I'd prefer not to draft a RB with a high pick.

[Dave Gray]

I think that Ronnie Brown was a poor draft choice, in hindsight.  I think that he was a good player for us for many years, but I don't think that high pick RBs make a lot of sense.  It's probably the most overrated position on the field, and the lifetime of the player is about 5 years.

We need new RBs now, with Brown and Ricky old/disgruntled/ineffective/etc, where even if one or both stay, we need to address the position.  However, I think that so much of an RB's effectiveness comes from offensive balance and good blocking.  There are certain guys who break that mold, but it's usually a position that's pretty easy to band-aid.  It's also a position where you can get a veteran to come in and they don't have to learn routes or a system.  They slide right in.

[Sunstroke]

No argument... Unless you're certain you're going to get Chris Johnson or Adrian Peterson out of it, I just can't see the sense in drafting a RB in round one.

That said, if we could get a DeMarco Murray or Roy Helu in the 3rd-4th round area, I'd be ok with that though...

[Landshark]

No argument... Unless you're certain you're going to get Chris Johnson or Adrian Peterson out of it, I just can't see the sense in drafting a RB in round one.

That said, if we could get a DeMarco Murray or Roy Helu in the 3rd-4th round area, I'd be ok with that though...

And the real question is, how do you know Chris Johnson or Adrian Peterson are going to turn out to be as good as they are?  You don't.  It's that simple.  Suffice to say, both Ronnie Brown and Carnell Williams have been good RBs but not good enough to warrant spending such high draft picks on.

[masterfins]

I'd have to partial agree and partial disagree with Dave's viewpoint.  Yes I would agree that if you have a great run blocking line it can make a mediocre back a superstar (the Steelers have done it with several backs in the last 10 years).  However, a superstar running back can have 1,000 yard seasons even with a poor OL (the extreme example would be Barry Sanders).

I would also disagree that the RB position is "the most overated position on the field".  If you don't have a running game you don't have balance.  If you don't have balance your passing game suffers.  This translates into losses.  If the Fins had a running game this year I would wager their season wouldn't be over now.  Given Brown will probably be gone and Ricky will have a more reduced role next year, the Fins need a young RB to develope.  That said if there was a stud OL lineman like Long I would take the lineman, but this draft doesn't look like one of those will be available to the Fins.

[Dave Gray]

If you don't have a running game you don't have balance.  If you don't have balance your passing game suffers.  This translates into losses.

I totally agree with this.  But running game doesn't equal running back.  There are a lot of other things going on.  It's not the skill of the runner that plays the biggest part in this.

Any competent NFL player can run the ball through a hole and not fumble on a somewhat consistent basis.  That's what Miami lacked -- the hole to run through.  A great RB might make one more cut in the open field or be able to fall forward for an additional yard here and there and that adds up over time.  But overall, a stuffed running play is stuffed regardless of the back.

I think that Ronnie and Ricky both are good players.  Even though we have these guys, we're unable to run.

Denver is a good example of this.  How many regular Joe running backs went through there in the 2000s to did well?  Mike Anderson, Tatum Bell, etc.   They were all decent players, but it was the other factors that made the RUNNING GAME successful.

[Brian Fein]

Dave I see your point, but there's something to be said for speed.  A good, quick back can hit the hole faster and the o-line doesn't have to hold their blocks as long.  If the o-line has to hold a block for 1 or 2 more seconds longer while Ronnie dances and stutter-steps behind the line, there's going to be failure in the running game.

I'd like to see them bring in a speed guy.  Someone who can beat LB's to the corner and hit holes with authority.  We haven't had speed at the RB position since Ricky was getting 400 carries per season.

[bsfins]

Plain and simple, I want a game changer....I'd prefer a couple...They can be a big ass bull that's hard to bring down,or speedy guy that will shake you out of your shorts....

[Dave Gray]

I don't think that elite RBs help you win championships, though, as much as other positions.  The Patriots (who seem to be the model for winning in the NFL) use retreads and nobodies, but make the best out of them.

[Sunstroke]

Positions on offense that I feel warrant expending "whatever" it takes to get an elite player:

1) QB
2) LT
3) C
4) WR

Then you can give me "really good but not elite" players at the other positions...and I'm good to go.

[masterfins]

I don't think that elite RBs help you win championships, though, as much as other positions.  The Patriots (who seem to be the model for winning in the NFL) use retreads and nobodies, but make the best out of them.

C'mon using the Patriots as an example isn't fair.  They have one of the top two QB's in the league, and that adds a lot of pressure on the defense.

[Dave Gray]

^ That's exactly my point.

Because they do other things well, you can put non-stars at RB and they can still excel.  It doesn't work in reverse, though.  Having an elite RB does help the passing game, but it doesn't work in the same capacity.

[masterfins]

^^ well if you have a secret plan to acquire Tom Brady or Peyton Manning I'm with ya.  I do agree with you though that no matter what type of RB you have the RB is much improved if you have a stellar OL.

[Dave Gray]

^ It's not a secret plan.  That's the title of this thread.

If you have a high pick, I think it's more worth it to try to get the next Tom Brady, over the next Barry Sanders.

[masterfins]

^^ Tom Brady wasn't a high pick.

[fyo]

^^ Tom Brady wasn't a high pick.

But the NEXT Tom Brady might be