Good article. IMO the only rb worth taking outside of the first round is Mixon or maybe Cook if he falls.
Mixon would be right up there with Fournette if not for the video.
There are a few RBs worth taking outside of round one... in particular Kamara, McNichols, Hunt and Hill.
Kamara intrigues me as a 2nd round pick if we don't go Fournette in round 1.
Well said Mike DiRocco, it's about time we got over this old cliche that it's better to draft RBs in the later rounds. We easily remember the David Johnsons, but (as with all positions) your chances of finding a good RB fall the longer you wait.
Having said that, there's a good chance that an above-average number of good RBs will reach the later rounds...
The difference in production between running backs taken in the 1st and running backs taken in the 2nd and 3rd is pretty small. Fournettes a top talent and all so I wouldn't be too mad but in general my stance would be too target running backs in the mid rounds.
Quote:The difference in production between running backs taken in the 1st and running backs taken in the 2nd and 3rd is pretty small. Fournettes a top talent and all so I wouldn't be too mad but in general my stance would be too target running backs in the mid rounds.
This sounds fairly accurate if McCaffery didn't exist, but McCaffery's presence makes this incorrect. I'm expecting him to blow away the later round RBs in terms of production to where it's really nowhere even kind of close.
We really knocked it out of the park a few drafts ago when we selected Yeldon in the second round.
Quote:The difference in production between running backs taken in the 1st and running backs taken in the 2nd and 3rd is pretty small. Fournettes a top talent and all so I wouldn't be too mad but in general my stance would be too target running backs in the mid rounds.
Nope - the facts don't back that up - read this from MDR's article... (the stats were even lower for third round backs)
First round
Backs drafted: 61
Backs with at least one 1,000-yard season: 41 (67.2 percent)
Backs with at least three 1,000-yard seasons: 17 (27.9 percent)
Backs with five or more 1,000-yard seasons: 14 (23 percent)
Second round
Backs drafted: 60
Backs with at least one 1,000-yard season: 17 (28.3 percent)
Backs with at least three 1,000-yard seasons: 6 (10 percent)
Backs with five or more 1,000-yard seasons: 4 (6.7 percent)
That's a massive drop off in production!
Quote:Nope - the facts don't back that up - read this from MDR's article... (the stats were even lower for third round backs)
First round
Backs drafted: 61
Backs with at least one 1,000-yard season: 41 (67.2 percent)
Backs with at least three 1,000-yard seasons: 17 (27.9 percent)
Backs with five or more 1,000-yard seasons: 14 (23 percent)
Second round
Backs drafted: 60
Backs with at least one 1,000-yard season: 17 (28.3 percent)
Backs with at least three 1,000-yard seasons: 6 (10 percent)
Backs with five or more 1,000-yard seasons: 4 (6.7 percent)
That's a massive drop off in production!
![[Image: 2554ynp.jpg]](http://i65.tinypic.com/2554ynp.jpg)
The article clearly shows the best backs are in the first, and your chances diminish as it goes later.
We can try to convince ourselves otherwise, but that would not be... wise.
City, your fatal flaw is looking at rookie season alone and not full careers.
Can't imagine cooks falling to the 2nd round
Quote:The article clearly shows the best backs are in the first, and your chances diminish as it goes later.
We can try to convince ourselves otherwise, but that would not be... wise.
City, your fatal flaw is looking at rookie season alone and not full careers.
I tend to think that is true of all positions.
Quote:Can't imagine cooks falling to the 2nd round
I don't see it either. Especially if Fournette and McCaffrey go in the top ten.
Quote:I tend to think that is true of all positions.
Completely agree.
The best prospects come off first.
It's what makes a first rounder a first rounder, and the rest the rest.
Quote:Can't imagine cooks falling to the 2nd round
I doubt he falls that far, but it is easier to picture now that Lynch is officially with the Raiders.
Quote:The article clearly shows the best backs are in the first, and your chances diminish as it goes later.
We can try to convince ourselves otherwise, but that would not be... wise.
City, your fatal flaw is looking at rookie season alone and not full careers.
Yep the best backs go earlier, but the difference isn't that big between 2nd and 3rd round backs.
Thats just what the graph shows. A quick scan around the league over the past 5 years shows that its not that hard to find a productive running back outside of the 1st round. Especially in its currently devalued state.
the RB who's kid died before that monster game... he's impressive.
Too Many Cooks should go #1. So GOAT
Quote:<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Andy G" data-cid="995982" data-time="1493272908">
Nope - the facts don't back that up - read this from MDR's article... (the stats were even lower for third round backs)
First round
Backs drafted: 61
Backs with at least one 1,000-yard season: 41 (67.2 percent)
Backs with at least three 1,000-yard seasons: 17 (27.9 percent)
Backs with five or more 1,000-yard seasons: 14 (23 percent)
Second round
Backs drafted: 60
Backs with at least one 1,000-yard season: 17 (28.3 percent)
Backs with at least three 1,000-yard seasons: 6 (10 percent)
Backs with five or more 1,000-yard seasons: 4 (6.7 percent)
That's a massive drop off in production!
</blockquote>
You're using a very limited sample size there JackCity, compared to the stats in the original article.
I take your point that in second and third round RBs also work out well, but the more you narrow down the range of your stats the greater the chance some outstanding 2nd and 3rd round picks skew the figures.
But whichever way you view the stats, you stand a better chance of getting a productive running back if you pick him in the first round. Not really a surprise, you're going to find that for all positions.