Interestingly, Brooks rated Gordon better than Gurley even before Gordon's monstrous 2014 campaign and Gurley's knee injury. Brooks also threw out the idea that the 2015 draft will have a revival of sorts in the valuation of RBs - something I don't see any other draft analysts doing, although IIRC Kiper's latest mock had Gordon going at 16.
With all the chatter on BBI that addresses the question of whether Kevin White or DeVante Parker might be the "BPA" at 9 (at an impact position), I don't get why so few here don't think Gordon, coming to the Giants (who will always emphasize running as a big art of their O under TC), isn't an "impact" player...
Anyway enjoy the read, and then consider what Gordon did in 2014...
Who's better, Melvin Gordon or Todd Gurley? - (
New Window )
At #9, it seems unlikely either RB will carry the grade. Let's see if that changes as scouting season picks up.
Our current RBs are average at best. In fact their YPC is below average.
Imagine what a dominant RB would do for this team. It would open up our passing game and reduce the number of Eli's interceptions. Plus it would give us the ability to control the clock and rest the Defense.
I still have my "dream" that Mariotta is there at #9 and we "sell" him to Houston for their #1 and a starting OG or #3 or something like that. We select Gordon or even Gurley with the pick! And with the extra #3 we take an OL - likely a guard.
Duke Johnson is BETTER than all these guys.
Gordon has a lot of Jamaal Charles in him. The explosiveness and running style. Always a home run threat.
But Gurley is the more experienced receiver, more powerful runner, and just seems to have a more fluid running style. He's a 3-down back that and I feel like he's less of a system-dependent talent than Gordon.
I don't want either at #9 though. Andre Williams was kind of disappointing but he's the type of runner who feels very OL-dependent. Kind of like Jacobs, he's a power runner that can't really create for himself but can power his way for chunks of yards if he's given a hole. I think improving the C/G situation will really boost Andre's game, which is why I want Collins or Scherff so bad.
I think investing in a 1st round OG would help the running game more than investing in a 1st round RB. But I'd still like to add a 3rd/4th round RB talent who has a little more explosiveness than Williams/Jennings and can catch the ball.
1) For all the talk about how this draft is deep in RB talent, CBS sports player rankings have something like 15 WRs ranked in their top 100 or so prospects and about half that many RBs. So maybe the WR talent is really significantly deeper than the RB talent?
2) Obviously these rankings (by anyone) will change, perhaps considerably, after the combine. Just as a toss off, let's say Kevin White runs a 3.55+ 40, and Gordon runs a 3.45 or less... And Gordon looks like a smooth hands catcher at the combine drills... Wouldn't that move Godon up considerably? Or White down? (Assuming other speed #s are in line with their 40s...)
3) I agree Duke Johnson is another back I'd consider very strongly and maybe jump all over him depending who else is there at slot 40. But will he be there? Various threads here have mentioned Duke in round 3, but if he posts combine #s like David Wilson did, no way he makes it to 82 or whatever our 3rd round slot is, IMO. Heck he might be gone by 40, as noted...
4) I doubt the Giants' RBs on the current roster factor into the decision to go after one of the top guys like Gordon, Gurley, Johnson, or Abdullah. Frankly that's comparing apples and oranges, or more likely Chevys and Porsches... You wanna Porsche, go buy a damn Porsche, don't tell me that what we need is a better highway (OL) to drive on... Although indeed, a Porsche driven on lumpy unpaved roads has limited value, or none at all!
5) Lastly - for Osi OY Veh - please don't compare Gordon to Dayne. Gordon is a whole different ball of wax, IMO, and his University be darned. Even just by stats, compare the YPC. Gordon's has been silly the past two years - Barry Sanders type stuff. Dayne was a workhorse and compiler, not a ffin' bomb ready to explode any play!
When I wonder about Gordon at 9, or any other RB at 40, it's because the specific players look like great value at those slots, at least to me. The one point we disagree on is the "positional value" of a WR vs an RB in COUGHLIN's scheme and prefered style. This team still wants to run the ball, and to run it on 2nd and 10...
And a great RB elevates an OL more than a great WR does, IMO...
Another cautionary note about Gordon's stats. First, here they are, and they're spectacular:
ATT: 343 YDS: 2587 AVG: 7.5 TD: 29
Now, here are the combined figures for Wisconsin's next four leading rushers:
ATT: 262 YDS: 1865 AVG: 7.1 TD: 16
Crazy numbers all around... until they ran into Ohio State.
If he's there in the second I think he'd be great value.
