Spiller vs Bryant

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by Yoda_I_Be:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by Draftology:
I feel like a lot of people are just writing off picking Dez Bryant. If we get our tackle at 13, and both of these guys are available at 17 (I know, unlikely), I think we should pick Bryant. He returned punts in college and can probably return kickoffs in the pros. Yes, he is not the returner Spiller is, but Bryant would start for us. Spiller would be a change of pace back/gadget guy in our offense, ultimately taking away touches from Gore who is already a playmaker at Spiller's position. Eventually Spiller would take over for Gore but that wouldn't be for two or three years, and we want to win now.

Bryant = more total value than Spiller. He will be on the field more AND can return punts -- Spiller returns kicks and will touch the ball sparingly as a 3rd down back.

Being on the field more doesn't matter. Who will touch the ball more is whats important, since they are both playmakers....the answer is Spiller.
Bryant won't do kick returns and a good day for a WR is 6-8 catches. So Bryant returns 4 punts and has 5 catches. Or Spiller has 4 PR, 3 KR, 2 catches and 5 carries. Plus, Gore hasn't finished an entire season in awhile so odds are Spiller would end up getting 10-15 carries once or twice during the season.

I'd go with Spiller without hesitation, he can help out a lot more and possibly take over for Gore in 2 or 3 years depending on Gores health.

So by your metric, any starting RB is more valuable than any starting WR. That's crazy.

Originally posted by Yoda_I_Be:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by Yoda_I_Be:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by Draftology:
I feel like a lot of people are just writing off picking Dez Bryant. If we get our tackle at 13, and both of these guys are available at 17 (I know, unlikely), I think we should pick Bryant. He returned punts in college and can probably return kickoffs in the pros. Yes, he is not the returner Spiller is, but Bryant would start for us. Spiller would be a change of pace back/gadget guy in our offense, ultimately taking away touches from Gore who is already a playmaker at Spiller's position. Eventually Spiller would take over for Gore but that wouldn't be for two or three years, and we want to win now.

Bryant = more total value than Spiller. He will be on the field more AND can return punts -- Spiller returns kicks and will touch the ball sparingly as a 3rd down back.

Being on the field more doesn't matter. Who will touch the ball more is whats important, since they are both playmakers....the answer is Spiller.
Bryant won't do kick returns and a good day for a WR is 6-8 catches. So Bryant returns 4 punts and has 5 catches. Or Spiller has 4 PR, 3 KR, 2 catches and 5 carries. Plus, Gore hasn't finished an entire season in awhile so odds are Spiller would end up getting 10-15 carries once or twice during the season.

I'd go with Spiller without hesitation, he can help out a lot more and possibly take over for Gore in 2 or 3 years depending on Gores health.

So by your metric, any starting RB is more valuable than any starting WR. That's crazy.

Crazy...but true. A top RB is more valuable than a top WR and a top QB is more valuable than a top RB. It's just the way it is.

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by Yoda_I_Be:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by Yoda_I_Be:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by Draftology:
I feel like a lot of people are just writing off picking Dez Bryant. If we get our tackle at 13, and both of these guys are available at 17 (I know, unlikely), I think we should pick Bryant. He returned punts in college and can probably return kickoffs in the pros. Yes, he is not the returner Spiller is, but Bryant would start for us. Spiller would be a change of pace back/gadget guy in our offense, ultimately taking away touches from Gore who is already a playmaker at Spiller's position. Eventually Spiller would take over for Gore but that wouldn't be for two or three years, and we want to win now.

Bryant = more total value than Spiller. He will be on the field more AND can return punts -- Spiller returns kicks and will touch the ball sparingly as a 3rd down back.

Being on the field more doesn't matter. Who will touch the ball more is whats important, since they are both playmakers....the answer is Spiller.
Bryant won't do kick returns and a good day for a WR is 6-8 catches. So Bryant returns 4 punts and has 5 catches. Or Spiller has 4 PR, 3 KR, 2 catches and 5 carries. Plus, Gore hasn't finished an entire season in awhile so odds are Spiller would end up getting 10-15 carries once or twice during the season.

I'd go with Spiller without hesitation, he can help out a lot more and possibly take over for Gore in 2 or 3 years depending on Gores health.

So by your metric, any starting RB is more valuable than any starting WR. That's crazy.

Crazy...but true. A top RB is more valuable than a top WR and a top QB is more valuable than a top RB. It's just the way it is.

But's that's totally false. Today, running backs are disposable -- you use them up and throw them away, regardless of how good they are. Good WRs stay with a team for a VERY long time.

Originally posted by Yoda_I_Be:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by Draftology:
I feel like a lot of people are just writing off picking Dez Bryant. If we get our tackle at 13, and both of these guys are available at 17 (I know, unlikely), I think we should pick Bryant. He returned punts in college and can probably return kickoffs in the pros. Yes, he is not the returner Spiller is, but Bryant would start for us. Spiller would be a change of pace back/gadget guy in our offense, ultimately taking away touches from Gore who is already a playmaker at Spiller's position. Eventually Spiller would take over for Gore but that wouldn't be for two or three years, and we want to win now.

