There are two arguments against the draft slot in this case. The first is that there was a diverse group of backs this year. Sankey was a good fit for a team that needed a complete back, because he's good at everything but unspectactular at any specific thing. There was a short list of guys who could fill that role, so it makes sense that he was the first taken. Hyde was a complete back, too, but a little bigger and he's not the same kind of receiver. Still, he's a great fit in San Fran, where they have a big o line that can open up holes, a mobile qb who can keep teams from bringing inside pressure, an athletic tight end who can stay in and block or run a solid route tree, and one of the best blocking WRs in the league. They're going to wear down defenses. A guy like Andre Williams is a perfect fit for Coughlin. He's worked with all kinds of backs, but he likes big backs. And he cannot lie. Sims is a good pass catching back who is a great complement to Martin and a good enough runner that he could take a part in a committee. Seastrunk was even more skewed towards pass catching, so he appeals to a team that has a solid runner and pass blocker but needs a package guy for passing downs.
Freeman is a little bit smaller, so a lot of those teams weren't even looking at him. And he doesn't have great speed, so some other teams scratched him off their board. But he's a complete back. He can run between the tackles and get outside, he can catch the ball, he can pass protect, and he can score. He's a great fit for a team with an established passing offense that needs a back to take the pressure off their offense. If he's good enough to start - and the coach and GM talked openly about him being a lead back and a future three down guy - then he doesn't have to be good enough to carry a bad offense on his own. He doesn't need to break a 60 yard run. He needs to help them move the chains, get the easy yards when Ryan thinks the defense is soft, and he needs to be good enough at everything that opponents can't tee off on the run when he comes in the game.
So the first point is that he was a good fit for the offense that ended up taking him, but a bad fit for some of the RB needy teams that picked backs ahead of him. The second point is that calling him a fourth round pick is kind of like calling Carr a second round pick and Bridgewater a first. It sounds like a huge dropoff, but in reality, it was only a couple picks, and it wouldn't be surprising to find out that Oakland liked Carr better than Bridgewater all along. Freeman was one of the first guys taken on day three, which is actually pretty meaningful in a deep draft - not because it means he's better than other fourth round picks, but because the guys who go early on day three are usually guys who slipped on day two, the guys who stand out on draft boards and everyone's jockeying to get them. The early picks in rounds two and four are every bit as interesting to me as the players who were taken at the end of rounds one and three.
So while I do agree that it's meaningful that he got taken later in the draft than other backs, I don't think there's a linear relationship between draft slot and ability. I think guys in the early fourth are similar to guys in the third, and I think the guys taken in the third were all good backs with different plus attributes and different blemishes who ended up on teams that liked the things they were getting. But most importantly, I think Freeman was a good fit for Atlanta, and the comments from the coach and GM about him being their lead back and three down back in the future tell me that he's got an opportunity to be a quality fantasy starter early in his career.
