If we have a shot at drafting Leonard Fournette do we do it? Even though Howard has already proven himself.
I am not sure there is a wrong answer here. More like different strategies.
My answer is no. We are trying to build a team that can win. We need pieces all over the chess board. If you already have a winning piece, and you have holes, an incremental improvement at that position while leaving another position destitute is not the most improvement for the team.
IF we were in a position where we good across the playing field, then yes, your goal is to continually make incremental improvements. This also crosses over into your philosophy of drafting. BPA or need? I have always thought the best answer is BPA at a needed position.
It's a good start for the kid and i'm glad he is running hard, but a career is a long time...hopefully we continue to see growth from him as the years go by.
If we have a shot at drafting Leonard Fournette do we do it? Even though Howard has already proven himself.
I am not sure there is a wrong answer here. More like different strategies.
My answer is no. We are trying to build a team that can win. We need pieces all over the chess board. If you already have a winning piece, and you have holes, an incremental improvement at that position while leaving another position destitute is not the most improvement for the team.
IF we were in a position where we good across the playing field, then yes, your goal is to continually make incremental improvements. This also crosses over into your philosophy of drafting. BPA or need? I have always thought the best answer is BPA at a needed position.
Oddly enough though Dallas had huge needs on the defensive side of the ball and passed up very good defensive talent to draft Elliot...whom one could argue wasn't a huge need given the talent of their o-line. As we should know well though...the offense can certainly impact the defense.
I am not sure there is a wrong answer here. More like different strategies.
My answer is no. We are trying to build a team that can win. We need pieces all over the chess board. If you already have a winning piece, and you have holes, an incremental improvement at that position while leaving another position destitute is not the most improvement for the team.
IF we were in a position where we good across the playing field, then yes, your goal is to continually make incremental improvements. This also crosses over into your philosophy of drafting. BPA or need? I have always thought the best answer is BPA at a needed position.
Oddly enough though Dallas had huge needs on the defensive side of the ball and passed up very good defensive talent to draft Elliot...whom one could argue wasn't a huge need given the talent of their o-line. As we should know well though...the offense can certainly impact the defense.
It absolutely does. I agree. Do I think that drafting Elliott was a mistake? No. Remember, they did not have a good RB, so the incremental difference in Elliott to where they were was huge. So even though they had defensive needs, they still filled a need. I can see why they did what did. A stud at a position where they had no performance is still a good pick. You only can pick one guy with one pick and if you have many needs, then you have to look at the incremental difference, the level of player, how easy it would be to get another guy of that caliber and how long he might play. Would I have done it? Not sure. But it was a good call.
If we have a shot at drafting Leonard Fournette do we do it? Even though Howard has already proven himself.
I thought Myles Garrett was the guy you needed...
He is, motm is still trying to make his points that you never draft RBs in the first round and that Howard is as good as EE. He could make his argument if he would consider things that have been posted above but the motm method is to deflect, flip-flop and double down.
The argument for not drafting EE in the first was team specific. Dallas had other needs especially on DEF, yet with the OL they have, and an elite RB brings greater value to the team than any of the other players left at that spot during the draft. So Dallas did the right thing and took the home run capable RB. Should they have picked a defender? Maybe but its hard to argue with their record at this point. Sure you can say they are just one and done, but they still get the one right? Meanwhile, they can work on the DEF while depending on an elite OL and an elite RB to provide cover for a rookie QB and a struggling DEF.
Should the Bears have taken EE in the same spot? Nope...too many needs all over the place. OL, DL, pass rusher...so the Bears could afford to wait, had to wait until the later rounds to find a RB. With Langford and Carey already on the roster, along with Rogers, the Howard pick was a BPA one. However, one of his flaws was on display on Monday night, his lack of breakway speed at the NFL level. If you want to know which RB is better poll NFL teams and ask who they would have taken in the first EE or Howard. This isn't a knock of Howard. He is what he is, a grinder who with the right OFF can be very productive, moving the chains and winding clock.
So, was EE a bad pick? Not for the Cowboys but he would have been for the Bears.
So lets go to next year, and give the Bears the 5th pick in the draft. Lets assume for arguments sake that the QBs are gone, along with Garrett and Peppers. Do the Bears take Fournette? Nope, they still have too many holes and the improvement expect at the RB position isn't greater than the improvement from adding another pass rusher, or a DB or even a LT. (This argument was made by @bearsinhouston above better than I am doing it here.) PLUS, the Bears have Howard.
Does that mean its always wrong to draft a RB in the first round? Nope, it means that its team specific and can't be easily reduce to cliche or hot take.
I actually think Elliott would have been a fine pick if he fell to the Bears. I would have taken him.
And thats a perfectly valid opinion and decision. For a head coach that wants to run an OFF like Fox does, EE would have been a good pick. But he was gone, and the Bears were able to find perfectly serviceable RB in a later round.
I actually think Elliott would have been a fine pick if he fell to the Bears. I would have taken him.
And thats a perfectly valid opinion and decision. For a head coach that wants to run an OFF like Fox does, EE would have been a good pick. But he was gone, and the Bears were able to find perfectly serviceable RB in a later round.
Yup. I was disappointed when Elliott was taken but not surprised. I was pretty happy overall with the draft and I'm still pretty happy with how it looks.