NFL Draft 2012: Where Do NFL Teams Draft Franchise Running Backs?
by pqlqi on Feb 15, 2012 8:21 AM PST
Email
Print
There is an argument that running back is a fungible position in the NFL, and that effective NFL RBs can be consistently drafted in the mid to late rounds. I’ve (without a shred of evidence) made the argument that maybe NFL scouting is just poor at identifying which college RBs will succeed in the NFL, and that is why you can draft them in the mid-late rounds. In this article, I wanted to test the assumptions that: 1) RBs are fungible, 2) effective NFL RBs are available to be drafted in later rounds, and 3) that NFL front offices are poor at identifying NFL caliber RB talent.
I evaluate five years of draft history from 2006-2010 (concentrating only on those backs in recent memory, and in the "pass happy" NFL era). I’ve decided to exclude the 2011 draft for the following reasons: 1) like other positions, there is a learning curve for RBs in the NFL and it is hard to assess players after only one year, 2) with the short offseason, players had less than normal time to learn offensive sets and coordination with blockers, and 3) we saw an inordinate number of season ending injuries among the 2011 draftees, in the preseason and early season - possibly related to the prolonged lockout and players not having ideal conditioning regimens.
I have excluded analysis of UDFA RBs as there is no reasonable way for me to determine the number of UDFAs who have churned through all the camps in the NFL, and thus no way to analyze the success rate of UDFA RBs (but it should be obvious that teams don't rely on finding their franchise RBs in the UDFA pool).
My subgroupings of successful RBs are wholly subjective; grading is pretty much only results-oriented – I am not evaluating vision, elusiveness, quickness, breakaway speed, catching ability, power or potential in any specific way, nor am I analyzing tape. Given the number of players involved in this analysis, I would assume that each person who reads this article will differ in the way they would rank at least several players. The point of this article is not to determine how players should be ranked, and the ensuing discussion should concentrate instead on the questions presented above – Are RBs fungible? Can you find a franchise-quality RB in the mid-late rounds? And, are NFL scouting teams poor at determining which players will succeed in the NFL?
For the purposes of this analysis, I have broken down player quality into 4 tiers:
- The first tier is RBs that I would call "franchise-quality RBs." Almost everyone would be satisfied with this player as their team’s starting RB, as in "I sure wish we had player X as our starter" or "if we lost our starter, I sure would be happy with player X." Knowing how they would perform at the NFL level, and in a vacuum (i.e. ignoring team needs), I wouldn’t think it a mistake if my team's FO spent a late first round pick on these players.
- The second tier is backs that I would term "successful NFL RBs," and have at least one of the following qualities: 1) has been a successful part of a backfield share, 2) has been a successful situational back, or 3) would qualify for the first tier excepting a history of injury (Steve Slaton comes to mind). Using the retroscope, I think of these players as previously worthy of a 2nd or 3rd round pick.
- The third tier is RBs that have been successful for short stints as a backup or a history of consistent but low level contribution. Mostly replacement quality, these RBs hang around in the league only because there aren’t enough 1st and 2nd tier RBs, and they are really only worth a late round (4-7) pick – again in retrospect.
- The fourth tier is backs that have had limited success in limited opportunities – basically non-factors in the league. When teams draft these players, two years later the GM asks the scout "Why did I listen to you about that guy? We could have drafted Doug Baldwin."
The year by year evaluation of RBs is quite long, so if you want to skip the gory details, after the jump search for the paragraph that starts with bold and italic text after a four line break…
Note: Backs are listed with this format – Name (draft round, overall draft position, RB position draft ranking).
In 2010, 15 backs were drafted, 3 in the first round. It is still quite early to stratify these players, but I’ll give my opinion.
1st tier – Matthews (1st round, 12th overall pick, 2nd back selected), Tate (2, 58, 5)
2nd tier – Spiller (1, 9, 1), Best (1, 30, 3)
3rd tier – Gerhardt (2, 51, 4), Hardesty (2, 59, 6), Starks (6, 193, 10)
4th tier – JMcKnight (4,11,5), JConner (5,139,6), ADixon (6,173,7), DKarim (6,180,8), JDwyer (6,199,9), CScott (6,200,11), RDiImperio (7,237,12), ELorig (7,253,13).
Certainly, several players might prove themselves worthy of a better ranking, Spiller if he continues to progress as a WR, Best if he can avoid another (series of) concussion(s), and Starks based on his great playoff performance in the 2010 post-season. Many would probably argue about Tate, but he’s young, healthy, and the dropoff from Foster is pretty small. JMcKnight/ADixon/DKarim all had a small amount of effectiveness, but not enough yet in my eye to launch them into the discussion. The difficulty rating the 2010 draft class, and a brief look at what happened to the top 8 or so picks in the 2011 draft class convinces me that at the minimum, 2011 should have been excluded.
In 2010, 1/3 first round selections are 1st tier RBs, 3/3 first round selections are 1st and 2nd tier RBs. 4/4 1st and 2nd tier backs were selected in the top third of RBs in the draft, and 4/4 1st and 2nd tier RBs were drafted in the first 2 rounds. 0/4 1st and 2nd tier RBs were drafted after the 2nd round and 0/4 1st and 2nd tier RBs were drafted after the 3rd round.
In 2009, 23 backs were drafted, 3 in the first round.
1st tier – McCoy (2, 53, 4)
2nd tier – Beanie Wells (1, 31, 3)
3rd tier – Moreno (1, 12, 1), Donald Brown (1, 27, 2), Shonn Greene (3, 65, 5), Glen Coffee (3, 74, 6 – retired for the ministry), Mike Goodson (4, 111, 7), JRinger (5, 173, 13), Bernard Scott (6, 209, 17), Stephens-Howling (7, 240, 22), and Rashad Jennings (7, 250, 23)
4th tier – TFiammetta (4,128,8), AndreBrown (4,129,9), GJohnson (4,134,10), QJohnson (5,145,11), FSummers (5,169,12), CPeerman (6,185,14), AaronBrown (6,192,15), JDavis (6,195,16), COgbonnaya (7,211,18), JWilliams (7,212,19), FVakapuna (7,215,20), EWilliams (7,221,21).
