We are all aware of the "rules" of the draft. Only DLine, OLine, QBs and WRs shalt be taken in the first five picks. Thou shalt not pick a running back in the first round etc...


But are these rules really based on fact or on assumptions ?


I'm bringing it up because I've seen it written a few times here recently that we should avoid picking a RB in the first two rounds, with the reasoning being that we are just as likely to find a capable back in the later rounds. But is that true ?


This is a genuine question and I don't know the answer, I was wondering if any research had been done to prove this ?


You would probably need to look at the number of RBs selected in each round over a ten year time span and then work out what proportion of them turned out to be high performers (maybe ask if they are pro bowlers or if they ran 1000yd seasons). Then we would know if it is true that RBs selected in the later rounds are just as likely to succeed or whether you improve your chances by taking them early.


And if this research hasn't been done, can anyone explain what this assumption is based on ? (The assumption that there is no advantage in drafting a RB early).

---

We will draft [Player Name] and [Poster Name] will make an absurdly ranty thread about the pick being the end of the world. 

---

We are all aware of the "rules" of the draft. Only DLine, OLine, QBs and WRs shalt be taken in the first five picks. Thou shalt not pick a running back in the first round etc...


But are these rules really based on fact or on assumptions ?


I'm bringing it up because I've seen it written a few times here recently that we should avoid picking a RB in the first two rounds, with the reasoning being that we are just as likely to find a capable back in the later rounds. But is that true ?


This is a genuine question and I don't know the answer, I was wondering if any research had been done to prove this ?


You would probably need to look at the number of RBs selected in each round over a ten year time span and then work out what proportion of them turned out to be high performers (maybe ask if they are pro bowlers or if they ran 1000yd seasons). Then we would know if it is true that RBs selected in the later rounds are just as likely to succeed or whether you improve your chances by taking them early.


And if this research hasn't been done, can anyone explain what this assumption is based on ? (The assumption that there is no advantage in drafting a RB early).

 

The assumptions are true, and based on fact.  I'd say maybe you are looking at the rules backwards.  The reasons you draft the positions you mentioned in the the top 5 picks is that you are unlikely to fill those positions later in the draft.   Just look at the top players in each position and evaluate their draft position and there would be a pattern leading you to believe certain positions required higher picks than others to get an elite player.   The reason you wouldn't draft a RB that high is because being in position to draft a premier position is a rare occasion but being in position to draft a RB is not.  There is a 15% chance a team gets a top 5 pick.  So on average a team may pick in the top 5 once every 7 years.  So when you finally get the opportunity to draft a player at a premier position, why blow it and pick a player you could have drafted any year?  

---

What irritates me is a lot of people say we must take a defensive lineman in the first round despite the obvious fact that our best position group by far is the defensive line. There is no reason to think we need one but people continue to insist there is no reason not to. These are the same people who say it is stupid to pick a running back in the first round. The reality is unless the player's job is to kick footballs, his job title is irrelevant.

 

Three things matter: team needs, value for the pick, and availability. The first criterion eliminates wide receiver, left tackle, center, right guard, quarterback, cornerback, defensive tackle, and defensive end. So we are limited to right tackle, running back, tight end, free safety, strong safety, middle linebacker, and outside linebacker. Strong safety is eliminated by the second criterion because we would draft one as a backup. MIddle linebacker is not a value pick either because he would be a backup in 2015, then compete for the starting job in 2016. Now our choices are right tackle, running back, tight end, outside linebacker, and free safety. So in my opinion based on what we need and how we will use rookies, the #3 pick should be one of those five positions depending on who we get in free agency unless someone is going to be the next J.J. Watt or Richard Sherman. The only time I favor picking the BAP is when nobody at a position we need is graded close to our pick number. I will never understand why anybody thinks just because a certain job title is more valuable than another, we should pick a defensive lineman or wide receiver on April 30 and wait until May 2 to pick a running back.

---

To be worth taking in the first rd, the RB needs to be a bellcow with ZERO holes in his game. The problem with RBs is the pounding they take and limited careers makes them highly disposable

---

We must take a defensive linemen in the first round.

---

We are all aware of the "rules" of the draft. Only DLine, OLine, QBs and WRs shalt be taken in the first five picks. Thou shalt not pick a running back in the first round etc...


But are these rules really based on fact or on assumptions ?


I'm bringing it up because I've seen it written a few times here recently that we should avoid picking a RB in the first two rounds, with the reasoning being that we are just as likely to find a capable back in the later rounds. But is that true ?


This is a genuine question and I don't know the answer, I was wondering if any research had been done to prove this ?


You would probably need to look at the number of RBs selected in each round over a ten year time span and then work out what proportion of them turned out to be high performers (maybe ask if they are pro bowlers or if they ran 1000yd seasons). Then we would know if it is true that RBs selected in the later rounds are just as likely to succeed or whether you improve your chances by taking them early.


And if this research hasn't been done, can anyone explain what this assumption is based on ? (The assumption that there is no advantage in drafting a RB early).

 

A problem with your scenario regarding research that goes back ten years is that the League in general seems to have devalued the position of RB to the point where a "true stud" RB isn't really necessary and if anything they cannot be as effective any longer.

