What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

RB Production by Round Drafted : Ever been analysis done? (1 Viewer)

[icon]

Insoxicated
I see a lot of discussion that falls back on "X was a 5th round pick in 20XX but Y was a 3rd round pick in 20XX so... (insert assumption here)"

It got me wondering... has anyone done a fairly comprehensive analysis of RB Fantasy output in relation to round drafted? Obviously I think it's safe to assume that the mean scoring would be distributed as expected... but I'm curious about the shape of the ranges....

If the analysis hasn't been done, what would be good parameters for said study?

Timetable: Go back 10 years? 15 years?

Scoring Metric: PPG? Total FP? PPSeason?
Data Presented? Obviously mean and median. High/Lo?

I think a line graph like this style plotting scoring distribution would be awesome... overlaid in various colors?

Has something like this been done?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not sure if it's already been done but I think it's pretty obvious what the results will be. A higher drafted guy has a higher chance of being great. Nothing is a sure thing and 1st round picks bust all the time and undrafted guys become great. Nothing is a sure thing, but guys chosen earlier in the draft are done so because everything seen so far at that point in the persons career warrants them to be chosen before the other guys drafted later.

 
I'm not sure if it's already been done but I think it's pretty obvious what the results will be. A higher drafted guy has a higher chance of being great. Nothing is a sure thing and 1st round picks bust all the time and undrafted guys become great. Nothing is a sure thing, but guys chosen earlier in the draft are done so because everything seen so far at that point in the persons career warrants them to be chosen before the other guys drafted later.
I appreciate your restating the obvious and what is commonly assumed to be true... but I think it would be an interesting dataset, and not TOO terribly difficult to break down. Hence why I wanted to see if 1) it's been done and/or 2) if it's not been done, what would be the ideal parameters for quantifying the outcomes.

This Bleacher Report article does a decent job of presenting SOME data, though it is readily apparently he went into the article with the intent to prove taking a RB in first round isn't smart.

Article in spoiler tags to save space:

The argument that running backs aren't worth taking in the first round in today's NFL has been bandied about for years, with conventional wisdom stating that it isn't.

In order to help answer this question, I researched the running backs drafted in the last 10 years and studied whether or not it makes sense for teams to take a running back with their first-round selection.

The 2012 Season

Let's start with the 2012 regular season. Out of the top 10 rushers, five of them—Adrian Peterson, Marshawn Lynch, Doug Martin, C.J. Spiller and Chris Johnson—were selected in the first round. The other five were Alfred Morris (sixth round), Jamaal Charles (third round), ArianFoster (undrafted), Stevan Ridley (third round) and Frank Gore (third round).

While half of the top 10 were selected in the first round, the range of the other five indicates that there is significant value to be found in the later rounds when drafting a running back.

When you examine the leading rushers from the 2012 season even more closely, you'll find that only three of the running backs from the 11 to 20 range were drafted in the first round (Steven Jackson, Reggie Bush and Trent Richardson).

The others: Ray Rice (second round), Matt Forte (second round),BenJarvus Green-Ellis (undrafted), Shonn Greene (third round), Ahmad Bradshaw (seventh round), LeSean McCoy (second round) and Robert Griffin III, who isn't even a running back. Vick Ballard was 21st, and he was drafted in the fifth round.

While there can be no questioning how good players like Peterson, Lynch and Martin were in 2012, there are guys like Morris, Foster, Ballard and Green-Ellis who were able to play well and carry their teams into the postseason.

The 2012 season statistics definitely show that taking a running back in the first round isn't necessary.

In the past 10 years, there have been 29 running backs selected in the first round. Since 1,000 yards is the benchmark total by which fans and media alike judge running backs, let's see how many of these first-round backs were able to eclipse the 1,000-yard mark more than once:

2003: Willis McGahee, Larry Johnson (both with multiple 1,000-yard seasons)

2004: Steven Jackson, Chris Perry, Kevin Jones (only Jackson with multiple 1,000-yard seasons)

2005: Ronnie Brown, Cedric Benson, Cadillac Williams (only Benson with multiple 1,000-yard seasons)

2006: Reggie Bush, Laurence Maroney, DeAngelo Williams, Joseph Addai (Williams and Addai with multiple 1,000-yard seasons)

2007: Adrian Peterson, Marshawn Lynch (both with multiple 1,000-yard seasons)

2008: Darren McFadden, Jonathan Stewart, Rashard Mendenhall, Felix Jones, Chris Johnson (only Mendenhall and Johnson with multiple 1,000-yard seasons)

2009: Knowshon Moreno, Donald Brown, Chris "Beanie" Wells (none with multiple 1,000-yard seasons)

2010: C.J. Spiller, Ryan Mathews, Jahvid Best (none with multiple 1,000-yard seasons)

2011: Mark Ingram (no 1,000-yard seasons)

Of course, we cannot use last year's first-round selections at running back: Trent Richardson, Doug Martin and David Wilson, as they only have one season under their belt, but for the sake of this exercise, let's assume that all three will be able to eclipse the 1,000-yard total on multiple occasions, as that scenario seems fairly likely, especially in the case of Martin and Richardson.