Beanie Wells, when healthy, looks like a 1st tier back, but hasn’t sustained it. Moreno, Brown, and Greene are all close to 2nd tier, mostly because of volume of opportunity, but all of them fail the eye test as franchise backs except when they are playing their very best football.
0/3 first round selections are 1st tier RBs, 1/3 first round selections are 1st and 2nd tier RBs. 2/2 1st and 2nd tier backs were selected in the top third of RBs in the draft, and 2/2 1st and 2nd tier RBs were drafted in the first 2 rounds. 0/2 1st and 2nd tier RBs were drafted after the 2nd round and 0/2 1st and 2nd tier RBs were drafted after the 3rd round.
2008 was really a very very very deep draft and 28 backs were selected, 5 in the first.
1st tier – McFadden (1, 4, 1), Mendenhall (1, 23, 4), CJ2K (1, 24, 5), Forte (2, 44, 6), RRice (2, 55, 7), JCharles (3, 73, 10), Hillis (7, 227, 25)
2nd tier – JStewart (1, 13, 2), FJones (1, 22, 3), KSmith (3, 64, 8), Slaton (3, 89, 11)
3rd tier – Choice (4, 123, 12), RTorain (5, 139, 13), Hightower (5, 149, 15), JForsett (7,233,26)
4th tier – Jacob Hester (3,69,9), JFelton (5,146,14), OSchmitt (5,163,16), MThomas (5,166,17), TBrown (6,172,18), JParmele (6,176,19), XOmon (6,179,20), SLarsen (6,183,21), MHart (6,202,22), LHilliard (6,204,23), CWashington (7,213,24), CBoyd (7,238,27), APatrick (7,240,28).
What an exceptional year for RBs. If Hillis continues to fizzle next year, maybe he belongs in the second tier. Hightower was one of the toughest choices, he might be a 2nd tier guy, but I just don’t think a team would want to spend a 1-3 round pick on him for his production – he is not inspiring to watch. KSmith and Slaton have had stretches where they looked all of the world like franchise backs, but both were derailed by injuries – both still may get better. Maybe it’s a bit of homerism, but Forsett has been a good 3rd down back for 2 of his 4 seasons and decent in his other two. XOmon I think had an exceptional game at some point, but without looking up his stats, I just don’t think he qualifies for a significant contributor.
3/5 first round selections are 1st tier RBs, 5/5 first round selections are 1st and 2nd tier RBs. 8/11 1st and 2nd tier backs were selected in the top third of RBs in the draft, and 7/11 1st and 2nd tier RBs were drafted in the first 2 rounds. 4/11 1st and 2nd tier RBs were drafted after the 2nd round and 1/11 1st and 2nd tier RBs were drafted after the 3rd round.
2007 was a very very very terrible year, although AP makes a valid attempt to salvage the class every season. 26 backs were selected, 2 in the first.
1st tier – AP (1, 7, 1), Lynch (1, 12, 2), ABradshaw (7, 250, 26)
2nd tier – MBush (4, 100, 10)
3rd tier – BLeonard (2,52,5), LMcClain (4, 137, 13), Snelling (7, 244, 24)
4th tier – Kirons (2,49,3), CHenry (2,50,4), BJackson (2,63,6), LBooker (3,71,7), THunt (3,90,8), GWolfe (3,93,9), APittman (4,107,11), DWright (4,111,12), KSmith (5,148,14), OO’Neal (6,175,15), RMauia (6,181,16), TClayton (6,186,17), KHall (6,191,18), DAnderson (6,195,19), JHairston (6,208,20), DSchouman (7,222,21), DWynn (7,228,22), NIlaoa (7,236,23), KDarby (7,246,25).
There is nothing higher than 1st tier for AP. Giants scored a bargain with Bradshaw at 250. There is probably a reasonable argument that Lynch is 2nd tier, especially if you are a Buffalo fan. But I’m pretty sure if Seattle could have drafted Lynch instead trading the pick away for Deion Branch, we would have loved it, so I’ll give him a 1st tier grade. Bush might have been 1st tier if not for McFadden.
2/2 first round selections are 1st tier RBs, 2/2 first round selections are 1st and 2nd tier RBs. 2/4 1st and 2nd tier backs were selected in the top third of RBs in the draft, and 2/4 1st and 2nd tier RBs were drafted in the first 2 rounds. 2/4 1st and 2nd tier RBs were drafted after the 2nd round and 2/4 1st and 2nd tier RBs were drafted after the 3rd round.
In 2006, 19 backs were selected, with 4 in the first.
1st tier – DWilliams (1, 27, 1), Addai ( 1, 30, 4), MJD (2, 60, 6)
2nd tier – RBush (1, 2, 1)
3rd tier – Maroney (1, 21, 2), LWhite (2, 45, 5), JNorwood (3, 79, 8), MRobinson (4,100,9), LWashington (4, 117, 11), JHarrison (5, 145, 13), QGanther (7,246,19)
4th tier – BCalhoun (3,74,7), GMills (4,106,10), PJDaniels (4,132,12), DKirtman (5,163,14), WLundy (6,170,15), LVickers (6,180,16), JDRunnels (6,195,17), CHumes (7,240,18).
Addai has struggled with injury, but he has performed as a franchise back when healthy, and he played a key role in the Colts Super Bowl season in 2006-7 as a rookie 1818 combined rushing and receiving yards and 10 TDs including the post season, with 143 combined yards in the Big Game – a player that pushes a team over the brink to a Super Bowl victory is absolutely worth a 1st round pick in my book. The renewed Reggie Bush in Miami might make an argument for him being a 1st tier RB, but I think he needs to have a similar follow up season (I wonder if it is an attitude change, or does New Orleans just have major flaws in its run game – see Mark Ingram this past season).
2/4 first round selections are 1st tier RBs, 3/4 first round selections are 1st and 2nd tier RBs. 4/4 1st and 2nd tier backs were selected in the top third of RBs in the draft, and 4/4 1st and 2nd tier RBs were drafted in the first 2 rounds. 0/4 1st and 2nd tier RBs were drafted after the 2nd round and 0/4 1st and 2nd tier RBs were drafted after the 3rd round.
