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.

Actually, the article used a narrow sample of 'over 1000 yard rushers', which have drastically decreased over the last ten years anyway due to RB by committee. Of course guys in the first round are much more likely to have that situation especially going back that far (1994, which was a very different league).

 

Going by YPC is a much better stat and comparing it to round you can see that guys in the first are no more likely to be superstars than guys in the 2nd , 3rd, or even 6th over the last 10 years. What does that mean? That in general 1st round RBs aren't worth it anymore.

 

If Del Ricco only used the last ten years, then it might be valid, but going that far back, to when 3k was a good season for a QB and RB's routinely hit 1k yards is just not comparable. The league is just not the same now as in the 90's. Anyone can see that. If Leonard Fournette doesn't average over 4.5 YPC on like 250 carries a year for over 5 years, he was a mistake. 

 

---

Guess this account is the one now? Rip HR86 2010-2017.

I doubt he falls that far, but it is easier to picture now that Lynch is officially with the Raiders.

And cook falling to the second round just highlights what a unnecessary risk Fournette was. I hope hes good, but I really don't like a RB at 4, especially one with so upright a running style and minimal wiggle.

---

Guess this account is the one now? Rip HR86 2010-2017.

And cook falling to the second round just highlights what a unnecessary risk Fournette was. I hope hes good, but I really don't like a RB at 4, especially one with so upright a running style and minimal wiggle.

 

 

Eric Dickerson had an upright running style and minimal wiggle, but he turned out ok. 

---

'02

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.

The stats in the original article don't represent the current times well at all.  Its plain as day the chance of getting a productive player is greater in the first, the argument is that the difference in production isn't that big compared to running backs drafted in the 2nd or 3rd, perhaps not enough to warrant spending a top 5 pick.  

 

Anyway I'm relatively happy with the Fournette pick. I look forward to seeing him run over Cyprien and Malik Hooker. 

---

Actually, the article used a narrow sample of 'over 1000 yard rushers', which have drastically decreased over the last ten years anyway due to RB by committee. Of course guys in the first round are much more likely to have that situation especially going back that far (1994, which was a very different league).


Going by YPC is a much better stat and comparing it to round you can see that guys in the first are no more likely to be superstars than guys in the 2nd , 3rd, or even 6th over the last 10 years. What does that mean? That in general 1st round RBs aren't worth it anymore.

Despite it being limited to rushers over 1,000 yards, there were around six times as many RBs compared in the original article. That's what I mean by bigger sample size.


Yes, a lot has changed in the way RBs are used, but in using the smaller group of RBs from 2006-2016 you have taken a slice of draft history in which teams were waiting until the second round to draft players like LeVeon Bell, rather than picking them in the first round. And because fewer RBs are recorded, those players will skew the figures in favour of the second and third round RBs in a way those in the larger sample won't.


But I take the point that maybe there isn't a perfect way to compare, with the role and value of RBs changing so much.


And it's never that simple.


With Cook dropping out of the first round last night, we might see another "second round RB" performing just as well as the first rounders. Does that prove that you should wait until the second round or that this year a first round talent dropped into the second round because of character concerns? (Two, if you count Mixon).

---

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.

 

Again, your fatal flaw is that you're looking at the rookie season alone, and not career production.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."