Clyde

[jetlord 10,207]

3 hours ago, xen said:

Can't we all just agree that the lessons are:

1) never draft a RB in the first

2) when you have a QB like Pat the running game is vastly overrated 

3) we should not be running except to back teams out of a look or in situational football

Mostly agree except that the Chiefs need to have a run scheme that will reliably pick up third/fourth and one.  They will never go Hurts imitation on short yardage so need something better than Blake Bell sneaks.  

[azchief21 5,278]

RB is easily the weakest position on the team. And I think it's planned that way w/ Mahomes. It's an area where we can save money to use elsewhere. 

[mex 65,581]

6 hours ago, xen said:

Can't we all just agree that the lessons are:

1) never draft a RB in the first

2) when you have a QB like Pat the running game is vastly overrated 

3) we should not be running except to back teams out of a look or in situational football

Yep... esp #1

1. The passing threat makes the running game better

2. Which means we can run it successfully as long as teams are respecting the pass

3. We still need a solid short-yardage guy, but we don't need to pay a fortune

[kccrow 529]

7 hours ago, xen said:

Can't we all just agree that the lessons are:

1) never draft a RB in the first

2) when you have a QB like Pat the running game is vastly overrated 

3) we should not be running except to back teams out of a look or in situational football

1) About 99.9% of the time. Would not have passed on a guy like Jahmyr Gibbs had the Lions not taken him at 12 because of his speed and ability to be extremely positive in the pass game but that's a unicorn.

2) It's less substantial but I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say it's overrated. Running the ball remains about 1/3 of your offense and it's important to keep teams honest and away from living exclusively in a defense set up to stop the pass. I'd argue mostly that the running game needs to be more efficient in this offense than in some others but it's still necessary and is not a situation-only aspect. 

3) I'd agree for simplicity that this is sufficient but I think I said in #2 how I feel it goes a bit deeper than this.

Overall, we don't need superstar running backs but we need guys that can be efficient with carries, be a threat the other team needs to worry about, and be plus in the passing game. Clyde is fine in a committee approach but he's not much of a threat, he's more of a chugger that will get you what's there. Expectations were much higher for him to be a plus in the passing game but he's been fairly mediocre there and his failures in blocking from the backfield keep him from expanding any role there. I don't hate him, and I don't care that Veach spent a 1st on an RB, it's just accepting what he turned out to be. Pacheco is much more of a threat when he touches the ball. We'll have to see if he develops in the passing game. I think Prince could end up being a similar type of asset. In the end we're going to continue to need a guy like McKinnon. I'd prefer to have two guys like Pacheco and two like McKinnon on the roster. Clyde is kind of ... lost in the shuffle there but he's at least serviceable as a starter if you need him. 

[xen 1,010,219]

5 hours ago, jetlord said:

Mostly agree except that the Chiefs need to have a run scheme that will reliably pick up third/fourth and one.  They will never go Hurts imitation on short yardage so need something better than Blake Bell sneaks.  

Yeah that's situational football.  See #3.

[xen 1,010,219]

1 hour ago, kccrow said:

1) About 99.9% of the time. Would not have passed on a guy like Jahmyr Gibbs had the Lions not taken him at 12 because of his speed and ability to be extremely positive in the pass game but that's a unicorn.

2) It's less substantial but I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say it's overrated. Running the ball remains about 1/3 of your offense and it's important to keep teams honest and away from living exclusively in a defense set up to stop the pass. I'd argue mostly that the running game needs to be more efficient in this offense than in some others but it's still necessary and is not a situation-only aspect. 

3) I'd agree for simplicity that this is sufficient but I think I said in #2 how I feel it goes a bit deeper than this.

Overall, we don't need superstar running backs but we need guys that can be efficient with carries, be a threat the other team needs to worry about, and be plus in the passing game. Clyde is fine in a committee approach but he's not much of a threat, he's more of a chugger that will get you what's there. Expectations were much higher for him to be a plus in the passing game but he's been fairly mediocre there and his failures in blocking from the backfield keep him from expanding any role there. I don't hate him, and I don't care that Veach spent a 1st on an RB, it's just accepting what he turned out to be. Pacheco is much more of a threat when he touches the ball. We'll have to see if he develops in the passing game. I think Prince could end up being a similar type of asset. In the end we're going to continue to need a guy like McKinnon. I'd prefer to have two guys like Pacheco and two like McKinnon on the roster. Clyde is kind of ... lost in the shuffle there but he's at least serviceable as a starter if you need him. 

#1 is don't draft a RB in the first.  I don't care if his name is Barry Gibbs or RB Jesus.