[]-[]-[]-[]-[]-[]-[]-[]-[]-[]-[]-[]-[]-[]-[]-[]-[]-[]-[]-[]-[]-[]-[]-[]
If you skipped the year-by-year babble, you can rejoin the conversation here. You might ask me, "What did I miss?", "So, that was a lot of information; what does that all mean?", or "I pretended to read it all but it was too much information in a difficult to appreciate format; would you help me out?" Well, let me summarize…
First round picks are highly likely to be significant contributors: Over five years of the draft from 2006-2010, 111 RBs were drafted, 17 in the first round.
Of the first round selections, 47% (8/17) are franchise-quality RBs, and 82% (14/17) are franchise-quality or successful NFL RBs. The 18% (3/17) of first round RBs who could be considered poor selections were Laurence Maroney (21st overall pick), Knowshon Moreno (12th), and Donald Brown (27th), all of whom were 3rd tier RBs and have had enough success in the NFL to remain on a roster with significant playing time beyond the average 2-3 year career of an NFL player.
It is rare for a first round RB to be a bust.
Successful NFL RBs are almost all drafted in the first 3 rounds: Of the successful (1st and 2nd tier) RBs, 19 out of 25 (76%) were selected in the first two rounds, 20/25 were selected among the first third of RBs drafted that year, and 88% (22/25) are drafted in the first 3 rounds.
The 6 successful backs not selected in the first two rounds? Ahmad Bradshaw (7th round), Michael Bush (4th), Jamaal Charles (3rd), Kevin Smith (3rd), and Steve Slaton (3rd), and Peyton Hillis (7th). (Note: Four of these mid-late round selection successful RBs were selected in the deepest RB draft in years, and three of them [Charles, Smith, and Slaton] were drafted as the 8th, 10th, and 11th backs selected behind McFadden, Jonathan Stewart, Felix Jones, Mendenhall, CJ2K, Forte, Ray Rice, and the only real miss in the first 11, Jacob Hester).
First and second round draft selections account for the vast majority of franchise-quality RBs; it is exceedingly rare for a mid-late round draft pick to result in a franchise-quality running back:
A round-by-round breakdown of the success rate of teams drafting for franchise-quality RBs out of 111 draftees over 5 years…
1st round – 47% (8/17)
2nd round – 42% (5/12)
3rd round – 9% (1/11)
4th round – 0% (0/14)
5th round – 0% (0/12)
6th round – 0% (0/24)
7th round – 10% (2/21)
13/16 (81%) of franchise quality RBs were drafted in rounds 1 and 2. And if you draft an RB (appropriately) in the first two rounds, you have about a 45% chance of getting your franchise back. But if you rely on mid-late picks (rounds 3-7), you have a slightly less than 4% chance of getting a franchise back. There is a 12.3 fold success rate on a round 1-2 pick vs. a round 3-7 pick – an incredibly strong odds ratio.
RBs are not fungible: This conclusion may seem to be bit of a stretch, but follow my logic: if draft-eligible RBs were really fungible, 1st and 2nd tier RBs would be evenly distributed throughout the draft, or even weighted towards the later rounds because teams would wait to draft them, and would never waste draft capital on a player.
The reality is that NFL front offices are very, very good at identifying which backs will be elite or even successful, and all of these players are drafted in the first two rounds.
Among the RBs drafted in the 1st and 2nd round, and among the RBs that have proven to be effective NFL players, you can argue there is some amount of fungibility among similar RBs, but no one can argue that you could replace Adrian Peterson, LeSean McCoy, or Arian Foster with Knowshon Moreno, BenJarvus Green-Ellis, or Ryan Torain (or whatever the Redskins flavor of the day is).
I think the answers to the original questions I posed are pretty clear:
1) Are RBs fungible? RBs available in the draft are not fungible. Elite college prospects and RBs that have proven success in the NFL may to some extent be fungible, though likely only among players that share similar ability (as broad as that might be).
2) Can you find a franchise-quality RB in the mid-late rounds? The odds of finding a franchise quality RB in rounds 3-7 are extremely low, less than 4% per pick. Franchise-quality RBs are almost always drafted by the end of the second round (81% drafted by the 64th pick). Successful NFL RBs that contribute significantly to the team are almost always gone by the end of the third round.
3) Are NFL scouting teams poor at determining which players will succeed in the NFL? No, NFL scouts are exceptional at identifying college RBs who will succeed in the NFL.
64 comments
|
6 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I feel the same way about fungibility.
I think the term being introduced to the football world has led many to think it applies to the short shelf life of RB careers — which of course is demonstrably true — but it doesn’t mean that at all. It’s about the value of any given commodity compared to the value of any other.
Burke’s research also more or less aligns with your analysis.
Head of catering.
Oil is fungible.
Calling RB’s fungible annoys me to no end. Nice write up.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
As far as I can tell, it's Football Outsiders' fault.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Feb 15, 2012 11:11 AM PST up reply actions
I actually think it is fantasy football's fault
Because most leagues are redraft (instead of dynasty), perception is that you may as well have drafted Arian Foster in the 9th round 2 years ago, or Lynch in the 6th round this year – because they were fungible with, or even better than, 1st round draft picks – especially with injury risk. I think this bleeds into the amateur NFL discussion, but it is absolutely negated by Burke’s research (which I had not seen, but is a great read) and my not-so-strict analysis that both show that, overwhelmingly, the good backs are drafted early.
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
I'm a believer that most of the good everything is drafted early.
There will always be diamonds in the rough, but out of the 100’s of guys drafted and signed each year there are how many Doug Baldwins or Tom Bradys? A couple every year sounds about right.
The true anomaly is an absolute idiot like Millen running a draft.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
by hazbro24 on Feb 15, 2012 2:31 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Do you agree that they are more fungible than many other positions?
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
Long snapper is definitely the most fungable position
Most others, like RB, are a whole lot more complicated. If you draft an elite talent, then you will get someone who can perform in just about any system. If you draft a late round guy at RB, they still may perform well, but because they match up well with how your system operates.
they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!
Please don't anger the ghost of Boone Stutz!
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Feb 15, 2012 2:40 PM PST up reply actions
J.P. Darche
would like you to tell him he’s fungible to his face!
by Tokyo Slim on Feb 20, 2012 10:42 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
No, and I don't think it's close either.
