Drafting Rookies in a Redraft (1 Viewer)

[David Yudkin]

In the past 10 years, here's how rookies have fared in 12-team redraft leagues:

QB:

The only viable starting fantasy QB was Peyton Manning, who stepped in right away and ranked 9th his rookie season. Only 6 other QB ranked in the Top 20: Chris Weinke, Byron Leftich, Tim Couch, Jeff Garcia (who technically was a rookie but was imported from the CFL), Tony Banks, and Charlie Batch.

There were 110 rookie QBs in that time including 24 first round NFL draft picks. Three of the players listed were first round picks.

Overall, very little production has come from rookie QBs. Only 1 of 24 first rounder picks became a viable fantasy starter (4%)

RB:

There have been 10 RB that raned in the Top 12 (or as legit RB1s for fantasy purposes): Edgerrin James, Clinton Portis, Fred Taylor, Mike Anderson, LaDainian Tomlinson, Robert Edwards, Eddie George, Corey Dillon, Karim Abdul Jabbar, and Dominic Rhodes. Only 5 of them were NFL first round draft picks. Portis was a 2nd, Anderson a 6th, Dillon a 2nd, Abdul Jabbar a 3rd, and Rhodes was undrafted.

There were 21 rookies that ranked in the Top 24 RB (making them viable fantasy starters in a start 2 RB league). Of the remaining 11 RB not from the first batch above, only 5 were NFL first rounders and some were very unheralded. Domanick Davis and Olandis Gary were 4th rounders, Marcel Shipp went undrafted.

There were 324 rookie RB in the past 10 years including 29 NFL first round picks. Of those 29, only 10 went on to rank in the Top 24 in their first season (34%).

WR:

In a start 3 WR league, that would make WR36 the cutoff for a fantasy starter. There were 19 WR that ranked in the Top 36 in the past 10 years. However, only Randy Moss and Anquan Boldin ranked in the Top 12 (1st and 4th), and only Michael Clayton, Terry Glenn, Lee Evans, Eddie Kennison, Kevin Johnson, Marvin Harrison, and Keyshawn Johnson ranked in the Top 24. So only 9 WR in 10 years ranked as a WR2 or better.

Of those 9 guys, 7 were NFL first round selections and Kevin Johnson was the first pick of the second round. Of the 19 WR that ranked in the Top 36, Darrell Jackson was the only player drafted in the third round or later (3-18), although Oronde Gadsden went undrafted.

There were 364 rookie WR in that time including 45 NFL first round draft picks. 12 of those 45 first round picks ranked as viable fantasy starters (27%).

TE:

In the past 10 seasons, there have only been 6 rookie TE that ranked in the Top 12 (Cam Cleeland, Jeremy Shockey, Heath Miller, Randy McMichael, Rickey Dudley, and Freddie Jones) with only Cleeland (#2) and Shockey (#3) really being impact tight ends. Three of those guys were 1st round selections while the other three went in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th rounds.

There were 171 total rookie tight ends including 13 NFL first rounders. 3 of the 13 produced as starting fantasy TEs (23%).

Overall, I see too many owners taking too many rookies and normally too early. I'd be hard pressed to want to take a rookie RB or WR in the top 25 at either position. And I'd probably only take a rookie QB or TE as a third stringer unless I already had a true healthy stud (like PManning or Gates).

 

[-OZ-]

Good stuff David, shows what most probably think we already know, but it's always good to review this stuff.

The question I would have here, is how did those rookies who were supposed to be the starter for their team do? It's one thing to say that Deuce McAllister and Shaun Alexander didn't succeed as rookies (they weren't supposed to) and another to see the success of Edge, LT, Shockey, etc.

Just wondering if you have a breakdown along those lines.

 

[David Yudkin]

Good stuff David, shows what most probably think we already know, but it's always good to review this stuff.

