2025 NFL draft

[forgetful]

You're missing my point, which is that a great running back makes a team better. A great OL makes a team better. As does a great QB, WR, or pass rusher or CB.

People here talk about RBs like they are meaningless. Do you really think the Lions would have had the best record in the NFL if they still had Swift instead of Gibbs. They dumped Swift & drafted Gibbs because Gibbs was a difference maker.

Feel free to think that RBs are interchangeable if you want, but you would be wrong. (I'm not saying it is your opinion).

I think the point others are making that if you are going to prioritize positions, RB is low on the list.

OL is probably #1 on the offensive side, because they will make both your QB and RB significantly better.

Then, you probably have QB, WR, and lately maybe TE, before finally the RB. RB/TE might be interchangeable in importance. I'd put RB a little lower because their useful lifespan in the NFL is much shorter.

[jutaw22mu]

I'm cool with Tennessee taking Ward so that the Browns can draft Hunter.  The last time the Browns drafted a guy with a fishing obsession, he wound up in the Hall of Fame.  :-)

[MU82]

I'd take Hunter, who looks like a generational talent.

But once an organization's leaders have convinced themselves that a QB is "the one," it's pretty much impossible not to take him. And that apparently is the case with the Titans and Ward.

Hopefully he works out better for them than so many recent highly drafted QBs have worked out for the franchises that drafted them.

[The Sultan]

I think the point others are making that if you are going to prioritize positions, RB is low on the list.

OL is probably #1 on the offensive side, because they will make both your QB and RB significantly better.

Then, you probably have QB, WR, and lately maybe TE, before finally the RB. RB/TE might be interchangeable in importance. I'd put RB a little lower because their useful lifespan in the NFL is much shorter.

Yeah, of course you want great players at all positions, and of course you want to upgrade when you can, but QBs, edge rushers, etc. are going to have a greater impact than a running back.

[Jockey]

I think the point others are making that if you are going to prioritize positions, RB is low on the list.

OL is probably #1 on the offensive side, because they will make both your QB and RB significantly better.

Then, you probably have QB, WR, and lately maybe TE, before finally the RB. RB/TE might be interchangeable in importance. I'd put RB a little lower because their useful lifespan in the NFL is much shorter.

I understand the point you are making. But I think that point has been stated so often that people take it as fact.

A lot of GMs would disagree, though. The Giants certainly agree with you. That's why they are losers. RB and safety are "lesser" positions, so you let great players walk if they play those positions. Well, no team ever wins anything of consequence without great players on their roster. The Giants said they don't need great players. Again that is why they lose every year.

Did Philly prioritize aRB? Did Detroit prioritize a RB? Did GB? Many people will see the pick of Jeanty in the top 10 as a bad pick. Those people will be wrong.

[MU82]

One player I really like is Matthew Golden, the Texas receiver. Very fast, gets open, superb hands. When I watched him in the playoffs, I was hoping he might be a second-rounder that one of my teams (Seattle, Carolina) could get. But then he reportedly had an incredible combine, where he ran the 40 in 4.29 - and he moved way up in mock drafts.

He's now in the 12-15 range in most mocks. It would be too early for Carolina to take him at 8, and he'll probably be gone when Seattle drafts at 18. He's gonna make some NFL QB very happy.

[wadesworld]

I understand the point you are making. But I think that point has been stated so often that people take it as fact.

A lot of GMs would disagree, though. The Giants certainly agree with you. That's why they are losers. RB and safety are "lesser" positions, so you let great players walk if they play those positions. Well, no team ever wins anything of consequence without great players on their roster. The Giants said they don't need great players. Again that is why they lose every year.

Did Philly prioritize aRB? Did Detroit prioritize a RB? Did GB? Many people will see the pick of Jeanty in the top 10 as a bad pick. Those people will be wrong.

Look at the list of starting running backs for Super Bowl winning teams over the last decade.  Saquon is the exception, not the rule.

The Giants lost even with the RB and S you think they should've prioritized.

[The Sultan]

I understand the point you are making. But I think that point has been stated so often that people take it as fact.

A lot of GMs would disagree, though. The Giants certainly agree with you. That's why they are losers. RB and safety are "lesser" positions, so you let great players walk if they play those positions. Well, no team ever wins anything of consequence without great players on their roster. The Giants said they don't need great players. Again that is why they lose every year.

Did Philly prioritize aRB? Did Detroit prioritize a RB? Did GB? Many people will see the pick of Jeanty in the top 10 as a bad pick. Those people will be wrong.

The Giants weren't winning with Saquon. The Eagles were in the playoffs, and Super Bowl, without him.

Regardless, no one is saying that adding good players at the position is a bad idea. But an elite RB without a good QB will get you nowhere. But you can get somewhere with the opposite.

[Pakuni]

Ashton Jeanty is the favorite (-275) to go 5th overall.
Ashton Jeanty is the favorite (-190) to be selected by the Bears.

Hmmm.

[Uncle Rico]

Ashton Jeanty is the favorite (-275) to go 5th overall.
Ashton Jeanty is the favorite (-190) to be selected by the Bears.

Hmmm.

Trading up to 5 for Jeanty would be a choice.  I've seen other teams mentioned as doing this outside Chicago, as well.