 

Yes, Adrian Peterson is a phenomenal athlete, but teams have been winning games with players of lesser ability filling the same role. In other words, the value of the position has changed in the League. You get more "NFL" value out of players that throw the ball, catch the ball, protect those that throw the ball, and get after those that throw the ball. That's where the value lies right now. And in my mind, the draft is always about getting as much value as possible for the lowest cost.

---

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!

What irritates me is a lot of people say we must take a defensive lineman in the first round despite the obvious fact that our best position group by far is the defensive line. There is no reason to think we need one but people continue to insist there is no reason not to. These are the same people who say it is stupid to pick a running back in the first round. The reality is unless the player's job is to kick footballs, his job title is irrelevant.

...

 

Ask yourself this: Considering that of the ten players who play on the Defensive Line in Jacksonville, there are four of them who have played less than five years in the League. Of the remaining six, four of those have played more than six.

 

While it is a good group, it is probably the oldest on the team. Wouldn't that mean that new, young talent needs to be added?

 

Now compound that with the idea that Defensive Linemen typically go early and often in a typical draft. If you see a good Defensive Lineman, you better get him early. He probably won't be around the next time you get to draft.

---

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!

The bigger problem i have with taking a RB early is who you are giving up drafting to take him, at a more critical position.  These days there are tons of very good RBs taken late.  I'd rather spend it on a position that is harder to hit on in the latter rounds.

---

These days there are tons of very good RBs taken late. I'd rather spend it on a position that is harder to hit on in the latter rounds.

Sorry to pick on this line, but this is what I am talking about.


If the majority of running backs are taken in the later rounds then it's not really surprising that the later rounds turn up "tons of very good RBs". But that doesn't prove your chances of drafting a very good RB are better in the later rounds. For instance, if 10 running backs were taken in round one and 30 in round two, you would expect round two to turn up more hits.


I just thought it would be interesting to know what proportion of RBs picked in each round turn out to be good ones.


Of course I take the point that running backs are no longer valued as highly.

---

Hard to really pigeon hole our draft strategy.  I can't see us taking a RB or WR or QB early.  I think I'd bet highly on that.

---

I think they take a DE at 3 or trade back and draft a feature RB.

---

I ain't no monkey... I'm an ape.

I think they take a DE at 3 or trade back and draft a feature RB.

DT at 3 (If he's still available), or trade back and take OT.

 

RB in the first?  Not a chance.

---

We must take a defensive linemen in the first round.

 

Why?

---

Ask yourself this: Considering that of the ten players who play on the Defensive Line in Jacksonville, there are four of them who have played less than five years in the League. Of the remaining six, four of those have played more than six.

 

While it is a good group, it is probably the oldest on the team. Wouldn't that mean that new, young talent needs to be added?

 

Now compound that with the idea that Defensive Linemen typically go early and often in a typical draft. If you see a good Defensive Lineman, you better get him early. He probably won't be around the next time you get to draft.

 

Of course I would want to pick a defensive lineman early if we needed one. But we don't have anyone in that position group who is near retirement or past his prime, so even with the veterans it is still a young line.

 

Like I said, if there is someone as good as J.J. Watt in the draft, I would not be mad if we pick him. But I can't justify picking a player who will be "just another guy" on the line.

---

Well, here's something ! The nice guys at BCC have just produced the research I was hoping for !


http://www.bigcatcountry.com/2015/1/8/74...mment_form


Table 2 does seem to show that RBs selected in the first two rounds are generally the most productive, but that most running backs are selected in the later rounds.


Shouldn't really be a surprise - you would expect the better players to be available in the early rounds.


But does seem to pour cold water on the "lets wait until the later rounds" strategy...

---

I guess at the same time you look at a guy like Crowell who wasn't drafted and just hope you can't hit one of those late or in FA. Trust your scouting.

---

A committee is the best approach, eventually you'll find your bellcow

---

A committee is the best approach, eventually you'll find your bellcow

Is that true though ?


The stats seem to suggest that running backs selected in the first two rounds have a massively higher chance of being productive. Those taken in rounds 4+ appear to have a relatively low chance of success.


So is the committee approach of picking late round backs until one works out simply a waste of late-round picks which could be used on other positions ? (Especially as Caldwell appears to have a good record of using those late-round picks)

---

Well, here's something ! The nice guys at BCC have just produced the research I was hoping for !

http://www.bigcatcountry.com/2015/1/8/74...mment_form


Table 2 does seem to show that RBs selected in the first two rounds are generally the most productive, but that most running backs are selected in the later rounds.


Shouldn't really be a surprise - you would expect the better players to be available in the early rounds.


But does seem to pour cold water on the "lets wait until the later rounds" strategy...

 

I honestly don't see how that table is relevant to anything.  Just look around the NFL today and see how high the top running backs or even the starters were drafted.  Not a lot of 1st rounders I'd be willing to bet.  Or at least the numbers are decreasing fast.  This table is about career yardage, which is pointless because these days teams don't really care about that, they just want a couple good years of production out of a RB and they can replace him with another guy.  The position has been devalued, meaning RBs aren't often getting extended to big contracts anymore, they just move to other teams for mediocre contracts.  Who cares if you have 1 running back with 5000 career yards or 2 with 2500 each?

---