The question I would have here, is how did those rookies who were supposed to be the starter for their team do? It's one thing to say that Deuce McAllister and Shaun Alexander didn't succeed as rookies (they weren't supposed to) and another to see the success of Edge, LT, Shockey, etc.

Just wondering if you have a breakdown along those lines.

If you give me an idea as to how to break down who is in which category I could break it down. For example, are Top 10 NFL draft picks expected to make an immediate impact? First rounders overall? Where is the line in the sand? Top 3 at each position no matter where they were drafted?

 

[aussiehockeyfan]

Good stuff David, shows what most probably think we already know, but it's always good to review this stuff.

The question I would have here, is how did those rookies who were supposed to be the starter for their team do? It's one thing to say that Deuce McAllister and Shaun Alexander didn't succeed as rookies (they weren't supposed to) and another to see the success of Edge, LT, Shockey, etc.

Just wondering if you have a breakdown along those lines.

Never hurts to keep drilling this stuff into our thick skulls until we get it.

 

[UnknownCoach]

Of those 29 first round rookie RBs, how many of them were drafted into situations where they werent starters? Quite a few. The odds of a 1st round RB who is drafted into a situation as a starter being a fantasy factor is very significant.

Just off the top of my head... McGahee, Benson, Brown (once Ricky returned from suspension), McAllister, Duckett, Alexander, Jackson, Perry, Larry Johnson, and Canidate were all drafted as backups. I'm sure there are more.

 

[aussiehockeyfan]

Of those 29 first round rookie RBs, how many of them were drafted into situations where they werent starters? Quite a few. The odds of a 1st round RB who is drafted into a situation as a starter being a fantasy factor is very significant.

Just off the top of my head... McGahee, Benson, Brown (once Ricky returned from suspension), McAllister, Duckett, Alexander, Jackson, Perry, and Canidate were all drafted as backups. I'm sure there are more.

This is good. It would be considered a qualification to the general rule?

 

[Mapmaker]

Good stuff David

With that in mind, and add in the fact that Dom Davis is a RB that went late first or early second round last year in the majority of ppr redraft leagues, where do you see Reggie Bush slotting in redraft's this season ?

 

[Bri]

got a list of best ranked years by rookie WRs? I see Chrebet was 37th so he just missed your cut

 

[crimsonrebel]

if its not too much trouble, could you determine where rookies should be taken in larger leagues, like say 16 or 20 team leagues? I'm guessing QB's are still near the bottom of the QB2 pile, WRs /TEs slightly higher, and rookie RB's looking attractive as a late RB 2 or early RB 3?

 

[David Yudkin]

if its not too much trouble, could you determine where rookies should be taken in larger leagues, like say 16 or 20 team leagues? I'm guessing QB's are still near the bottom of the QB2 pile, WRs /TEs slightly higher, and rookie RB's looking attractive as a late RB 2 or early RB 3?

IMO, it's the order that the players go in over the league size. So I would tend to think that rookie WR might start going off the board in the 30-35 WR range (in most years but not this one) all the way into the 80s and 90s (if you draft that many).I generally draft more on opportunity early (those that play the most have the most value) and try to drat players with the chance to have the best potential impact if they had a chance to play. So I would rather take a flyer late on a Chiefs 3rd or 4th string RB over the 2nd string RB on Arizona.

We just drafted a 16-team Survivor league (obviously not knowing where the rookies were going) and here's where the rookies went.

3.09 Reggie Bush, RB26, Rookie

3.10 LenDale White, RB27, Rookie

3.15 DeAngelo Williams, RB28, Rookie

5.01 Laurence Maroney, RB32, Rookie

10.03 Joseph Addai, RB47, Rookie

10.07 Vernon Davis, TE21, Rookie

11.14 Santonio Holmes, WR65, Rookie

12.09 Chad Jackson, WR69, Rookie

12.15 Leonard Pope, TE23, Rookie

15.03 Marcedes Lewis, TE26, Rookie

15.07 Jerious Norwood, RB66, Rookie

15.14 Jerome Harrison, RB68, Rookie

16.14 Sinorice Moss, WR89, Rookie

17.02 Brian Calhoun, RB70, Rookie

19.10 Maurice Drew, RB75, Rookie

19.15 Dominque Byrd, TE32, Rookie

20.03 Demetrius Williams,WR99, Rookie

Given that there is limited roster space, no one risked taking a rookie QB.