Kicker, punter, man cover corners, wide receivers (#2s and slot), guard, nose tackle, long snapper. All those positions are more plug and play than a running back-or at the very least the same level.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
I would actually argue that solid nose tackles are fairly difficult to replace
If for no other reason that very few men are the absolute freaks of nature that defines guys who play well at the position.
Long suffering, committed Seahawks/Packers fan
All players above replacement level are hard to replace.
There’s not enough talent to go around.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
by hazbro24 on Feb 15, 2012 5:30 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
True. And after reading my post again, I realized that I hadn't made a good point at all. I blame mid-term studying for the brain-drain
Long suffering, committed Seahawks/Packers fan
Well for this to answer..
you had to do the same analysis for each position and then calculate whether there is a signifcant difference in the fungibility (is that a word?)… but with the offseason draging on for quite sometime, maybe sombody will be bored enough to tackle that monster analysis:-)
To skip analysis,
Those are positions for the most part that aren’t dependent on scheme and require almost zero knowledge of the play book. They are literally plug and play.
Receivers already know the routes (there are only so many possible), they just need to learn what you call them.
Nose tackle’s job is to line up and stuff the middle.
Man to man corners: go cover that guy
Long snapper: snap it long
Punters and Kickers: no explanation needed.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
just looked up the actual definition of fungible
Because i never really knew what it actually meant. After reading it, i don’t see how running backs can be seen as fungible. Different running styles and catching capabilities throws that out of the window. You can’t just plug any running back into a team and have it work.
On the plus side tho, awesome write up and research as usual!
Enter the 37th chamber: BEASTMODE
Great analysis
I think the attitude of you can find a rb in the 4th round and he’ll come in and avg 4 yards per carry is over hyped. I think it comes from teams like green bay being able to use a variety of no name running backs and still win the bowl.
Denver put the idea on the map.
The same backs being hard pressed to succeeed elsewhere save Portis reinforced it. What people didn’t understand, and to an extent still don’t, is the impact the system made, which was more than just ZBS. The most impressive play-calling job I saw this year were the Shanahans against us. It was a thing of beauty.
But there was also a relativity dynamic; few teams were looking for the profile they wanted, and successful backs didn’t need to be complete or clean backs. The spread of ZBS has diminished the extent of the value pick, now.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Feb 15, 2012 11:10 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, they found a niche value and exploited it.
Sooner or later (usually sooner) everybody else picks up on it and it’s no longer an advantage.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Well after reading this
article it seems like we we need to draft a running back in the first two rounds this year. The Hawks want to run the ball alot and we cannot count on Lynch having an injury free season if he is taking the majority of the carries. Great write up I wouldn’t have guessed how important it is to draft a "top " running back prospect in the draft.
Starting to hope more and more that Richardson falls.
BPA at 11/12 for sure. That’s discounting Coples (if he falls) for risk.
by Stay Off the Flowers on Feb 15, 2012 10:12 AM PST reply actions
With the new CBA
one could imagine RBs moving back up the draft ladder,
when they used to cost a fortune to draft high it didn’t jive with a pass-happy league,
but with a more modest salary, you draft them, run them for 4 years, and let em go.
I was thinking about this as well, but
the 2011 draft doesn’t necessarily support that idea.
http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft?position=RB&type=position
Only one RB drafted in the first round, likely because of the small run on QBs early in the round (4), and a draft extremely front loaded in linemen (19 OL and DL selected in the first round). But also possible because teams thought it was a very deep draft at RB and they could pass on one of the top 6 guys and get similar ability in the next 6 (similar to the 2008 draft where at least 11 really good backs were the result).
I think with more and more spread offenses in college, it might become harder to evaluate college RBs for potential success in the NFL because of the difference in run blocking with larger between tackle holes and LBs and safeties playing further off the line. I’ll admit excluding the 2011 draft in all probability weighted the analysis towards the 1st and 2nd round picks, but compared to the prior 5 years, it stands out for too many reasons. In fact, we may be witnessing a paradigm shift in draft strategy based on changes in salary scale, changes in RB usage in college, and the continual progression (cycle?) of pass-run balance in the NFL.
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
Looks like it was a weak class though.
So far it looks like Murray was the only one they missed on.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Nice write up
One thing I’d like to add is that you contend that it’s hard to find a good RB in the later rounds and the success rate is low. You said something like 4% the question is what is the success rate for other positions? If all other positions the success rate for the later rounds is 3% or less than wouldn’t it make sense to wait on RB?
I know that’s a hard question to answer because you would have to go through ever draft and every position but just my thoughts on it.
by Ironbob on Feb 15, 2012 10:26 AM PST via mobile reply actions
You can start
here, only because this article (LB) contains the links to the other positions studied: QB, RB, WR, DE & DB.
Basically they show that the best players are for the most part picked at the top of the draft, across the board. They show that the drop-off from the top is often very steep. LBs & WRs have a similar initially-large dropoff, but there remains some good value for a bit deeper into the draft than other positions.
The league is pretty good at scouting players, then. The high failure rate of draft picks in general don’t serve as an indictment of scouting ability or methodology, in light of this data. It’s just the way it is. And so trading down from the top too much is actually a riskier proposition.
Specific to your question of RBs relative to other positions, the trail of value from the top doesn’t last so long for RBs, because they’re generally easier to scout. They succeed & fail much more on account of their physical abilities than QBs or linemen, and their key skills are relatively easy to see. There’s no hidden skills that are hard to scout or take time to develop. They are ball carriers and their value is in evading & breaking tackles.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Feb 15, 2012 11:24 AM PST up reply actions
Interesting. Jonah Lehrer just today says the league sucks at scouting talent:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/02/what-jeremy-lin-teaches-us-about-talent/
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
A big problem here.
Thanks for pointing the article out, though. Timely, and interesting even if I think it’s a poorly constructed premise. (And I realize that you aren’t necessarily endorsing it, just providing it).
I was reading the Massey-Thaler paper that Lehrer cited, today, linked from Burke’s study which took a more nuanced take on the implications than Lehrer’s overreaching generalized one. Overconfidence in a franchise’s talent evaluation ability I’m convinced exists on a wide scale — our own team’s high confidence plainly stated multiple times — which matches up more or less with human nature (many good links & papers in this thread, but none, to me compare with this treatment of Daniel Kahneman’s book).
