06-11-2015, 03:11 PM
(06-11-2015, 02:53 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Yes and you still have no idea what Gurley brings to the table yet.
Also, guys like McCoy and Lynch probably aren't going to fall off as hard as others may. You can show all of the links you'd like, but these guys aren't your average NFL RB. Is the average NFL QB supposed to be playing at a high level into their late 30's like Brady and Manning? I don't think McCoy and Lynch are going to randomly fall off out of nowhere. Yes, the RB position is different, but these aren't random schlubs we're talking about.
Again to my main point with all of this, IMO rookies shouldn't be in the top 10 of rankings before playing a single snap in the NFL. Hill hasn't played for an entire season, but at least he's played enough snaps to know what kind of RB he is. He's pretty good, so I don't have much issue with him being so high even though I'd probably have him down another couple of spots. Gurley is my big issue with the list, it doesn't make sense whether it's a ranking for 2014, 2015, or a combination of future years. We have NO idea what Gurley is going to do at the NFL level, zero idea, not a clue, we're in the dark. Understand what I'm saying?
Looking at RB trends, factoring in age and talent....who would you build your team around at RB?
Given the ACTUAL scenario the post intended on, which is kind of misstated in the title anyways...it makes perfect sense.
He wasn't saying Hill was actually the #5 RB or Gurely was the 7th best. Just that if you were going to build a team, those two he would take over older more heavily worked RBs for the future.
If Lynch and McCoy out perform Gurely next year but Gurley out performs them the next 3 total, that is what he is getting at. You are more likely to get production out of Todd Gurley over the next 3 years than RBs with 2000 ish carries and over the age of 30.