 

[UnknownCoach]

This is good. It would be considered a qualification to the general rule?

While I dont remember all their situations, we can probably add a couple more RBs to that list like Avery. So of those 29 first round RBs, only about 17 were drafted into positions in which they were starters. Of those 17 we have 10 that ranked in the top 24 their rookie year. 5 in the top 12, and 5 from 13-24. Factor in a natural rate of injuries and I think we have a very high rate of return on our redraft investment.

 

[David Yudkin]

This is good.  It would be considered a qualification to the general rule?

While I dont remember all their situations, we can probably add a couple more RBs to that list like Avery. So of those 29 first round RBs, only about 17 were drafted into positions in which they were starters. Of those 17 we have 10 that ranked in the top 24 their rookie year. 5 in the top 12, and 5 from 13-24. Factor in a natural rate of injuries and I think we have a very high rate of return on our redraft investment.

Can't tell if any of these guys were valuable fantasy wise unless we knew where they were drafted. If a guy snuck in as the RB24 but was drafted as RB12 he would have to be considered a poor ROI.

 

[UnknownCoach]

Can't tell if any of these guys were valuable fantasy wise unless we knew where they were drafted. If a guy snuck in as the RB24 but was drafted as RB12 he would have to be considered a poor ROI.

I'm using the same criteria as you are. In that a return on investment means a guy who finishes with starting material numbers.

 

[-OZ-]

Good stuff David, shows what most probably think we already know, but it's always good to review this stuff.

The question I would have here, is how did those rookies who were supposed to be the starter for their team do? It's one thing to say that Deuce McAllister and Shaun Alexander didn't succeed as rookies (they weren't supposed to) and another to see the success of Edge, LT, Shockey, etc.

Just wondering if you have a breakdown along those lines.

If you give me an idea as to how to break down who is in which category I could break it down. For example, are Top 10 NFL draft picks expected to make an immediate impact? First rounders overall? Where is the line in the sand? Top 3 at each position no matter where they were drafted?

Pretty much what the others have said. It would mostly be looking back at the press, was the rookie supposed to start at the time of most FF drafts. It's situation dependent.Take Benson, Caddy and Ronnie Brown last year. At least in my leagues, Caddy is the only one that went high, then Brown, then a late round flier on Benson. Ended up about right, although that largely depended on when you drafted.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Based on the statistics in the post I'm going to have to actually disagree with the title of the post (LIMITED return on investment).

34% of 1st round RBs become viable fantasy starters. That may sound low, but it's really not when you consider that rookie runners generally go in rounds 5-6 unless they end up in a super situation. What percentage of all RBs drafted in rounds 5-6 in fantasy drafts become viable fantasy starters? I would guess that it is quite a bit less than 34% so the rookie runners may actually provide a better option here. Also keep in mind that this 34% includes guys like Chris Perry, Steven Jackson etc that are clearly set in backup roles their first season and hence aren't drafted until after the 8th round, so the the number of rookie runners that become fantasy starters drafted in the 5th/6th round of fantasy drafts is quite a bit higher than 34% which is a much higher return on your investment than you're going to get on longshot veteran RBs (guys like Henry, C. Brown, Barlow, Staley etc this past year) at that point in the draft.

Likewise for rookie WRs and TEs. Even the most heralded go in rounds 7-8 in redrafts because everyone knows that rookies struggle at these positions, so at that point a 23%+ (actually higher because again, the guys clearly drafted into situations where they won't play are going to fall much further in the draft) shot at getting a viable fantasy starter at that spot isn't all that bad, thought these guys are clearly less useful than the RBs.