But that doesn’t mean the effects of that overconfidence compare to the effects of the general ability of the league to draft the best players first. Just that it’s a factor in play.
Anyway the problem with his premise is: the combine is a centralized and standardized medical evaluation exercise. It aides greater due diligence in prospect evaluation mostly by identifying medical issues that could impede a prospect’s effectiveness or shorten his career. It provides a standardized baseline of metrics to compare against. It helps to weed out things you might not have seen on tape.
It’s pretty much the reverse of what many ESPN forum types seem to think its purpose is. They think it’s a tool to determine who the best prospects are, because they run or jump the best. Lehrer demonstrates that assumption in his premise.
It’s a rather single-dimensional study of a very convoluted evaluation process. I suspect it’s also predicated on the assumption that talent evaluation should or could have a very high success rate. If that were the case then we might’ve seen that come through in any talent eval vertical (corporate or technical recruiting? The democratic process of elected officials’ public vetting?) but it just doesn’t come up.
If ~50% of, say, DEs & WRs, are proven to “bust,” does that mean the league does a poor job? Do we know what the true, optimal rate of success really is? They could conceivably think of everything and evaluate it all as correctly and wisely as anyone ever could, and the success rate could potentially remain not much better. It wouldn’t be the fault of the talent evaluators, then.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Feb 15, 2012 2:38 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
awesome post, thought provoking. Thanks
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
Thanks, cuz re-reading this, it's too long by half.
Lazy & haste means I didn’t take the time to pare it down; glad to know the gist still comes through.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Feb 15, 2012 2:55 PM PST up reply actions
I feel like I need to respond here,
because I think I’m the first guy that brought up the term “fungible” in this previous thread (though I used the phrase “relatively fungible”):
http://www.fieldgulls.com/2012/2/9/2787874/nation-wide-mock-draft
When I made this comment:
I’m not sure any RB is BPA anywhere the first round
I was well-aware of Brian Burke’s previous work on the subject (noted, here, by jacobstevens) and was trying to make a claim more based on opinion than on any kind of statistical argument.
That said, your statistical breakdown is very good and very thorough. I mentioned, in that same thread, that it was clear that you had a better chance of getting a better RB by investing a higher pick. And your evidence supports that (mostly*).
What this piece doesn’t address, though, is whether the investment of a 1st-round pick is “worth” the investment:
-How much effect does a RB have on a run game (compared to the OL or QB)? How much does does the run game effect the likelihood of winning (compared to the passing game, ST, run defense or pass defense)?
-What is the marginal difference in production between a “great” RB and an “average” RB and how much more competitive can that make a team? Can you find “franchise” RBs on the FA market?
-How long can a “good” or “great” RB compete at a high level? Guys like Forsett, Hightower and Bush out-produced guys like Lynch, Wells and DMC at times. Julius Jones and Tashard Choice looked very good, at times, before seeing significant declines in production. Meanwhile, guys like Ricky Williams and LaDanian Tomlinson saw career revivals.
*There doesn’t seem to be a clear statistically significant difference between the likelihood of drafting a “franchise” RB in the 1st or the 2nd round.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Feb 15, 2012 10:28 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Yes, it is a separate discussion.
Good points to raise.
Side note, it’s kind of funny to me that the success & lovability of Lynch has invigorated the interest of the value of running backs for Seahawk fans. For the past few years, I’d say most of us (myself included) were reluctant to commit too much to a smashmouth approach, and would flick our wrists dismissively at that kind of talk with a half-hearted “passing league now.”
But yeah, in the context that you raise with these valid points, this article serves merely to bring one factor to a head, which is that the best backs are to be found in the first couple rounds, and that backs are not an easily-replaceable commodity.
Since Seattle’s going to be running the ball a lot, I say it’s worth it for us. Part of the value of the high draft investment is the expectation of relatively longer contribution, which renders comparisons to flash-in-the-pan success stories irrelevant.
The free agent RB market is actually good, to me, I think. I think it’s become an overly-bear market for backs, without enough justification. Too many teams were burned too badly too often on star RBs getting big cash and fizzling. Until the demand comes back, when a decent & not-too-young back is available, it’s a good option to consider.
That tempers whether a team ought to pursue getting an RB early in the draft. But otherwise more or less I don’t think it’s a position that should be treated much differently than others in the draft. If BPA and he’ll help your team, it’s a good move.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Feb 15, 2012 11:34 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
The Un-drafted
I recognize the difficulty in including the Un-Drafted but let’s just use Arian Foster as an example. He is very good and there are others that fall into this category. So if you compared the top three rounds to the remaining, I think we would have a better picture of the draft team. ??
Even going by a qualitative metric (success rate, a %) than a quantitative metric
undrafted players are going to be hard to completely square with the seven 32-slot rounds to produce any meaningful takeaways. It’s a larger sample size with no defined limit. I don’t think the same draft data contains every signed UDFA for every year. We just know of notable ones that stuck. Even though it’s a picked-through talent pool, the number of hits could be higher because relatively-speaking, there’s more opportunity. Both due to volume and expectations (they can go on the practice squad, while early-drafted failures surface quicker).
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Feb 15, 2012 1:01 PM PST up reply actions
my reply fail is just below, titled "I'll approach your question a different way."
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
I'll approach your question a different way.
I’ll attempt to make a reasonable estimate of the number of UDFA RBs evaluated by teams each year, allowing me to make an estimate of the success rate for UDGAs
Assume, on average, teams end the season with 9 players on IR, combined with the 53 on active roster, resulting in 62 players per team at the end of the season. Teams draft on average 8 players (7 rounds + 1 round of compensatory picks distributed throughout the draft). Preseason rosters are 90 players, leaving a gap of 20 players x 32 teams = 640 players in camps that are not rookie draftees. Assume that 200 of these 640 camp bodies are retreads from prior year drafts, so that around 440 UDFAs are churned through camps each year.
At the low end estimate of UDFA RBs, we have 1/22 players on the field at any given time are RBs, and 1/22 * 440 = 20 UDFA RBs per class. At the high end, on average ~24 RBs are selected per draft class (256 players) over the last 5 years, so we could estimate that 3/32 players drafted are RBs, and 3/32 * 440 = 41 UDFA RBs per class. Over a 5 year span, that approximates to 100-200 UDFA RBs that are evaluation.
