Lynch was better than Rawls in all facets of the game and had very little competition yet he only got like 66% of the snaps. There's no way Rawls gets 70% unless everyone else gets hurt.
In 2014, Lynch got 66% of the snaps despite playing through back and calf injuries and multiple illnesses throughout that season. He did not start two games. He left the Chargers game after only 6 carries due to his back. He missed the first quarter of one game and missed multiple series in another game due to illness. If Lynch was totally healthy in 2014, I expect he would have reached 70%+ of the offensive snaps. As I said earlier, I project Rawls to get 70% of the snaps assuming he remains healthy, so there is an apples to oranges element here. But even if he only gets 60%, he will still dominate the RB touches.
Believe me, I get it, you don't think Rawls will play as many snaps as I do. I am fine agreeing to disagree with you on this.
I think Prosise is on the field a lot for passing plays like that article by Hooper suggested. I think he'll have a role similar to Sproles in NO where he's rarely asked to block - he's either running a draw or a route.
The Seahawks ran 12% of their plays in 2014 out of an empty backfield set, which was third highest in the league. I could certainly see Prosise being in for a lot of those plays. I certainly don't think they are going to radically increase the number of those plays they run because they have Prosise.
Sproles played 31% of the Saints' offensive snaps in 2013, his final season in New Orleans (can't find data for his prior seasons). I think you are way off base if you think Prosise will play that much on offense, barring injury to others.
Also, I'd be wary of Michael if I owned Rawls. All it'll take is one loose screw getting tightened up. I've acknowledged there's less than a 50% chance of this, but his undeniable talent is still lingering. How many top 12 RBs have a backup that can run circles around them?
Well, 3 teams had Michael as a backup that could run circles around their starter just last season, and all 3 of those teams cut him, including Seattle. Sure, there is a non-zero possibility that he finally puts it all together and gets a lot of snaps. But you should adjust your "less than 50%" to "less than 10%" IMO.
So your argument is that Lynch averaged 25 receptions per season on 1st and 2nd down, yet you think this early down runner is going to somehow exceed those numbers by Lynch? Or he's going to steal 3rd downs from the supposed specialist they just drafted?
Yes, Rawls will play some third downs.
It was always Lynch + a backup + maybe a third guy who rarely sees the field. This year it'll be Rawls + Michael + Prosise with maybe some Collins sprinkled in if he shows well (I read he's a good pass blocker). RBBC is looming ominously. Maybe it doesn't hit, but it is there, scaring me away from Rawls' ADP.
In 2014, Lynch had 280 carries and 48 targets, despite the health issues mentioned above. Meanwhile, other RBs had 109 carries and 26 targets. Rawls could get 300 touches and there would still be over 100 touches available to the other RBs.
Of the 4 RBs you named here, I expect Prosise to be used extensively on special teams, but it seems unlikely any of the other 3 will be ace special teams players. It seems safe to assume Rawls and Prosise will be active for every game if healthy. If it is true that Michael and Collins are not strong special teams contributors, it seems unlikely to me that both of them will be active for games unless Rawls and/or Prosise are inactive for some reason. So I don't think Rawls + Michael + Prosise + Collins "sprinkled in" will happen for many games, if any.
Much more likely is Rawls getting 65-70% of the snaps on offense, Prosise playing most/all special teams snaps and 20-25% of the snaps on offense, and whichever RB is active getting the rest of the snaps on offense, which would amount to 5-15%.
I just think you've got some bias on this one. I'm looking at it from a redraft point, so I have no incentive one way or another.
I have a strong opinion on Rawls, does that equate to bias? If so, so be it. One thing I have learned through my years in fantasy football is that it is important to form opinions on young players early, without waiting to see it on the field in a large sample size, since by the time you have seen that, so have all of the other owners. This absolutely carries with it some risk of being wrong. I'm fine with that.
I find it amusing that you portray me as having bias but portray yourself as objective. If you are truly objective, I wouldn't have expected you to characterize those with opposing viewpoints in such unflattering terms in multiple threads.
Anyway, at this point, you can have the last word. I agree to disagree for now and look forward to seeing how it plays out.
I'll indulge you since you devote a lot of time to your posts. My thinking is that previously NFL teams were pretty consistent in how they valued RBs. Several were taken in the first round, a few more in the second, and a handful in the third. However, in the past few years there has been a shift away from that. No RBs were taken in the first round in 2014 and this year the third RB off the board wasn't until the third round. Thus, I don't think the old data about % of NFL success by round is applicable anymore*.
