5 minutes ago, Stinger226 said:

Actually, if that's all it would take, I would but moving around in the top 10 probably going to cost more than that.

Correct.  Throw the draft chart out the window during day one of the draft.  You always have to over pay.

5 minutes ago, Mongo3451 said:

Correct.  Throw the draft chart out the window during day one of the draft.  You always have to over pay.

especially when it's a player like Anderson. Or a QB.

The Bears use the term BPA a lot but by who's list? It's their list. They're 32 different big boards, they will just tell you he was the  highest rated player on their board. Almost by everyone's list, Bjan Robinson is probably going to be the best player available at that spot. It's also position value  that will come in to play. If they took Robinson, I won't hate it but their is value later in the draft at RB, so I don't see them doing that.

1 hour ago, Stinger226 said:

The Bears use the term BPA a lot but by who's list? It's their list. They're 32 different big boards, they will just tell you he was the  highest rated player on their board. Almost by everyone's list, Bjan Robinson is probably going to be the best player available at that spot. It's also position value  that will come in to play. If they took Robinson, I won't hate it but their is value later in the draft at RB, so I don't see them doing that.

I would say they don't want to reach too far by their grading scale/list.  Poles and Flus have traits and skills they might value differently.  If Bijan rates 9.8 and Wright 8.2, do they pass that value for a need?  I know I value need myself, but I'm just a fan that loves this process. 

3 hours ago, Stinger226 said:

The Bears use the term BPA a lot but by who's list? It's their list. They're 32 different big boards, they will just tell you he was the  highest rated player on their board. Almost by everyone's list, Bjan Robinson is probably going to be the best player available at that spot. It's also position value  that will come in to play. If they took Robinson, I won't hate it but their is value later in the draft at RB, so I don't see them doing that.

It bothers me that the NFL has devalued the RB position.  I could argue that a great running back can offset a lack of talent elsewhere.  If he's a great pass catcher, he's a reviving weapon.  If he's a great blocker, it makes his QB better.  If he's a great runner, he keeps his defense off the field a little longer.  Making everything about the quarterback has hurt every franchise that doesn't have one or that has overpayed for one.  It's simply a trend I disagree with and don't care for.

RBs and Strong Safeties are 5' 11" and 220 pounds. If you assume that athletic ability is equally randomly distributed to all size of people, and you know that there are many more people who are 5' 11" and 220 than 6' 6" and 320 pounds, then you see that there are many more potential RBs in the world than OTs.

Also, a RBs success depends so much on the OL. A lesser RB has more yards behind a good OL than a good RB does behind a poor one.

And finally, RBs take so many hits, they dont usually play so long. Most arent homerun hitters.

RBs are important, but you can see why the NFL devalues the position.

That said, every now and again a player comes along at any position who can take over a game. Ed Reed, Gronk, even Deion Sanders can take over a game from a position that isnt usually where that influence comes from.

Having Jim Brown, Walter Payton or Barry Sanders is always going to be a winning move, but shy of a superstar like that, while it is extremely important to have a good RB, you can see why the NFL would rather have another younger one cheaper than pay that position in salary and draft capital.

As a fan of a franchise that is known for great RBs and LBs it is difficult to see this trend but, I get it. Lesson learned when Matt Forte played for another team. I've since put my focus on mid round RBs since the Pace Era.