I can only think of Fred Jackson and Arian Foster as franchise quality backs that were found as UDFAs over the same 5 year span I evaluated in the original post. So we are talking about a success rate of 1-2%, and even if my estimate are wrong by a factor of 100%, we are talking about a maximum success rate of 4%.
A team choosing to evaluate even more of these UDFAs would result in a lower success rate – they are UDFAs because they are the least successful and/or least physically talented and/or dropped under the radar for things like potentially career ending injury, playing at a D2/D3 school, or spending time in prison.
Shifting the round 3 picks up into the high probability success group seems misleading since, for all intents and purposes, success rate for finding a franchise RB after the first two rounds falls off a cliff, and moving the third rounders into the high probability group would unfairly penalize the concept (and reality) of drafting good RBs in the 1st and 2nd rounds.
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
After a bit more research today, I guess UDFA RBs in the league include
at least Arian Foster, Fred Jackson, BenJarvus Green-Ellis, LaGarette Blount, and Isaac Redman. I think the first 4 are resounding successes for an UDFA, Isaac Redman may be. Figure there might be one or two more UDFAs who contribute significantly as RBs and maybe your success rate is as high as 7% or as low as 3%.
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
Terrell Davis fell off a cliff in Round Three.
Can’t think of any other exceptions to the rule.
Your write up + Seahawk’s Draft Blog = Hawk’s picking a RB in round 2, plus
Hawks pick a pass rusher in Round One = Hawks miss out on Osweiler & Cousins.
But not to worry for Josh Portis waits in the wings, with his Super hero cape.
by broadbill birdwatcher on Feb 15, 2012 12:14 PM PST reply actions
Using your Terrell Davis argument is akin to saying we will draft our QBOTF in the 6th round
so don’t worry about missing out on Osweiler or Cousins.
Oh wait, you already mentioned that we already have Arian Foster Josh Portis.
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
Here's another way to look at things
If we look at the top 25 RBs by YPC (over 100 carries) in 2011:
10/25 (40%) were 1st round picks playing on their original team
8/25 (32%) were picked in the 2nd or 3rd round and playing for their original team
4/25 (16%) were undrafted
3/25 (12%) were drafted in the 1st but signed as FA.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2011/rushing.htm
If we look at the top 32 RBs by attempts, only 8 were 1st round picks on their original team:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2011/rushing.htm
I wouldn’t begin to argue that these brief surveys are conclusive, but it does suggest that NFL teams have had significant success in addressing the RB position (in finding effective runners or “workhorse” RBs) in the draft outside of the 1st or in FA.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Feb 15, 2012 12:20 PM PST reply actions
If someone endeavored to take the time,
I’d be interested to see this approach, but using the top 15 or top 20 at most backs, over a longer number of performance years (2006-2010 might be a nice comp vs. pqlql’s study here).
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Feb 15, 2012 2:16 PM PST up reply actions
Interesting points, but your stats seem selected to support the point you want to make
Here is a distribution by draft round of the top 25 RBs by YPA in 2011 (100 minimum attempts, and excluding Newton and Tebow)
1 – 11/25 (44%) – 9 of 11 are still with original team
2 – 7 (28%) – all 7 are still with original team
3 – 2 (9%) – both are still with original team
4 – 0
5 – 1 (4%) – still with original team
6 – 0
7 – 0
UDFA – 4 (16%) – all still with original team
while 4/25 (16%) of these YPA leaders were UDFA RBs, the pool of UDFA RBs is 1.5 to 2 times the size of the entire draft pool, so [21 drafted RBs/1 draft pool size]/[4 UDFA RBs/1.5 – 2 draft pool size] = 8-10 times higher probability of getting a top YPA RB with a draft pick than an UDFA.
23/25 (92%) leaders in YPA (100 minimum) are still playing for their original team
18/25 (72%) leaders in YPA were drafted in the rounds 1 and 2
only 2/25, or 8% of the YPA leaders are not with their original teams, Willis McGahee and Reggie Bush.
The four UDFAs that are leaders in YPA are Arian Foster (franchise back), Blount (questionable franchise back, can he learn to pass block and catch effectively), Pierre Thomas (3rd best back on his team), and Isaac Redman (Steelers backup, looks pretty good in his limited time, but remains an unknown). Foster is the only one that I would want as the Hawks starting RB (make it happen Schneider!).
Here is the distribution by draft round of the top 32 RBs by attempts in 2011
1 – 12/32 (38%) – 7 of 12 are still with original team
2 – 6 (19%) – all 7 are still with original team
3 – 3 (9%) – all 3 are still with original team
4 – 3 (9%) – all 3 are still with original team
5 – 1 (3%) – still with original team
6 – 0
7 – 2 (6%) – 1/2 with original team
UDFA – 5 (16%) – all still with original team
Note again that the UDFA pool is about 1.5 to 2 times as large as the entire draft pool, so [27 drafted RBs/1 draft pool size]/[5 UDFA RBs/1.5 – 2 draft pool size] = 8-10 times higher probability of getting a top 32 carries player with a draft pick than a UDFA.
If we look at a summary of that distribution, we see:
26/32 (81%) of the top 32 RBs in attempts are still with their original team
15/20 (75%) of 1st and 2nd round in the top 32 are still with their original team
18/23 (78%) of 1st through 3rd round picks still with original team
21/26 (81%) of 1st through 4th round picks still with original team
or another way to look at it – only 6/32 (19%) of these RBs are not with their original team – these 6 players are Lynch, Benson, McGahee, and Reggie Bush, all of whom were given up on by their original team due to a variety of factors (mainly disappointment/frustration over the “failed” 1st round pick, and a most likely a desire to move on to cheaper and/or fresher talent), Peyton Hillis who was never given a chance to be the bellcow back in Denver, and Thomas Jones who is with his 5th team in 12 years – a remarkably unique career for a smashmouth RB.
