Quote:
Originally Posted by nath
But the thing is, Bell went in the mid-2nd and wasn't even the first RB taken. Nobody knew he was a generational talent at the time, or he would have gone much higher.
How high do you take a guy you do think can be a generational talent, keeping in mind all you have to go on is college film and performance and Combine metrics? If you think you have an RB in the draft that's the next Le'Veon Bell, and you don't think anyone else is going to be that good a prospect, where do you take him?
I'm not a fan of these "what if you knew everything" scenarios. But for arguments sake, do we also know his character issues/chances of being suspended?
My personal take on spending high picks on RBs is to judge them by their contribution in the passing game. Are they a legit receiving threat and do they create mismatches? Can they block? I'd also rank professionalism very highly during interviews/their college career. RBs get his a ton, durability is an issue if I invest in them. I want to know that they are on the SJax end of the "I'm a pro" spectrum. And obviously they need to run the ball well enough. That means I'm very likely to underrate the ADPs of the world and overrate the Sproleses of the world.
I'd also always want a goal line/3rd down bruiser on my team but would never pay anything for them. I don't think my elite back needs to bring that to the table, it can be added via another back.
I think if you sum up a million draft decisions regarding RBs it's a bigger mistake to occasionally falsely assume you have a black swan on your hand than to miss the occasional black swan. And that's also why I don't like the what if I knew scenarios. The equity that you can gain over the competition is in the right long term metastrategy imo