#2 this is running a team out of a look.  I covered that in #3

While I hope Clyde does well if he makes the team I also don't care if we drop him as that means we've found some other effective rushers.  

Running the football is the least efficient way to play the game.  It has low correlation to winning.  The only benefits are the ones I mentioned.  

If you don't have a good QB it does take on greater importance but then again you aren't winning the superbowl so who gives a crap.  

I hope the Falcons enjoy not winning games cause that was a massive waste of a top 10 pick.  Detroit wasted 2 picks on low impact positions.  Just dumb.

[kccrow 529]

Detroit had an insanely perfect draft in my opinion. I don't really see where they went wrong, anywhere. They didn't need immediate starting-caliber players at ER, OL, CB, or QB. They signed their starting CBs in free agency in Moseley and Sutton. They filled the holes in their roster with players that will make a positive impact for them throughout the first 2 days. Gibbs and LaPorta will be insane weapons in their passing attack and both positions were holes. Campbell was the best LB in the draft and it was a major weakness for them, easily their greatest weakness defensively. They may have snagged the best safety/nickel hybrid in the draft in round 2 in Branch.  They got their QBotF in with a guy that should have been a top 5 pick if he didn't rupture his ACL in round 3. The positional value argument doesn't really hold that much water if the positions you have of need don't match up. That's going to be a dangerous team.

Now the Falcons, yeah, I don't think they needed a RB in the top 10. They already had a really good back in Allegeir and just really needed a complimentary rusher. I'm not sure why they are so committed to Ridder at QB but they at least should have addressed the age on their DL or the lack of quality at ER else trade out if they could and get another WR. They really fucked this draft in my eyes.

 

[xen 1,010,219]

Detroit:  RB and off ball LB are a waste of first round picks.  You can't have a great draft while wasting 2 first round picks at the same time you don't have a long term solution at QB.  

I have no doubt they'll be a tough team.  So was Tennessee with Tannehill.  They'll go the same way, be good for a while, keep fucking it up at QB, and be also rans.  I guess at least they'll be competitive in the shitty NFC.  Won't equate to championships so ultimately it will mean nothing.

 

[kccrow 529]

3 hours ago, xen said:

Detroit:  RB and off ball LB are a waste of first round picks.  You can't have a great draft while wasting 2 first round picks at the same time you don't have a long term solution at QB.  

I have no doubt they'll be a tough team.  So was Tennessee with Tannehill.  They'll go the same way, be good for a while, keep fucking it up at QB, and be also rans.  I guess at least they'll be competitive in the shitty NFC.  Won't equate to championships so ultimately it will mean nothing.

 

They drafted a better QB in the 3rd than any option they would have had in the 1st round when they took Hooker. They didn't waste anything. You can maybe argue they should have taken Carter but that was the biggest risk pick of the draft. 

[xen 1,010,219]

22 minutes ago, kccrow said:

They drafted a better QB in the 3rd than any option they would have had in the 1st round when they took Hooker. They didn't waste anything. You can maybe argue they should have taken Carter but that was the biggest risk pick of the draft. 

Hooker is old, broken and had his best games in a super gimmicky offense. I'd be surprised if he does much in the NFL.

[kkuenn 3,597]

8 hours ago, xen said:

Hooker is old, broken and had his best games in a super gimmicky offense. I'd be surprised if he does much in the NFL.

Well other than the old part, some felt this way about Mahomes too. Until Mahomes proved everyone wrong, many in the NFL thought a QB from the type of offense he and many others came from were a failed QB waiting to happen. That they could not transition to much for a QB in the NFL etc.

[xen 1,010,219]

21 minutes ago, kkuenn said:

Well other than the old part, some felt this way about Mahomes too. Until Mahomes proved everyone wrong, many in the NFL thought a QB from the type of offense he and many others came from were a failed QB waiting to happen. That they could not transition to much for a QB in the NFL etc.

Mahomes tore his ACL?  that's the broken part.  I mean some still say Mahomes sucks.  Just ask Twitter.

[kkuenn 3,597]

44 minutes ago, xen said:

Mahomes tore his ACL?  that's the broken part.  I mean some still say Mahomes sucks.  Just ask Twitter.

No, he was fine coming out of college. My point was the spread offense qb and how they transition and many failed in the nfl.

[xen 1,010,219]

36 minutes ago, kkuenn said:

No, he was fine coming out of college. My point was the spread offense qb and how they transition and many failed in the nfl.

It's not just that it's a spread.  Hype-L ran that same offense for us at mizzou.  It's gimmicky even for a spread.