You can pick out stats that favor your analysis, but if you don’t look at it in a holistic way, a single stat can sure be misleading – like the fact that of the top 10 YPA RBs, only two broke 180 carries or 1000 yards. In doing this analysis, it was interesting to me that Ben Tate averaged 5.4 YPA while Foster only average 4.4 YPA. Is Tate a better RB that Foster? (ok, my immediate prior statistic is intentionally misleading as FJackson, DMurray, DMcFadden all easily would have broken those barriers if not for season ending injuries, and BTate would have made it if Arian Foster was not in the backfield).
Your argument is that you can obtain elite RBs outside of the first round, but my original article, the Burke article referenced above, and this secondary analysis all suggest that regardless of how you measure “good” or “elite” backs, the vast majority of them are taken in the first 2 rounds.
You are right though, you may be able to obtain a decent back in FA or trade, but you will likely be getting a guy who comes with big questions like Lynch, McGahee, Bush, and Benson or a guy who will cost you an arm and a leg. You may be able to luck into a surprise UDFA, but only 5 have really stuck in the last 6 or so seasons, and only Foster and Jackson are “franchise backs.” And you may be able to find a late round draft steal. But the odds and risk of any of these happening are generally unfavorable compared to the likelihood that a round 1-2 pick pans out.
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
I never said that the analysis I presented was complete or perfect
The reason why I picked a “top 25” was because the low cut-off that PFR set and too many of the highest-performing RBs (by YPC) had few attempts. I picked the top 32 RBs by carries to try to get a picture of which RBs were getting the most usage. I don’t disagree that it was a quick and sloppy analysis.
That said, you’re confusing the issue of “where to good RBs get drafted” with “where do teams get good RBs”. You can’t say, with a straight face, that Lynch, Benson or Bush justified their draft slot. These players were all busts (or under-perfomers) as draft picks but successes as FA/trades.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Feb 15, 2012 3:00 PM PST up reply actions
I am not confusing the issue, I am addressing both issues.
In regards to those three players: In his first 2 years, Lynch was a bellcow back accounting for 17 TDs (15 rushing, 1 receiving, 1 passing) and just over 2600 combined yards. In 2008, he was relegated to 2nd string and the coach’s doghouse after a weapons charge-related 3 game suspension, and it’s probably pretty safe to say that Fred Jackson has been the better RB the last two years. Bush and Benson both changed their approach after the wake-up calls they received. It’s hard to blame the FOs for the motivation/behavior/approach issues these players had in their first 3-4 years in the league, and maybe none of them has proven their worth at their draft position, but Lynch and Bush have performed at a high 2nd round pick level pretty easily from day 1. Benson was definitely the worst over-reach of the three, and though he’s tough, he just doesn’t have the dynamism to be a franchise back; his performance for Cincinatti has been worth a late 2nd or early 3rd round pick, but Chicago fans sure got the short end of the stick.
As I admitted above, you might be able to obtain a RB in positions outside of the first two rounds of the draft, but it is rare. ~4% chance/pick in rounds 3-7, ~4% chance/per RB picked up in UDFA. As you have pointed out, it is possible to find good RBs through FA or trade. 5 or 2 teams out of 32 obtained a top back (as defined by your chosen metrics – which we both would readily admit are limited for the purposes of any serious analysis) by FA or trade. That is not common, and is in fact rare. Not impossible, not something the teams should’t work towards, and not something to avoid, but it is still rare to work out.
Either way you slice the bread, most players who end up as franchise RBs are drafted in the first 2 rounds, the best odds of drafting a franchise RB are in the first 2 rounds, the vast majority of RBs that led the league in YPA or #carries were drafted in the first 2 rounds, and regardless of draft position or UDFA more than 80% of the leaders in YPA and #carries are still with their first team. The reality is that if a team gets an awesome RB without character issues, they hold on to that player for dear life (salary cap issues aside).
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
Well, perusing the FA RBs, outside the premium guys (Rice, Forte), perhaps Seattle would consider...
…Mike Tolbert, Michael Bush or Kevin Smith.
Any one of these guys would complement Lynch without directly threatening his starting status (unlike drafting Richardson) and I doubt any of these guys would cost all that much.
Doing so would allow for a larger FA signing (Williams) and another use for the number one pick (DeCastro).
ONLY IN SEATTLE:
By swaggering could I never thrive,
For the rain, it raineth every day.
Or the second round pick (Cousins, lloka, David, Irvin)
ONLY IN SEATTLE:
By swaggering could I never thrive,
For the rain, it raineth every day.
by Hawksince77 on Feb 15, 2012 12:58 PM PST up reply actions
I think that's a pretty good list of targets. Of that group, I'd think Bush would easily be the front runner as the backup to Lynch
And actually I hope we sign him no matter what. He’s a proven mid-range talent who has definitely shown flashes over the last couple seasons, although he didn’t have a great year last year. Although, actually he’s 27? Interesting, I perceived him as younger. Well that’s not necessarily a deal breaker.
Tolbert would be a very interesting pick up, and I’d love to see him lined up with Lynch in the backfield. Imagine that short yardage package…. But even though he’s a better than adequate rusher, I still don’t see him as great choice to directly back up Lynch. Would still love to have him on the team, though he pulled down 1.8 million last year which seems pretty high.
Smith probably has the most talent, and I was extremely impressed by how he kept himself in shape until the Lions came calling late last season. Big red flag with the injuries though.
Well, if we don't pick up a RB with a 1st/2nd round pick, how about adding Peyton Hillis to that list?
It seems that his situation in Cleveland might necessitate getting the guy outta there. He also can run hard when he needs to it seems (small sample size I know, but it’s the RB position, you’re lucky to be able to look at more than 2 years of work) and hopefully the knowledge that this might be make-or-break for him might motivate him to return to his bruising form of 2010.
Long suffering, committed Seahawks/Packers fan
The reason I didn't inlcude Hillis...
…and included the other three, is because I don’t know why he showed so poorly this past year. Cleveland has the reputation of having a really good offensive line, and for some reason Hillis underperformed.
In the case of Tolbert, Bush and Smith, I have seen enough of them to have confidence in their ability at the position. Year before last, Kevin Smith was a stud, and this year, when healthy, couldn’t be stopped. Both Bush and Tolbert have started in the place of McFadden and Mathews, and in the case of Tolbert, arguably was the better back (Mathews just seems too tentative, fragile). Bush is a bruiser, and might be the likeliest option, given the Cable connection.
