Sony Michell shows why you need a good RB

[kskboys]

And Philly won the year before with Jay Ajayi, LaGarrett Blount and Corey Clement.

Absolutely. Blount provides that tough yards RB that is so important to success.

 

[Irvin88_4life]

I truly cannot understand the obsession w/ being a top 10 pick. Why does that matter?

It doesn't matter. I have seen top 10 players bust and undrafted guys have great careers. My response was for the one's that think you have to have a top 10 pick at RB to get a great back or be able to run the ball

 

[mattjames2010]

Not true.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make by stating they haven't taken one in the top 5. That doesn't make any sense, and doesn't appear to mean anything.

NE put up w/ Blount for a couple of years because he provided the short yardage RB that Belly knows he needs. NE has gone out of their way to get/keep a guy like that on their team. NE is the perfect team to use as an example. Belly has taken 2 RB's in the first that I remember, along w/ a 3rd rounder. He also picks up RB's in FA all the time.

Belly considers every position besides QB disposable. NE is the extreme opposite of any thinking that the RB position is not important.

NE let Blount go twice. Last I remember, NE got Super Bowls without him, yes? What did he do against the Falcons? You get he was benched and in the doghouse, yes? Still won the game. Still put up a ton of points.

And what is "not true"? That they beat KC without Michel "tearing it up" What is your weird fixation with this dude anyways? I would say he's a distant cousin, but you can't even spell his name correctly. So, it's not that.

New England had and has had a RBBC approach for years and didn't need Blount in the Super Bowl to win. Michel is just another RB in a long list of NE RBs that will be traded away and fade into obscurity.

 

[DFWJC]

Was at the very end of the first round. People are debating you have to have a top 10 pick at RB to get a good back. Their words not mine

Fwiw, I think Zeke is great, but a top 4 pick cost about three times as much was a very late 1st rounder.
Not remotely the same thing

As you know, the argument wasnt to nottake a RB at pock 30, it was to take one with a top 5 pick.
Just so totally different

 

[irishline]

Gurley wasn't top 10

He was pick 10 of the 2015 draft. Unless you don't consider 10 to be in the top 10.

 

[conner01]

Lost in the shuffle w/ Edelmann busting out in the super bowl was a playoff MVP type performance in the Pats super bowl run. In 3 games, here are his stats:

71/336/6 TD's.

Michell was a beast in the Chargers playoff win. They couldn't stop him. 24/129/3 TDs

And then in what became a close one vs KC, Michell kept the chains moving and the ball out of Mahomes's hands. 29/113 and 2 TD's.

And then in the super bowl, while overshadowed by Edelmann's performance, Michell once again had a great game at 18/94 and scored the games only TD.

NE outplayed SD, but I'm not sure NE beats KC w/o his performance.

You want to take bets now on Sony getting a second contract in NE

 

[Flamma]

Extremely bad assessment.

You should watch this kid. He's a demon, and would be anywhere he played. He fell to the late first due to medical issues, and had some ball security issues.

I just don't see it. He looks good, but so do a lot of running backs playing for the Patriots. This kid doesn't look overly fast, powerful, or elusive for that matter. A good back, but doesn't stand out to me.

 

[Cowboysheelsreds053]

He was pick 10 of the 2015 draft. Unless you don't consider 10 to be in the top 10.

LLLOOLLL

 

[robjay04]

Again, teams far back from us moved up - they gave up the picks needed to get their guy. Once again, we sat put and were complacent because we most likely knew, at that time, Zeke would be on the board.

And this "they didn't want to go to 4" - what? If we offered them our 4th and a next year first round pick, you seriously stating they wouldn't have taken this? Eagles and Rams both offered present and future picks, if we did that, we could have moved up. It's weird to even deny this - we had more value than Eagles and Rams. Heck, even if they moved back, they STILL could have packaged the picks they got to move around still.