The statistics posted by the OP have actually made me think that rookies (particularly RBs) are MORE valuable at their draft spots than I originally thought, not less value as it seems was the point trying to be made.

 

[Bri]

Based on the statistics in the post I'm going to have to actually disagree with the title of the post (LIMITED return on investment).

34% of 1st round RBs become viable fantasy starters. That may sound low, but it's really not when you consider that rookie runners generally go in rounds 5-6 unless they end up in a super situation. What percentage of all RBs drafted in rounds 5-6 in fantasy drafts become viable fantasy starters? I would guess that it is quite a bit less than 34% so the rookie runners may actually provide a better option here.

I'm a bit puzzled by your post. Rounds 5 and 6 isn't very deep into the draft and I'd venture a strong guess that any regular here is plenty OK in rounds 5 and 6 of their FF draft.

 

[cstu]

Based on the statistics in the post I'm going to have to actually disagree with the title of the post (LIMITED return on investment).

34% of 1st round RBs become viable fantasy starters. That may sound low, but it's really not when you consider that rookie runners generally go in rounds 5-6 unless they end up in a super situation. What percentage of all RBs drafted in rounds 5-6 in fantasy drafts become viable fantasy starters? I would guess that it is quite a bit less than 34% so the rookie runners may actually provide a better option here.

I'm a bit puzzled by your post. Rounds 5 and 6 isn't very deep into the draft and I'd venture a strong guess that any regular here is plenty OK in rounds 5 and 6 of their FF draft.

I think he means rookies drafted in rounds 5 and 6. It's probably true since any rookie running back expected to play much his rookie year gets drafted fairly high.

 

[radballs.]

David,

A lot of times rookies don't get much playing time until later in the season. Have you also done this on a ppg basis? If your statistics are for the entire season, it may be negatively skewing the results despite the fact that some rookies had much better ppg once they actually got some playing time.

 

[Bri]

David,

A lot of times rookies don't get much playing time until later in the season. Have you also done this on a ppg basis? If your statistics are for the entire season, it may be negatively skewing the results despite the fact that some rookies had much better ppg once they actually got some playing time.

that's a good point

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

David,

A lot of times rookies don't get much playing time until later in the season. Have you also done this on a ppg basis? If your statistics are for the entire season, it may be negatively skewing the results despite the fact that some rookies had much better ppg once they actually got some playing time.

Your post immediately made me think of Julius and Kevin Jones in 2004.

 

[UnknownCoach]

David,

A lot of times rookies don't get much playing time until later in the season. Have you also done this on a ppg basis? If your statistics are for the entire season, it may be negatively skewing the results despite the fact that some rookies had much better ppg once they actually got some playing time.

This is true of any analysis that uses season stats to rank players vs using ppg. Unfortunately, as much as many of us have tried, we cant get the VBD geeks to accept that. So I've just learned to let them use skewed numbers.

 

[AnonymousBob]

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Based on the statistics in the post I'm going to have to actually disagree with the title of the post (LIMITED return on investment).

34% of 1st round RBs become viable fantasy starters. That may sound low, but it's really not when you consider that rookie runners generally go in rounds 5-6 unless they end up in a super situation. What percentage of all RBs drafted in rounds 5-6 in fantasy drafts become viable fantasy starters? I would guess that it is quite a bit less than 34% so the rookie runners may actually provide a better option here.

I'm a bit puzzled by your post. Rounds 5 and 6 isn't very deep into the draft and I'd venture a strong guess that any regular here is plenty OK in rounds 5 and 6 of their FF draft.

More than 65% of 5th/6th round draft picks end up being busts, and that number is quite a bit higher when talking about RBs. Here are the RBs whose ADP was in that area last year:Kevan Barlow

Michael Bennett

Deshaun Foster

Warrick Dunn

Fred Taylor

Duce Staley

Chris Brown

Lee Suggs

Larry Johnson

2 out of 9 (Dunn and LJ) really ended up working out, or roughly 22% of veteran RBs taken in that area. So, 34+% of rookies in that area working out doesn't look quite so bad, does it?