Including the three 2012 first-rounders, that makes 11 out of a possible 29 running backs that have or will have broken the 1,000-yard barrier on multiple occasions. That is absolutely awful.

Think about it: 1,000 yards isn't even a tremendous total. If a running back plays in all 16 games, he only needs to average 62.5 yards per game to reach 1,000. While 62.5 yards is nothing to sneeze at, is that kind of production worthy of a first-round pick?

Some of these players aren't even starters on their own teams.

Ingram barely sees the field in New Orleans, as he loses carries to Pierre Thomas and Chris Ivory (both undrafted).

Donald Brown lost his starting job to Vick Ballard (fifth round).

Felix Jones was benched in favor of DeMarco Murray (third round) and so on and so forth.

These statistics clearly show that taking a running back in the first round oftentimes does not provide enough bang for your buck.

When considering the evidence laid out here, it's hard to argue that drafting a running back in the first round is a sound business decision.

Yes, there have been stud backs taken early who have contributed mightily to their team's success. Guys like Adrian Peterson, Marshawn Lynch and Doug Martin have proven to be excellent picks for their teams.

But for every Peterson, there's a Cadillac Williams. For every Lynch, there's a Felix Jones. For every Martin, there's a Mark Ingram.

I'm not saying it's impossible to score big on a first-round running back selection. However, the numbers show that teams are better off filling other needs early and finding a back later in the draft.
Note that I think the best approach wouldn't just be 1st round vs everyone else.... but a round by round breakdown to see if these assumptions hold true as the draft progresses, and what degree of advantage (if any) exists over the long term.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This appears to be a nice list of RB's drafted by round dating back as far as anyone would care to go:

http://www.drafthistory.com/index.php/positions/rb

1st Round RB's (2005-2013)
T Richardson
D Martin
D Wilson
M Ingram
CJ Spiller
R Matthews
J Best
K Moreno
D Brown
B Wells
D McFadden
J Stewart
F Jones
R Mendenhall
C Johnson
A Peterson
M Lynch
R Bush
L Maroney
D Williams
J Addai

R Brown
C Benson
C Williams

2nd Round RB's (2005-2013)

G Bernard
L Bell
M Ball
E Lacy
C Michael
I Pead
LaM James

Ry Williams
S Vereen
M Leshoure
D Thomas
D McCluster
T Gerhart
B Tate
M Hardesty
L McCoy
M Forte
R Rice
K Irons
C Henry
B Leonard
Br Jackson
L White
M Jones-Drew

3rd Round RB's (2005-2013)
K Davis
R Hillman
B Pierce
D Murray
S Ridley
A Green
S Greene
G Coffee
K Smith
J Hester
J Charles
S Slaton
L Booker
T Hunt
G Wolfe
B Calhoun
J Norwood

etc...

Perhaps grade by number of "starting RB caliber seasons" (Finshed Top 20) and number of Top 10 Seasons?

I'd be curious to see what the "Critical point" is on average and by round as well... Do higher pedigree backs have an increased chance of breaking out after a season or two of poor performance/opportunity? Do lower pedigree backs have a smaller window (ie if no big numbers after 1-2 seasons it's safe to write them off?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I did a comprehensive study on VBD by individual pick by position. Some of it got published, some of it didn't, as I didn't get to finish it all. It's a little dated but has a lot of what you are looking for. If you PM me your email address, I can email the info on RBs.

 
Jonathan Bales has done some work on this. At least in terms of efficiency.

Not sure how much of that is freely available, but the takeaway IIRC is that YPC is basically flat across all rounds. When it comes to usage obviously the earlier round backs are going to win out, but the hypothesis is that is attributable to GM/coach justifying prior decisions and not necessarily that earlier round RBs are better talents, on average.

 
To clarify, my study involved fantasy production based on fantasy draft position (not NFL draft position).

 
To be clear what i'm referring to is NFL Draft position in relation to subsequent fantasy output

 
One of my unsubstantiated assumptions is that higher picks tend to last longer in the league. They get more chances and have tougher bodies to weather the wear and tear. Maybe that's obvious.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top