opportunity to carry the ball as many times as he did, is likely to rack up many yards a la last season. But if that's all he can do, 8-8 or worse appears likely with our defense (not saying that rudi was the reason we went 8-8 last year, but he COULD have won a few more for us if he wasn't so damn predictable and far from clutch).

Not a bad analysis from the Ickey Shuffler. The only problem is that you're not allowed to post on this thread unless you're HairOnFire, JoiseyCat, or DPM.

[HairOnFire]

And again, my point that teams appear increasingly blase about having an elite RB these days is hardly a novel one. Hell, here's a pfw column from 5 years ago decrying the trend:

http://archive.profootballweekly.com/conte...aily_052301.asp

Try to keep up, will ya?

I agree the cheap RB idea isn't new. I've hated it for years.

Your link to a 5 year old PFW article is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, the writer hates the idea as well and offers good reasons for doing so. But the teams being discussed 5 years ago are even more interesting than a rehash of why the idea stinks. Consider...

Teams like the Bills and the Raiders are singled out as being ill-advised for adopting running back by committee strategies. But both teams have abandoned that strategy since the article was written. Buffalo now boasts two backs capable of assuming a feature role and the Raiders just dipped into rich FA waters in an attempt to add stability to their rushing attack. In addition, teams like the Chiefs, Patriots, Browns, Bears, Packers, and Giants were said to be moving away from the feature back attack. None did.

The Chiefs visited a Priest and were blessed. If you want to argue that they found a back cheaply I'll mention that it didn't remain a cheap deal for very long. The Chiefs also used a 1st round pick to add a player who provided depth but no real threat to the feature back. So we're talking big money and 1st round picks. Sound like a devalued position to you?

The Patriots struggled finding a true feature back in part because of the freak injury suffered by their first choice, but they made do for awhile before eventually trading multiple draft picks for an expensive feature back. Seems like they know the true value of the position very well. Seems like they learned that cheaper options might get you by for awhile, but when a true feature back becomes available you jump. And then you pay.

The Browns have tried 1st rounders, 2nd rounders, 3rd rounders, and free agents in an attempt to find a feature back. They haven't succeeded, but they've tried hard. Perhaps they would have been smart to invest in a couple of good OT's, ehh? But the complete and prolonged failure of the Browns points to the high probability of failure when a team invests too heavily in it's passing game and not nearly enough in it's running game. Trendsetters indeed.

The Bears have repeatedly attempted to find a true feature back and just burned a 4th overall draft pick in their latest quest to stabilize the position. I guess sometimes a team learns the true value of a position only after failing to recognize it for too long. What to do? Well, dump WR David Terrell. Cedric Benson to the rescue.

The Packers traded for an established feature back, Ahman Green, and solved their rushing problems. No further need for discussion. No further need to use draft picks or FA assets until an answer is found. Just trade for the right guy and then open up your checkbook.

The Giants drafted Ron Dayne in the 1st round to push Tiki Barber and then let Dayne sit when Barber assumed the feature back role.

Think about it. Every team mentioned has either found a feature back or repeatedly attempted to. Many of the teams drafted RB's in the 1st round, traded for established backs, or dipped into FA for good backs who could provide service for a few years until better options could be explored. Several teams used pretty high draft assets on RB's who could provide depth. Several other teams attempted to fill the starting position with 2nd or 3rd rounders and learned to their lasting harm that you either go big or go bad.

Joisey, I'm not sure what this PFW article was supposed to prove. If you wanted to point out that others have called the cheap RB strategy a bad idea for years...you'll get no argument from me. If you wanted to use an article that provides enough hindsight to prove that it's smart to invest heavily in the RB position....job done. If you want to point out that teams sometimes find RB's that come relatively cheaply I'll quickly point out that if the back produces as planned he doesn't remain cheap for long.

But thanks for playing.

[The Big Orange]

Good thoughts Hair, with a RB you usually get what you pay for in Free Agents, but not always what you draft for...quite a few good RB's in later draft rounds I believe.

[HairOnFire]

Not a bad analysis from the Ickey Shuffler. The only problem is that you're not allowed to post on this thread unless you're HairOnFire, JoiseyCat, or DPM.

Anybody can post on this thread. However, I think it's clear that most of the kids like to vent their spleens in threads about whatever Pete Prisco just said.

Life is a rich tapestry, ehh?