Quote: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.

---