Bryant = more total value than Spiller. He will be on the field more AND can return punts -- Spiller returns kicks and will touch the ball sparingly as a 3rd down back.

Being on the field more doesn't matter. Who will touch the ball more is whats important, since they are both playmakers....the answer is Spiller.

Bryant won't do kick returns and a good day for a WR is 6-8 catches. So Bryant returns 4 punts and has 5 catches. Or Spiller has 4 PR, 3 KR, 2 catches and 5 carries. Plus, Gore hasn't finished an entire season in awhile so odds are Spiller would end up getting 10-15 carries once or twice during the season.

I'd go with Spiller without hesitation, he can help out a lot more and possibly take over for Gore in 2 or 3 years depending on Gores health.

Originally posted by Yoda_I_Be:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by Yoda_I_Be:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by Yoda_I_Be:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by Draftology:
I feel like a lot of people are just writing off picking Dez Bryant. If we get our tackle at 13, and both of these guys are available at 17 (I know, unlikely), I think we should pick Bryant. He returned punts in college and can probably return kickoffs in the pros. Yes, he is not the returner Spiller is, but Bryant would start for us. Spiller would be a change of pace back/gadget guy in our offense, ultimately taking away touches from Gore who is already a playmaker at Spiller's position. Eventually Spiller would take over for Gore but that wouldn't be for two or three years, and we want to win now.

Bryant = more total value than Spiller. He will be on the field more AND can return punts -- Spiller returns kicks and will touch the ball sparingly as a 3rd down back.

Being on the field more doesn't matter. Who will touch the ball more is whats important, since they are both playmakers....the answer is Spiller.
Bryant won't do kick returns and a good day for a WR is 6-8 catches. So Bryant returns 4 punts and has 5 catches. Or Spiller has 4 PR, 3 KR, 2 catches and 5 carries. Plus, Gore hasn't finished an entire season in awhile so odds are Spiller would end up getting 10-15 carries once or twice during the season.

I'd go with Spiller without hesitation, he can help out a lot more and possibly take over for Gore in 2 or 3 years depending on Gores health.

So by your metric, any starting RB is more valuable than any starting WR. That's crazy.

Crazy...but true. A top RB is more valuable than a top WR and a top QB is more valuable than a top RB. It's just the way it is.

But's that's totally false. Today, running backs are disposable -- you use them up and throw them away, regardless of how good they are. Good WRs stay with a team for a VERY long time.

Now you are talking longevity...not value.

Im not saying WR's are not valuable to a team. But if you take a stud RB and a stud WR and ask a team to pick one to start their rebuilding...I would think most if not all would take the stud RB. They touch the ball almost 3 times more than a good WR. So if they are equal as far as talent is concerned, then the Rb is more of a factor and contributes more to the offense.

Originally posted by Draftology:

Originally posted by Yoda_I_Be:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by Yoda_I_Be:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by Yoda_I_Be:

Originally posted by nickbradley:

Originally posted by Draftology:
I feel like a lot of people are just writing off picking Dez Bryant. If we get our tackle at 13, and both of these guys are available at 17 (I know, unlikely), I think we should pick Bryant. He returned punts in college and can probably return kickoffs in the pros. Yes, he is not the returner Spiller is, but Bryant would start for us. Spiller would be a change of pace back/gadget guy in our offense, ultimately taking away touches from Gore who is already a playmaker at Spiller's position. Eventually Spiller would take over for Gore but that wouldn't be for two or three years, and we want to win now.

Bryant = more total value than Spiller. He will be on the field more AND can return punts -- Spiller returns kicks and will touch the ball sparingly as a 3rd down back.

Being on the field more doesn't matter. Who will touch the ball more is whats important, since they are both playmakers....the answer is Spiller.
Bryant won't do kick returns and a good day for a WR is 6-8 catches. So Bryant returns 4 punts and has 5 catches. Or Spiller has 4 PR, 3 KR, 2 catches and 5 carries. Plus, Gore hasn't finished an entire season in awhile so odds are Spiller would end up getting 10-15 carries once or twice during the season.

I'd go with Spiller without hesitation, he can help out a lot more and possibly take over for Gore in 2 or 3 years depending on Gores health.

So by your metric, any starting RB is more valuable than any starting WR. That's crazy.

Crazy...but true. A top RB is more valuable than a top WR and a top QB is more valuable than a top RB. It's just the way it is.

But's that's totally false. Today, running backs are disposable -- you use them up and throw them away, regardless of how good they are. Good WRs stay with a team for a VERY long time.

Now you are talking longevity...not value.

Im not saying WR's are not valuable to a team. But if you take a stud RB and a stud WR and ask a team to pick one to start their rebuilding...I would think most if not all would take the stud RB. They touch the ball almost 3 times more than a good WR. So if they are equal as far as talent is concerned, then the Rb is more of a factor and contributes more to the offense.

A stud running back gets about 5 yards per carry. A stud wide receiver gets about 15 per reception. So you say they get about three times more touches, but they get a third as many yards on each touch so it balances out. Dez Bryant would return punts and start at wide receiver. CJ Spiller would return kicks and be a change of pace back/ gadget guy. The big difference is that our #2 receiver is not a playmaker and our #1 running back is.