ONLY IN SEATTLE:
By swaggering could I never thrive,
For the rain, it raineth every day.
I would actualy argue against pursuing Bush unless it looks like he might come for cheap
My thought is that we’re not the only team salivating at the thought of Michael Bush running behind our line and his agent will see that and drive up the signing price to starter money.
This isn’t an indictment of his talent, just with the potential price tag.
Long suffering, committed Seahawks/Packers fan
pfft. He showed poorly because he was on the cover of Madden.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
So here's another bit of analysis
I took the top 32 RBs by number of carries for the past 5 years (2007-2011) and then sorted them by YPC. I then binned them into 4 categories (1st round still with team, 2nd/3rd still with team, 4th or later still with team and FA/traded) and divided them into top 16 or bottom 16 (by YPC of top 32 most used RBs). The most-used RBs had >300 carries, the least used RBs had ~150 carries. If anyone’s really interested I might be able to pull a google doc spreadsheet together.
Out of 32 RBs, an average of 11.3 were 1st round picks; 6.7 were top-16 and 4.7 were bottom-16 for a 1.4:1 chance of a better-than average RB.
The 2nd/3rd RBs represented, on average, 8.3 of 32 RBs with 4.3 top-16 and 4.0 bottom-16 (1.08:1).
The 4th-and-later RBs made up 5.7 of 32 (2.5 top-16, 3.2 bottom-16, 0.8:1).
The FA/traded RBs represented 6.7 of 32 (2.5 top-16, 4.2 bottom-16, 0.6:1).
This analysis seems to indicate (in broad strokes) that your running game is better off if your RB is a 1st-round pick you drafted yourself and that the quality gets worse with less draft capital expended. It doesn’t address the issue of (a) opportunity, (b) general investment in the run game, © the likelihood of finding a worthwhile player in a given round or (d) whether or not the marginal value is worth the draft pick.
One interesting fact: no 1st-round RB has topped this list (highest YPC among top-32 in carries) since AP in 2007.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Feb 15, 2012 5:48 PM PST reply actions
I think that your statistics may be interpreted incorrectly at first glance due to inherent selection bias
of choosing successful RBs, and ignoring all the drafted and FA RBs that are misses. There are more picks drafted in combined rounds 2-3 and 4-7 than there are in round 1.
For perspective, from 2003-2010 (the years in which most of your analyzed players were drafted), the following number of RBs were drafted in your bins:
Round 1: 25
Round 2-3: 33
Round 4-7: 94
the relative success rate of the picks in round 1 is 0.27 (6.7 / 25)
relative success rate of the picks in rounds 2-3 is 0.13 (4.3 / 33)
relative success rate of the picks in rounds 4-7 is 0.027 (2.5 / 94)
an alternative way to look at the relative success rate would be to use the total number of picks available in each round as the denominator instead of the number of picks the team used (as this is a relative comparison, I’ll normalize the picks per round so the results are directly comparable to the above):
round 1: 0.27 (6.7 / 1 round*25 normalized draft picks per round)
round 2-3: 0.086 (4.3 / 2 rounds*25)
round 4-7: 0.025 (2.5 / 4 rounds*25)
assuming that 1st round picks have a 45% probability of being franchise-quality RBs, and round 4-7 picks have an approximately 10-12 fold lower success rate (assume 4%), you would have to pick 14.6 RBs in rounds 4-7 to achieve the same chance of having an above average franchise RB (need to use an equivalent failure rate equation as probabilities are multiplicative 0 not additive, so 0.55 = (0.96)^14.6). You might get lucky and find your franchise RB or even a decent bridge RB in the first few picks, but you also might just get a lot of complete failures (like all of those 4th tier RBs drafted from 2006-10 in the original post). Of course, better than average scouting might help improve these odds.
I cannot imagine a way to look at the relative probability of getting a franchise RB through FA/trade, although saying that there are above average RBs in the league that were acquired through FA or trade is enough to say it happens, and your numbers suggest it happens for 2.5 teams in the league. To me it looks like they are kind of like franchise QBs, you can acquire them via FA/trade (Kurt Warner x 2, Manning/Rivers, Brees, Hasselbeck, Favre, etc), but it is rare, and like QBs (Kolb, Charlie, Tarvaris, V Young, Delhomme, Matt Moore, Grossman, Leinart) the terrain is littered with RBs that won’t end up as elite (Lendale White, Julius Jones, Franco Harris, Leon Washington to name a few).
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
One thing this analysis suggests to me
if we have already invested a 4th and a 5th in Marshawn Lynch, we better sign him because it is more effective to re-sign the known commodity rather than spending another round 1-2 pick that has on a 45% chance to have success similar to or better than Lynch (yes I know there is a lot of assumption in that statement).
At the same time, if the draft unfolds in such a way that we have re-signed Lynch, and Richardson is the BPA, I would still be excited about drafting him and having a 1-1 punch (as opposed to a 1-2) and as complete an insurance policy as you can have at the position.
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
Agreed.
And often teams without a RB ‘need’ do that anyway. Most recently: Willie Parker-Rashard Mendenhall, LeSean McCoy/Brian Westbrook (lesser examples due to aging vets), but the best example I can think of is in Carolina: Already armed with DeAngelo Williams – a recent 1st-round back himself the team drafted Jonathan Stewart (also in round 1). That is a lethal 1-1 punch.
...
LeMicheal James - 2nd Round - End of discussion
Though I suspect someone will snag him late first despite all the chatter to the contrary.
Discuss!
by Great Sergios Ghost on Feb 18, 2012 2:05 PM PST reply actions
I just don't see it. And neither will the league.
He doesn’t have the durability. It is more likely in the late 3rd or sometime in the 4th. That is my opinion of course.
Eternally looking forward to someone making a Seahawks song based off of Lil' Jon's "Shots" song named "Hawks!"
Perhaps a tad earlier than a few other guys, but he's not light-years ahead of (in terms of draft-value/starting potential):
Kendall Hunter, Dion Lewis, Quizz Rodgers.
...
LeMicheal James is
10 x the RB than JaQuizz Rodgers is
LMJ can handle 15-20 carries atleast a game in the NFL.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