[MUBurrow]

Did Philly prioritize aRB? Did Detroit prioritize a RB? Did GB? Many people will see the pick of Jeanty in the top 10 as a bad pick. Those people will be wrong.

I don't disagree that the league went overboard with by seeing RB was a throwaway position for a minute.  But if my team earned the right to pick in the top 10, I still wouldn't want them using that spot on a RB.  E.g. Philadelphia went 11-6 and then signed Saquon to a 3 year deal with almost no guaranteed money in the third year.  The opportunity cost was a lot less than locking in a rookie pay scale at a more premium position.  Detroit was a much closer call and took Gibbs 12th after going 9-8. I wouldn't have done that, but at least they traded back from 6 to 12 first.

[tower912]

Detroit was criticized for taking Gibbs, Campbell, and LaPorta too early.  Then everybody thought they got a steal in Branch.  All the same draft.

[Dish]

I'm against drafting a RB in the top 10, I am REALLY against trading up in the top 10 for a RB.

There's a lot of good backs in this draft. There are not a lot of good lineman (on both sides of the ball).

I hope I'm not on here in 6 hours saying "bad organization again doing poor things".

[cheebs09]

What are the chances news comes out right before the draft of Rodgers signing somewhere or his intentions?

[Uncle Rico]

What are the chances news comes out right before the draft of Rodgers signing somewhere or his intentions?

He hasn't gotten himself in the news for a week or so.  He has to be itching for it

[RJax55]

I'm against drafting a RB in the top 10, I am REALLY against trading up in the top 10 for a RB.

There's a lot of good backs in this draft. There are not a lot of good lineman (on both sides of the ball).

I hope I'm not on here in 6 hours saying "bad organization again doing poor things".

Yep. RB is the one position in this draft that's very strong.

As the league continues to show, finding good OTs outside of the 1st round is becoming an increasingly difficult proposition.

[RJax55]

He hasn't gotten himself in the news for a week or so.  He has to be itching for it

He has to be conflicted. Hasn't been in the news, but if he makes an announcement during the draft, he has to share the spotlight.

[Jockey]

Ashton Jeanty is the favorite (-275) to go 5th overall.
Ashton Jeanty is the favorite (-190) to be selected by the Bears.

Hmmm.

What moron is going to draft an RB that high.

#losers #conventionalthinking

[Jockey]

I don't disagree that the league went overboard with by seeing RB was a throwaway position for a minute.  But if my team earned the right to pick in the top 10, I still wouldn't want them using that spot on a RB.  E.g. Philadelphia went 11-6 and then signed Saquon to a 3 year deal with almost no guaranteed money in the third year.  The opportunity cost was a lot less than locking in a rookie pay scale at a more premium position.  Detroit was a much closer call and took Gibbs 12th after going 9-8. I wouldn't have done that, but at least they traded back from 6 to 12 first.

I mostly agree with what you are saying. Is it a foolish move for a 4-7 win team to draft a potentially great RB? Absolutely. Is it a foolish move for a 9+ win team to draft a potentially great RB? Absolutely not.

What the conventional thinkers assume is that their rule should apply to every team regardless of where they are in the spectrum. When the Lions drafted Gibbs, I said it was a great pick and it has turned out that way.

If the Raiders draft Jeanty at #6, it will be a terrible pick. If the Bears draft him (at #10 - not if they trade up), it will be a great pick. People need to look at where teams are in the cycle.

[Jockey]

The Giants weren't winning with Saquon. The Eagles were in the playoffs, and Super Bowl, without him.

Regardless, no one is saying that adding good players at the position is a bad idea. But an elite RB without a good QB will get you nowhere. But you can get somewhere with the opposite.

Pulled that one out of your a$$. There is absolutely no way of knowing.

They were already a very good team, so maybe yes, maybe no. But clearly, Saquon made a very good team great.

[The Sultan]

Pulled that one out of your a$$. There is absolutely no way of knowing.

They were already a very good team, so maybe yes, maybe no. But clearly, Saquon made a very good team great.

There's no way of knowing what? That the Giants weren't going to win the Super Bowl with Saquon? I think that's a safe bet.

And the Eagles were in the playoffs the year before, and the Super Bowl the year before that, without Saquon.

Sure he made them better. No doubt.

[Jockey]

There's no way of knowing what? That the Giants weren't going to win the Super Bowl with Saquon? I think that's a safe bet.

And the Eagles were in the playoffs the year before, and the Super Bowl the year before that, without Saquon.

Sure he made them better. No doubt.

I agree - sounds like the same argument that I made about Durant. You were agin' it before you were for it.

[The Sultan]

I agree - sounds like the same argument that I made about Durant. You were agin' it before you were for it.

WTF are you even talking about?

The point is that the Giants weren't going to win even if they had Saquon. They weren't going to win with Xavier McKinney either. They had both in 2023 and they sucked.

The Eagles and Packers didn't have them in '23...and they both made the playoffs. Because both the Eagles and Packers have better players in the positions that matter more than running back and safety - offensive line, edge rushers, and quarterback.

[WhiteTrash]

Oh my Jacksonville 

[Uncle Rico]

Too bad Jacksonville got the best player in the draft.