 

[Bri]

Based on the statistics in the post I'm going to have to actually disagree with the title of the post (LIMITED return on investment).

34% of 1st round RBs become viable fantasy starters.  That may sound low, but it's really not when you consider that rookie runners generally go in rounds 5-6 unless they end up in a super situation.  What percentage of all RBs drafted in rounds 5-6 in fantasy drafts become viable fantasy starters?  I would guess that it is quite a bit less than 34% so the rookie runners may actually provide a better option here.

I'm a bit puzzled by your post. Rounds 5 and 6 isn't very deep into the draft and I'd venture a strong guess that any regular here is plenty OK in rounds 5 and 6 of their FF draft.

More than 65% of 5th/6th round draft picks end up being busts, and that number is quite a bit higher when talking about RBs. Here are the RBs whose ADP was in that area last year:Kevan Barlow

Michael Bennett

Deshaun Foster

Warrick Dunn

Fred Taylor

Duce Staley

Chris Brown

Lee Suggs

Larry Johnson

2 out of 9 (Dunn and LJ) really ended up working out, or roughly 22% of veteran RBs taken in that area. So, 34+% of rookies in that area working out doesn't look quite so bad, does it?

oh! Well you shuld be grabbing a TE or WR then anyway

 

[David Yudkin]

Based on the statistics in the post I'm going to have to actually disagree with the title of the post (LIMITED return on investment).

34% of 1st round RBs become viable fantasy starters. That may sound low, but it's really not when you consider that rookie runners generally go in rounds 5-6 unless they end up in a super situation. What percentage of all RBs drafted in rounds 5-6 in fantasy drafts become viable fantasy starters? I would guess that it is quite a bit less than 34% so the rookie runners may actually provide a better option here. Also keep in mind that this 34% includes guys like Chris Perry, Steven Jackson etc that are clearly set in backup roles their first season and hence aren't drafted until after the 8th round, so the the number of rookie runners that become fantasy starters drafted in the 5th/6th round of fantasy drafts is quite a bit higher than 34% which is a much higher return on your investment than you're going to get on longshot veteran RBs (guys like Henry, C. Brown, Barlow, Staley etc this past year) at that point in the draft.

Likewise for rookie WRs and TEs. Even the most heralded go in rounds 7-8 in redrafts because everyone knows that rookies struggle at these positions, so at that point a 23%+ (actually higher because again, the guys clearly drafted into situations where they won't play are going to fall much further in the draft) shot at getting a viable fantasy starter at that spot isn't all that bad, thought these guys are clearly less useful than the RBs.

The statistics posted by the OP have actually made me think that rookies (particularly RBs) are MORE valuable at their draft spots than I originally thought, not less value as it seems was the point trying to be made.

IMO, the only position that holds any real value for rookies is RB. And in more recent years even that is not a great option.I went back 10 years, but if you look at the last 5 seasons there were not many impact rookies that were drafted earlu in the NFL draft. The guys that made names for themselves (as rookies) were players like Mike Anderson (6th round), Marcel Shipp (undrafted), Domininc Rhodes (undrafted), Domanick Davis (4th round), and Clinton Portis (2nd round).

Yet I still see the rookies typically drafted pretty close to the order in which they were drafted in the NFL draft. The problem in looking at the results AFTER the fact is that usually someone took over as a starter when no one was really counting on it. It's rare these days for a RB to waltz in and put up a season like Edge did.

Although not depicted in my original post, part of what I at least remember is that the rookies that even ranked as marginal RB2s were drafted earlier than that (at least in my drafts).

 

[UnknownCoach]

Yudkin, you are really blowing a lot of smoke in a an attempt to prove that the top rookie RBs arent worth their redraft position but you only going to end up proving yourself wrong because your theory couldnt be farther from the truth.

