RB Roundtable

by John Morgan on Feb 20, 2008 12:26 PM PST

I'm very interested in everyone's thoughts about this incoming draft class. I've read a lot of love for Rashard Mendenhall recently, but am a bit perplexed. Medenhall looks decent, but a ton of his production came playing out of the option. Is Mendenhall or Jonathan Stewart truly head and shoulders above the bounty of backs sure to fall to the second round or later. Scout.com lists a full 12 backs as 4 star players or better, though many of those backs have endured a frightening workload--including 450 carries by Kevin Smith this last season. Given that depth and the extremely unpredictable trajectory or running backs, I can't figure a single good reason to draft a back in the first round, but I'm open to arguments to the contrary.

Tweet Comment 12 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I think the support for Mendenhall

comes largely from the sense that he would be the do-everything back we need. This year has driven home the importance, in this offense, of having a back who can catch, block, etc.--and it would be nice to have someone who could run block as well as pass block, so we could give Weaver some carries out of two-back sets--and to a lot of folks, Mendenhall looks like a really good fit that way. I've even heard him compared to Westbrook, though he's bigger and not as fast--but he has a good rep as a receiver, is a willing blocker, though he has work to do, runs hard, hits the hole hard, has a good second gear, etc. After watching our "running game" last season, that sounds very appealing--to me as well, though (a) I think he's gone before we pick, and (b) taken all in all, I'm hoping for best available OLT.

by The Ancient Mariner on Feb 20, 2008 12:38 PM PST reply actions

I'd rather draft someone who fills our RB holes

which if we deploy Weaver and Morris, isn't in receiving. In other words, I don't think we need a do-all back unless we know he's going to be great across the board. If the choice is like this:

1st Rd - RB: good across the board
2nd Rd - S: good across the board

and

1st Rd - S: great in pass coverage, average against run
2nd Rd - RB: great at what Morris/Weaver aren't, meh at other stuff

I'd rather the latter than the former.

by Matthew @ Field Gulls on Feb 20, 2008 12:49 PM PST up reply actions

agree

I don't want a RB early in the draft.

by Matthew @ Field Gulls on Feb 20, 2008 12:46 PM PST reply actions

rb roundtable

I don't think you can have enough talent and depth in the offensive line. With a good or great line, even an average back can excel. I think, and hope, the seahawks will take the best lineman available, or possible a safety. I think you can pick up a running back later on, or even use the ones they have better.

by molsonhilltoppers on Feb 20, 2008 1:13 PM PST reply actions

/Agree...kinda

Where is all this safety talk coming from? I know Russel is kinda meh, but we went to the superbowl with far less talent at safety than we have now. DT anyone? Please... Pretty please???
I totally agree on the o-line depth issue, especially on a team with an aging Walter Jones and two young guys who become more and more questionable every week. I'd grab the most talented RB or O-Lineman, whith an edge to the lineman considering the depth at RB this year.

by Nate Dogg on Feb 20, 2008 2:31 PM PST up reply actions

In the draft

there is talk of kenny phillips dropping down to the seahawks pick, I think he could be a difference maker, better than russell. When the seahawks went to the super bowl, there offense was a lot more dominating than last year's edition. I still think the way to go is with the offensive line, dominate the line of scrimmage, and shorten the games.

by molsonhilltoppers on Feb 20, 2008 3:04 PM PST up reply actions

We don't need a 1st round DT

Ruskell always find great value on defense in mid rounds

Coach Owens = Scruffy's spell check

by Scruffy Lefty on Feb 20, 2008 5:53 PM PST up reply actions

It all depends on the board...

I can't say I'm willing to trade up for Stewart or Mendenhall, but if they fall to #25 either would likely bring the best long-term value. We clearly need another feature back if we look beyond this season.

As for DTs, who is likely to bring us value at #25? The kid from UNC (Balmer) lacks size. Safety has the same issue. The only way we'd see value at 25 is if Phillips falls.

Based on what I'm seeing, the positions likely to yield the most value at #25 are: OT, CB, and WR (not necessarily in that order). So I'm preparing myself for a pick that is long-term in its orientation (e.g., Malcolm Kelly, WR, Oklahoma).

"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin

by dcrockett17 on Feb 20, 2008 4:08 PM PST reply actions

Of all the player's I've had a chance to see in...

depth, Malcolm Kelly is the most exciting. I truly hope he bombs at the combine and falls to Seattle.

by John Morgan on Feb 20, 2008 4:26 PM PST up reply actions

As for RB

I'm a Felix Jones fan myself. Mainly because he wasn't over worked in College.

Felix Jones = 386 Carries in his College Career
Kevin Smith = 450 Just last year!!!! (Cedric Benson anyone?)

Coach Owens = Scruffy's spell check

by Scruffy Lefty on Feb 20, 2008 5:57 PM PST reply actions

How about CB in the 1st?

Trufant's situation is still not settled, other than he's here for the 2008 season. Suppose no movement on contrac talks by the draft? A guy like Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie would make sense as a 1st round value pick, and even if we do sign Trufant long term by then (or later), the idea of he and a big corner like Rodgers-Cromartie in the secondary is pretty exciting. Jennings is good but struggles against bigger receivers, and the same might said of Wilson.

by Mr Goodtrips on Feb 22, 2008 8:11 PM PST reply actions