Jenky
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 5,671
- Reaction score
- 4,252
Yes, a team has to have a RB. Just like they have to have a CB. Just because you have to have one doesn't mean they have equal value.
RBs are the easiest position to transition into from college. So there is little ramp up time. They are plug and play. They also take a pounding and have a short shelf life. This is why the running back by committee approach is so popular. And some may believe that the running game doesn't really matter much anyway, but that's a whole different topic that I see is once again being rehashed in another thread. I don't agree for the record.
CB is a more difficult position to play and to transition to from college. You are required to play at least 3 of them close to half of the time. That means that you are playing 3 times the number of CBs vs RBs, at least half of the time. Finding 1 solid starting CB can be a challenge, let alone 3 or 4.
So teams place a higher value on that position. And we you are presented with the chance to grab a very good to potentially great one at 4, you should do it. Most teams would have.
Just my opinion, but there's tons of variables and you went over a few. These were my 1a) and 1b) guys. I can see why they would have drafted either.