NFL - Are You Ready For Some Football?!! - PLAYOFFS

[SlowwHand]

Ok, if you were an expansion team.

[snoopy369]

If I were the Bears I'd take Joe Thomas, probably... much cheaper, too, remember.

As an expansion team, I'd take the RB hands down, as cap space isn't an issue and you can grab OL off of other people's teams. As a non-expansion team, it's complicated, and depends a lot on the team you already have. If I can grab a RB through FA, or a lower round RB (even 2nd round, like a Lendale White or something), or even just use what I have; I'd take the OT, as that's in some sense much more important in the long run - and he's more likely to stay with me, if I want him to, then the RB who might want to leave for greener pastures (more carries elsewhere, more glory in a bigger market, etc.)

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
NFL news of the day...

1. Martz Done in Detroit
ESPN.com reports the Detroit Lions have fired offensive coordinator Mike Martz.

2. Adrian Peterson Named Offensive ROY
Minnesota Vikings RB Adrian Peterson has been named the Associated Press Offensive Rookie of the Year. He received 46.5 of 50 votes.

My heart skipped a beat momentarily as I thought you said Millen was fired.... *sigh*

[SlowwHand]

The only way the question can be answered in anyway is from an expansion team's viewpoint.
Naturally if you have a stable of RB, you might choose differently.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
The only way the question can be answered in anyway is from an expansion team's viewpoint.

Uh... no. After all, Adrian Peterson did benefit from an amazing offensive line lead by Steve Hutchinson, so context is very important.

And even then, if I was an expansion team, I don't know who I'd pick.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
The only way the question can be answered in anyway is from an expansion team's viewpoint.
Naturally if you have a stable of RB, you might choose differently.

Given we have an average of less than 0.5 expansion teams/year, I'd say that the only meaningful answer is from a non-expansion team's viewpoint; over 98% of the deciders will have a team already. You can ask it from the point of view of the Bears, for example, who have neither OT nor RB...

[-Jrabbit]

Ooh, don't talk that way around Slowwy...

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by snoopy369


Given we have an average of less than 0.5 expansion teams/year, I'd say that the only meaningful answer is from a non-expansion team's viewpoint; over 98% of the deciders will have a team already. You can ask it from the point of view of the Bears, for example, who have neither OT nor RB...

Realistically, how are you going to do that? A blanket statement? You can't. Argue until the cows come home, but you still can't.

[snoopy369]

That made no sense to me, even beyond your normal statements...

[SlowwHand]

Ok, let's try this. Watch my lips, maybe it will help.
You can't say any one player is the player to take, unless you're starting your team. Not in a blanket statement. Follow the bouncing ball. Have I lost you again?

[Jaguar]

I would take Thomas to start my team.

1. Offensive linemen last longer than running backs. Peterson, especially, has been fed billions of carries since he was 15.

2. Let's tell a tale of two offenses. Each had every piece in place except for one.

Consider the Indianapolis Colts playing against the Chargers this year. They were down their starting left tackle, and forced to play Charlie Johnson, a 6th round pick groomed primarily as a right tackle. The result was a horrible day for the passing game, where the Colts were forced to either keep Ben Utecht to double-team Shaun Phillips on every play, or get Manning repeatedly slammed to the turf.

Meanwhile, consider the 2007 Green Bay Packers. They have their tackles, quarterback, and receivers all set, as well as a great fullback and improving interior linemen. The big question mark on the offense was running back. Green Bay let four guys battle it out and ended up with Ryan Grant averaging 5.1 yards a carry and Deshawn Wynn as a reliable short-yardage guy.

That's the real reason to invest in a left tackle. Going cheap at RB means you'll have someone like Ryan Grant, Selvin Young, Kenton Keith, or Ahmad Bradshaw, who will do alright, provided that he's in a pretty good offense. Going cheap at tackle means you get stuck with someone like Charlie Johnson or Winston Justice, who will singlehandedly destroy your offense.

3. Tackles are actually paid more than running backs for the above reason. However, draft pick salaries are scaled pretty much only by draft position. So Thomas is the better bargain for now in terms of salary cap space.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Parcells putting his stamp on the team. After firing the GM, he now cuts Cameron:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3178646

[Ben Kenobi]

It really depends on your running back.

Honestly Jag would you take Joe Thomas over a pick like Tomlinson?

[-Jrabbit]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Parcells putting his stamp on the team. After firing the GM, he now cuts Cameron:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3178646

Mildly surprising. Less so when you look at Cameron's overall record as a head coach.

Miami's off-season shopping list is getting pretty long...

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
If you had your choice for your team, even now, which would you take?

"your team" = The Bears. Therefore I answered it from the Bear's point of view