And what the hell is a "normal draft"? It's not as though that draft class was depleted with talent at the time - that top 5 was loaded and we were right in the mix, we just decided to stay put and take the least valuable position.

Eagles gave up a 1st, 3rd and 4th in that draft. They also sent a 1st and 2nd the next year.

The Rams sent their first, both second round picks and a third in that draft to move up AND their 1st and 3rd for the following draft.

Maybe those teams wanted quantity...we were never going to give up that many picks to move up 2 or 3 spots.

You also said “even if they moved back”

How do you know we had an offer to move back? Using that same logic...how much value do you think the teams ahead of us had on the 4th pick?

Taking trades into account adds a lot of variables that we don’t know. The only real thing to debate is if we made the right pick at 4. I think we did..especially since Ramsey seems like a head case right now. I also believe Zeke’s play resulted in more wins than anyone available when we picked by a wide margin.

 

[Cowboysheelsreds053]

We made the right choice between Zeke and Ramsey, I would have hate to see the last couple of seasons with Zeke.

 

[TwoDeep3]

There is a distinct reason why this is a fan opinion page and not a coaches page.

 

[T-RO]

Lost in the shuffle w/ Edelmann busting out in the super bowl was a playoff MVP type performance in the Pats super bowl run. In 3 games, here are his stats:

71/336/6 TD's.

Michell was a beast in the Chargers playoff win. They couldn't stop him. 24/129/3 TDs

And then in what became a close one vs KC, Michell kept the chains moving and the ball out of Mahomes's hands. 29/113 and 2 TD's.

And then in the super bowl, while overshadowed by Edelmann's performance, Michell once again had a great game at 18/94 and scored the games only TD.

NE outplayed SD, but I'm not sure NE beats KC w/o his performance.

There are a couple of funny things about this thread:
1. The Patriots scored 13 points in the Super Bowl
2. Michel isn't even regarded as a great back!

What we in fact saw again this year was the importance of o-line, a good defense and superior coaching.

 

[risco]

Lost in the shuffle w/ Edelmann busting out in the super bowl was a playoff MVP type performance in the Pats super bowl run. In 3 games, here are his stats:

71/336/6 TD's.

Michell was a beast in the Chargers playoff win. They couldn't stop him. 24/129/3 TDs

And then in what became a close one vs KC, Michell kept the chains moving and the ball out of Mahomes's hands. 29/113 and 2 TD's.

And then in the super bowl, while overshadowed by Edelmann's performance, Michell once again had a great game at 18/94 and scored the games only TD.

NE outplayed SD, but I'm not sure NE beats KC w/o his performance.

Georgia produces fantastic RBs...

 

[kskboys]

You want to take bets now on Sony getting a second contract in NE

Why would I do that, and why would you ask this? NE doesn't overpay, which is a known fact. Not sure what you're getting at here.

 

[kskboys]

There are a couple of funny things about this thread:
1. The Patriots scored 13 points in the Super Bowl
2. Michel isn't even regarded as a great back!

What we in fact saw again this year was the importance of o-line, a good defense and superior coaching.

Michel was a rook in a rotation. Of course he isn't regarded as a great back, why would he be?

Your last sentence: No doubt.

 

[kskboys]

NE let Blount go twice. Last I remember, NE got Super Bowls without him, yes? What did he do against the Falcons? You get he was benched and in the doghouse, yes? Still won the game. Still put up a ton of points.

And what is "not true"? That they beat KC without Michel "tearing it up" What is your weird fixation with this dude anyways? I would say he's a distant cousin, but you can't even spell his name correctly. So, it's not that.

New England had and has had a RBBC approach for years and didn't need Blount in the Super Bowl to win. Michel is just another RB in a long list of NE RBs that will be traded away and fade into obscurity.

Dang, dude, you losing the argument so bad you had to get personal? I mean, what other reason would you go full out weirdo on us?

Of course they did. He wanted a huge contract, they laughed in his face. However, they also gladly took him back after he lazed his way out of PITT.