I think its a mistake to draft or not draft a RB because of blocking. It seems that's a very coachable thing that most college RBs need to be coached up on.
Duke Johnson is BETTER than all these guys.
Gordon ran maybe 15 routes in his entire career. He's better than Duke and it isn't that close.
I like Duke in the 3rd but Gordon is a 1st round guy. He's special.
You've seen more of him then I but from what I've seen he's got a lot of space to work with on most of his runs. Can he make things happen on his own like all great RBs have to sometimes?
Radar, I'd like to see Gordon's yards after contact numbers too but am more inclined to guess they were good not mediocre. Looking at the highlights from his record setting bowl game vs Auburn,who look like a pretty good D, I didn't see lots of gaping holes. Rather I saw Auburn stacking the LOS massively to stop him. And I can't remember ever seeing a back setting up his blocking, and using a combination of patience followed by a burst as well as just hitting holes like lightning the way Gordon does,time and again. Both he and Duke Johnson find holes most RBs don't see, regularly. The guy from Boise St. doesn't do that IMO, and in the highlights of him shown on another thread, he doesn't use cutblack lanes nearly so often. That guy is mostly following blocking lanes, IMO.
2) Obviously these rankings (by anyone) will change, perhaps considerably, after the combine. Just as a toss off, let's say Kevin White runs a 3.55+ 40, and Gordon runs a 3.45 or less... And Gordon looks like a smooth hands catcher at the combine drills... Wouldn't that move Godon up considerably? Or White down? (Assuming other speed #s are in line with their 40s...)
If any player runs the 40-yd dash in less than 4 seconds, I would ask the officials to recalibrate their stopwatches. Then I would draft both of them!
And, I write this as a dude who played years of tailback himself!
At #40, there figures to be a few players of NYG interest, especially Duke Johnson.
I like Gordon a great deal, I'd draft him if the value met the draft position, which is probably closer to #15, at this point.
And, I write this as a dude who played years of tailback himself!
At #40, there figures to be a few players of NYG interest, especially Duke Johnson.
I like Gordon a great deal, I'd draft him if the value met the draft position, which is probably closer to #15, at this point.
JonC - I'm wondering how you know what the Giants view as premium positions.
What you've listed doesn't seem very accurate. They had just paid Beatty big LT money and draft Pugh in the first round so obviously they didn't project him at LT. They drafted Wilson in the first round and apparently loved Spiller when he came out.
I think we try to deduce Giants preferences from far to small of a sample to be confident about the results.
There are exceptions where they will weigh various factors against each other based on where they're picking (Wilson was picked #32, not top 15), can the player handle multiple positions (Pugh, and they spelled out the belief he could play LT in the future, also picked outside the top 15), etc.
I addressed this question to you a week or two ago, as well.
It's kinda like the BBI Trophy
You've seen more of him then I but from what I've seen he's got a lot of space to work with on most of his runs. Can he make things happen on his own like all great RBs have to sometimes?
There are a few things. If you are looking for a RB who can create, watch the season opener against LSU. Their front 7 crushed our line all day, and Gordon was cutting inside and creating the entire time.
Also, you can look at the talent we have on the line vs past years. Montee Ball for example ran behind Gabe Carimi (1st rounder), Travis Frederick (1st rounder) Peter Konz (1st Rounder) Kevin Zeitler (1st rounder) and Rick Wagner (4th rounder, currently starts for Ravens).
For Gordon's line, Havenstein may be a late rounder, but no one else is poised to be drafted.
As a runner he has everything you want. Instant acceleration. Can cut and explode. He runs hard and can make people miss in tight spots. But it isn't just the running ability.
Arrow is pointing up in terms of NFL upside because they did not tap into his game as a pass catcher. Rutgers made the same mistake with Ray Rice. Running the routes Rice did in the NFL is easy to do. Without any college receiving experience Rice was an instant impact receiver out of the backfield in the NFL. Gordon will do the same.
If Gordon goes to the a team that will use him in the pass game he'll be a weapon. No doubt about it. He's explosive and quick. He'll get wide open in the NFL. The lack of catches in college means nothing. Catching a football is easy. Getting a guy like this in space is easy too. He'll be an NFL weapon in the pass game.
Gordon has a much higher floor than a lot of the guys being talked about at #9. And his upside is as high as any offensive player in the draft.
Gordon played two SEC teams this year and rushed for 391 on 50 carries (7.82 yards per carry).
If either of these guys was a proven safety valve, I think they would be in consideration for a first round pick.