Quote
max
Quote
zn
Quote
max
So they spent their first pick in the draft with the plan of him splitting time with 2 other guys. That makes perfect sense. Yikes.
Is that really a better plan than say using your first pick on a guy who they expect to play every snap?
Yes. It is a better plan.
It is always a better plan if you want an RB--rotation or not--to grab him first chance, and 2nd round is good for that.
The value of an RB to this offense goes way beyond ordinary, standard ways of thinking about draft pick value.
They just spent a 2nd round pick to make sure they have exactly the guy they want to form a very good RB rotation.
Yay. Good for them.
....
I disagree with it, of course.
I'd rather have a guy like Bobby Wagner starting at LB full time than a rotational RB. But hey thats just me.
Don't be misled by the term "rotational back."
"Rotational" in this case does not describe the caliber of the back, it just describes the battleplan which will---IF they do it--field 2 top backs in rotation.
Of course that depends on whether or not DH steps up, and whether or not they share snaps or CA is just the #1 back and DH is change of pace.
Either way, the point was, IF they have a rotation, that does not mean you have to downgrade the quality of your backs. You can spend high on 2 good backs and have a DEVASTATING rotation...not just "rotational backs" in that more dismissive sense.
In terms of getting a quality LB, that could come, BUT this offense needs a running game and that was the priority for them (obviously). If that leaves a hole somewhere else, so be it--RB is still their priority.
...
