Some fun here. Edwards-Helaire rushed for 1,415 yards and 16 touchdowns as a junior .. all-purpose yards -- receiving (55 receptions, 453 yards) and kick returner (KEY) 10 returns, 214 yards pic.twitter.com/3Duq1jjy6J
Holy offense Bat Man. I love Clyde Edwards-Helaire. He is best Rb in the draft. Watkins and Hill deep. Kelce in the middle. And Edwards-Helaire underneath. Good Luck defenses.
Brett Veach told Andy Reid to watch some Clyde Edwards-Helaire film and told Reid you’ll see Brian Westbrook. Reid watched. Then got back to Veach and said he’s better than Westbrook.
Originally Posted by ThaVirus:
Generally speaking, so have we when you put a competent RB in the game.
Big difference is, Swift is only going to see six or seven man boxes here. Teams who play us are far more terrified of Mahomes, Kelce, and formerly Hill.
Oh, I'm not disagreeing that Swift would be better. Me and Detoxing had a similar debate before the draft that year. I preferred Swift, and still would.
But despite being more talented, Swift is somehow significantly more injury prone.
Honestly, outside of Taylor, that entire RB class has been a huge disappointment.
CEH, Swift, Dobbins, and Akers are all looking like busts at this point for one reason or another. [Reply]
CEH hasn't lived up to my expectations but there is still football to be played. He has done some good things but the big thing is for him to hit the hole and that shouldn't be hard behind this line. I'm not giving up on him even if I curbed my expectations. I just expected him play above his rookie season and hasn't happened yet. I think they need to work harder at establishing the run because our book end tackles suck in pass protection but better at run blocking. Keep rotating the backs Keep them fresh for the playoffs. I want to save McKinnon as much as possible for playoffs. [Reply]
Reasonable to say lots of smart people liked the CEH pick. But I never want to hear from the "Poople saying never take a RB in the 1st round are full of it" lot again. You're wrong, you've always been wrong, it is a sh***y stupid move and you can bet Veach isn't dumb enough make that mistake again. [Reply]
Originally Posted by JPH83:
Reasonable to say lots of smart people liked the CEH pick. But I never want to hear from the "Poople saying never take a RB in the 1st round are full of it" lot again. You're wrong, you've always been wrong, it is a sh***y stupid move and you can bet Veach isn't dumb enough make that mistake again.
If we had gotten anything close to Kareem Hunt it would totally be worth it. Our offense has never been the same since we lost Hunt. And obviously it isn't trivially easy to replace him (the myth about RBs) - because we've been trying for a while with zero luck.
I feel like the "RBs don't matter" mantra has swung too far the other way. Everyone just repeats it as dogma now w/o even thinking about it. Maybe RBs don't matter as much when you have a shitty QB. But right now we are dying for a RB that makes teams think twice about these ultra-light boxes. Teams don't fear our running game at all. And with our OL, they should. But our RBs suck.
Also if your late 1st-round RB turns out to be a stud, you can ride him for 5 years and then let him walk for a big payday elsewhere when he's just about used up anyway. [Reply]
Originally Posted by JPH83:
Reasonable to say lots of smart people liked the CEH pick. But I never want to hear from the "Poople saying never take a RB in the 1st round are full of it" lot again. You're wrong, you've always been wrong, it is a sh***y stupid move and you can bet Veach isn't dumb enough make that mistake again.
Eh, I'm all for a rule of not taking a RB in the top 20, and it's not my preference to take one on the 1st, but I stand by the fact that there's virtually no difference in taking one at 32 and taking one at 35.
If the Chiefs got a back like Breece Hall at 32, the pick would've been fine.
I would agree that if you're going to do it, you better be right, and it better be a hit, but I will never agree to it as a rule that you can never break. [Reply]
Originally Posted by scho63:
We thought CEH would be an 8/10
CEH is a 5/10
Yep, he just doesn't break tackles. Hell he doesn't even fall forward for the extra yard. Very much like if you pulled his flag, down at the point of contact. [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
Eh, I'm all for a rule of not taking a RB in the top 20, and it's not my preference to take one on the 1st, but I stand by the fact that there's virtually no difference in taking one at 32 and taking one at 35.
If the Chiefs got a back like Breece Hall at 32, the pick would've been fine.
I would agree that if you're going to do it, you better be right, and it better be a hit, but I will never agree to it as a rule that you can never break.
Using CEH as evidence against picking RBs in the first is smooth-brained logic. He was over drafted based off his measurables alone. First round RB's should be of a certain size/speed, with outstanding production in college [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Guys like Kenyan Drake, James Conner and Sony Michel have been freely available the last 2 seasons and have all had better production over that timespan than Clyde has had.
The Chiefs made no effort whatsoever to bring Darrel Williams back and he was showing himself to be superior to CEH in passing situations and equally bleh running the ball.
If they had invested in Clyde what they invested in Darrel (which is to say - nothing), I don't think he'd be here anymore. Frankly, he'd have never have gotten the amount of opportunities he's gotten to this point, or will evidently continue to get.
He's the living embodiment of divestiture aversion.
I know I’m late to this but I too believe he is only getting the time he does because of his draft position. Let’s not forget he was the first RB taken in that draft. They had their pick of litter and failed miserably. [Reply]
Let's just say the Chiefs drafted a clone of Christian McCaffrey at 32 that year.
Do you honestly believe it would make sense to still say they shouldn't have taken a RB?
If you got a back like that at 32 on a cheap rookie deal with a 5th year option, that's a great pick.
That's the only real appeal to me in taking a RB though. A team that is already a SB contender adding a Christian McCaffrey level back for 5 cheap years.
When you're the Panthers and take him at 8, then proceed to waste all that time being trash, then it's obviously not worth it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
Let's just say the Chiefs drafted a clone of Christian McCaffrey at 32 that year.
Do you honestly believe it would make sense to still say they shouldn't have taken a RB?
If you got a back like that at 32 on a cheap rookie deal with a 5th year option, that's a great pick.
That's the only real appeal to me in taking a RB though. A team that is already a SB contender adding a Christian McCaffrey level back for 5 cheap years.
When you're the Panthers and take him at 8, then proceed to waste all that time being trash, then it's obviously not worth it.