McNeill among players likely not to be brought back

The only difference better Mathews and Tolbert is how many carries they got? I wouldn't say their running styles or body types are very similar at all. They are different types of RB...... surely, you can see that? It's good that we have both, because you need several RB's in today's game. That doesn't mean that one back won't get most of the carries..... that's what a feature back does.

Are AP or CJ worth their contracts? That's rather subjective, since most NFL stars are overpaid compared to normal folks. Both have been very productive players for their teams, so I could hardly say the money was wasted. The problem that they both have is that they have been on teams without a franchise QB...... the single most important position in the NFL.

What is holding the Chargers back today is not the offensive side of the ball. What's worse than trading up for a running back, is not drafting and developing a replacement for Jamal Williams, and failing to fill the void from the loss of Merriman. Both have been longstanding problems that have not been adequately addressed. Overpaying for a RB is much less of an issue to me.

and why haven't we been able to acquire playmakers for those positions? Possibly because we blow high picks on the offensive backfield. What kind of a running style Tolbert and Mathews have is irrelevant. The only thing that matters in the NFL anymore from a RB is that they can pass block, receive, and run between the tackles. Having a feature back is pointless. Two of the top 3 feature backs (MJD, AP) were on teams which won a combined total of 8 games this year.

Oh, and we do have a dearth of receiving options on the field other than VJ. It might be nice to actually get some playmakers on offense.

We only "blew" a high pick on the backfield once...... Jamal and Merriman longstanding issues before then. I'm talking about years of neglect on AJ's part..... you're complaining about a single draft pick.

Neither of those RB's you mentioned has a franchise QB either...... a point you keep glossing over.

You do need backs that are versatile tough. As you said, they must be able to pass block, receive, and run between the tackles. Plenty of backs are limited as receivers..... we have two who are very good in that regard.

1st and 2nd round picks are high selections. Using a 2nd round pick on a FULLBACK is madness.

The point you keep missing is that having a game-breaking RB is irrelevant to regular season and playoff success. Taking a running back before the second round is crippling. Imagine that you have an organ donor, who is shot, 6 feet from a hospital in the face, killing him instantly, but they can keep him alive long enough to harvest his organs, and all the hospital takes is his hair, and throws the rest out. That's what drafting a RB in the 1st round is.

Other than the fact that you have a very disturbing imagination, I didn't take much from that post.

I never said trading up for a FB was a good idea..... it wasn't. I was merely pointing out the unlike many of AJ's top picks, Mathews has been productive. Trading up for a RB may not be necessary, but picking a bust WR or OLB in the 1st round is worse. At least, with Mathews, you have a decent player. Castillo was a 1st rounder too..... never was more than average.

The 1st round is for impact players...... that's what you want to find. AJ has done a crap job the last 5 years getting any impact players at the top of the draft.

I absolutely agree. The problem is that running backs from the first round aren't any more of an impact player than a running back from the 5th round, which is why Mathews, regardless of how productive he is/will be, will never be worth having drafted him in the 1st unless he suddenly gains the ability to leap 80 yds in a single bound and heal Larry English.

The point of the analogy was that there are some elite playmakers that are only found early in the draft (i.e. heart/kidneys/lung/liver transplant) and then there are some pieces to the puzzle that you can get just about anywhere (like hair, which you can get from rogaine, horses, donors, your own ***, etc). Having a donor corpse (1st round pick) and using it for the hair (Mathews) is wasteful (as was the pick). The analogy loses some of the flair if I have to explain all of the elements of it, but there you go.

So, I guess you have a list of the positions you should only use 1st round picks on?

It's a bizarre analogy, no matter how you slice it.

1st round: QB, LT, 3-4 OLB, DE, 4-3 3-tech, G, CB.
2nd round: TE, C, S (unless the guy is a complete gamebreaker who can cover WRs and big TEs, as well as play physically in the box), WR, NT
3rd round: RB, FB, 4-3 OLB, ILB, RT, back-up QB
4th round: kicker, punter, backup to any above listed position/developmental guys
5th round: see above.

One thing worth noting on the above is that the positions listed above for the first round are all positions where elite players tend to have very, very long careers, as well as where the talent found later in the draft is generally not as good as that from the first round for the same position, along with usually being significantly less developed.

I think the analogy matches up to the way the NFL works very, very well, especially if you look at it as many individuals who get to pick and choose which parts they will receive based on how sick they were. If you need a new liver (pass-rush) and you take the guy's hair, you might not be bald anymore, but good luck living, lol.

And if an elite player comes along at a position of need, you don't ever break that pattern? You might say that in general that RB's aren't worry of 1st round picks, but would be say LT wasn't worth spending a 1st rounder on?

There are other analogies that could be made that don't involve body parts..... #imjustsaying

Better question. Can this team resign Jackson as well as make some quality defensive signings? Williams might be out of reach, but Tyvon Branch may be the better contribution/dollar, especially if we pick up an OLB in the draft.

I deleted the post turned this topic into a thead, thought it was good enough.

Branch is more in the price range of a free agent that AJ would go after. I seriously doubt that Smith is suddenly going to change his ways an go after a big money FA like Williams.

LT, or Richard Seymour? LT had a legendary career here, but would we have one more games/playoff games with a guy like Turner carrying the rock and Seymour destroying other teams' O-lines.

Turner came along well after we drafted LT. Your scenario doesn't even make any logical sense. The entire offense was built around LT...... are you saying Seymour would've had a bigger impact in 2001 than LT did?

LT had such a big impact that 3 years later we were picking number 1 overall.

LT vs Seymour has nothing to do with Turner, it has to do with the misperception that taking RBs in the 1st round can be worthwhile if the RB is talented enough. They just don't matter anymore, because the cost factor on them, relative to their production, is just too high, no matter how high their production is. LT was a phenomenal RB, but it's irrelevant, because RBs don't take you to the SB.

Turner could be anyone in 2001. It's not about the player at RB, it's just about having a young player with tread still on the tires, who you ditch as soon as they start asking for real money.

And taking Seymour instead would've yielded a different result?

And yours has to do with the misconception that taking Seymour instead of LT would've made a huge difference to the team.

Without LT, the offense under Marty would've been dismal. Replacing LT with any old RB wouldn't have gotten the team anywhere.

The offense was dismal anyway if you didn't notice. We didn't have a legitimate offense until we picked up Gates. LT was going to be an amazing player wherever he was, but him being 100% of our offense and receiving the ball on virtually every down probably skewed his value.