Your argument attempt is all over the place.

 

[T-RO]

Michel was a rook in a rotation. Of course he isn't regarded as a great back, why would he be?

What am I missing here...What’s the point of your thread: To win a Super Bowl you need a good running back—of which there 25-35 floating around the league.

 

[Pape]

NE let Blount go twice. Last I remember, NE got Super Bowls without him, yes? What did he do against the Falcons? You get he was benched and in the doghouse, yes? Still won the game. Still put up a ton of points.

And what is "not true"? That they beat KC without Michel "tearing it up" What is your weird fixation with this dude anyways? I would say he's a distant cousin, but you can't even spell his name correctly. So, it's not that.

New England had and has had a RBBC approach for years and didn't need Blount in the Super Bowl to win. Michel is just another RB in a long list of NE RBs that will be traded away and fade into obscurity.

what wasn't true is that Michel played on both games vs the Chiefs. The first game, he ran for over 100 yards ... the second game, got nearly 100. Those were hard yards to get and proved to be very important in the overall scheme of those two games.

What am I missing here...What’s the point of your thread: To win a Super Bowl you need a good running back—of which there 25-35 floating around the league.

The point is the difference between Super Bowl 52 and 53.

In Super Bowl 52, the Patriots were unable to play any type of ball control offense. The running game they had in place was not capable of gaining the hard yards because it was all based on the short passing routes. They couldnt keep them off the field.

Compare that to Super Bowl 53, where the Pats were able to grind out plays on the ground. It may not seem like much, but it allowed the Patriots to control the time of possession. It was a low scoring game. One or two plays made by the Rams and the outcome could have been much different.



not for nothing, but a lot of people continually under rate the new england running back corps... yes it has been set up differently than most other teams, but that is what the Patriots have needed. They have always tried to carry quality backs on their roster. Contrary to popular opinion, a player does not have to hit an arbitrary statistical benchmark in order to be considered a "good" player.

 

[mattjames2010]

Eagles gave up a 1st, 3rd and 4th in that draft. They also sent a 1st and 2nd the next year.

The Rams sent their first, both second round picks and a third in that draft to move up AND their 1st and 3rd for the following draft.

Maybe those teams wanted quantity...we were never going to give up that many picks to move up 2 or 3 spots.

You also said “even if they moved back”

How do you know we had an offer to move back? Using that same logic...how much value do you think the teams ahead of us had on the 4th pick?

Taking trades into account adds a lot of variables that we don’t know. The only real thing to debate is if we made the right pick at 4. I think we did..especially since Ramsey seems like a head case right now. I also believe Zeke’s play resulted in more wins than anyone available when we picked by a wide margin.

LOL because THEY DID MOVE back. If we offered the same, again, why would the Browns and Titans NOT move back? You're not making any sense. They could do more with the picks they got from us than the picks they got from Eagles and Rams - again, if they wanted, still keeping a top 5 pick, they could move around the board still.

There were two franchise QB, a highly touted corner, and a dominant pass rusher in the top 5 - we took the RB. There's not getting around this, we went with the least valuable position outside of longsnapper. Two of the teams in the top 5 now have franchise QBs and were in the Super Bowl (Wentz helped), Ramsey is one of the best young corners in the league that got to a championship game led by a great defense, and Bosa has had two seasons of double digit sacks in his 3 year career. All of these positions are more valuable than RB.

 

[mattjames2010]

Dang, dude, you losing the argument so bad you had to get personal? I mean, what other reason would you go full out weirdo on us?

Of course they did. He wanted a huge contract, they laughed in his face. However, they also gladly took him back after he lazed his way out of PITT.

Your argument attempt is all over the place.

My argument is consistent. Whoever gets plugged in at RB for NE produces and none of these RBs are considered "great". As I said, they took Blount out in the most important game of the year, and James White played his role just fine.

And since you talk about this dude so often, I would expect you to have spelled his name correctly by now.