1. Rookies are seldom drafted in the RB1 range of a redraft league. This isnt hard to prove. Go look at past cheatsheets, past drafts, past ADPs, past WCOFF drafts. Whereever you want to look. We all play fantasy football here also and our memories arent dead.

2. Let's take a look at the past 10 years #1 rookies drafted in a redraft league. No back is listed for the McGahee/Johnson year because no back was even drafted into a starting position that year. McGahee was drafted unhealthy enough to play and Johnson was backing up the number 1 RB in the league. So we have only 9 results.

Cadillac Williams - performed at RB1 level when healthy. Finished season at RB2 level.

Kevin Jones - Didnt get featured role until second half of season. Then he performed at RB1 level.

William Green - Performed at RB2 level second half of season but overall performed only as RB3

Tomlinson - Performed at RB1 level

Jamal Lewis - Performed at RB2 level

Edge - #1 fantasy RB

Enis - injured and only played half a season. At which he performed at an RB3 level

Dunn - Performed at RB2 level (may have even been RB1 but I'm guessing)

Phillips - Performed at RB3 or maybe even RB4 level (again I'm guessing with the players pre 2000)

So of the 9, 2 finished as RB1s, 2 others played as RB1s when healthy and featured, 2 more finished as RB2s, and the final 3 performed as RB3s.

Considering these guys are typically drafted in redraft league in the middle RB2 range to RB3 range, we have a solid return rate on our investment. 67 percent performed at a fantasy starting level which David describes as receiving a return on your investment. With an adjusted rate (giving half a credit each to Jones and Williams) we get the ratings of 33 percent RB1, 33 percent RB2, and 33 percent RB3. Compare that to the rate of return on investment of veterans. We end up with a very solid percentage. Quite probably, we might end up with a higher rate of return than the veterans. Considering the cheaper draft position of the rookies, I'm certain we end up with a higher return by draft position than we do with veterans.

Like I said, blowing smoke in a desperate attempt to prove a theory that just isnt true.

 

[Z-Dog]

But the above is true of every player. To some extent, all NFL players are streaky. Volatility is a natural part of the game. I can cut up any player's stats and say that for some portion of the season he was RB1, but ended up as RB2. To adjust your analysis only for rookies misses the point.

Every player has certain structural risk built into him. For rookies it's that they are rookies, and struggle with consistency and the with the NFL schedule. For vets, it's usually more injuries.

While it's true that when drafting in the 8th round, I'm not looking for an RB2, the point is that I could be looking for a QB1 or a WR2. The only reason to bypass one of those is b/c I think I can get a rookie who will perform like an RB2.

Let's also remember that RBs going into starting situations get drafted much earlier. Clinton Portis wasn't available in the 5th round of my redraft.

 

[UnknownCoach]

But the above is true of every player. To some extent, all NFL players are streaky. Volatility is a natural part of the game. I can cut up any player's stats and say that for some portion of the season he was RB1, but ended up as RB2. To adjust your analysis only for rookies misses the point.

Every player has certain structural risk built into him. For rookies it's that they are rookies, and struggle with consistency and the with the NFL schedule. For vets, it's usually more injuries.

While it's true that when drafting in the 8th round, I'm not looking for an RB2, the point is that I could be looking for a QB1 or a WR2. The only reason to bypass one of those is b/c I think I can get a rookie who will perform like an RB2.

Let's also remember that RBs going into starting situations get drafted much earlier. Clinton Portis wasn't available in the 5th round of my redraft.

I'm not saying anything to disagree with what you just said. I have in above posts pointed out the need to adjust the rate for a natural chance of injury in order to give a fair comparison of rookies with vets. David's article tried to make it sound like a low percentage of rookie RBs were successful by NOT MENTIONING those who didnt have an open chance to start and NOT MENTIONING a natural chance of injury. I am simply mentioning those two important percentages and taking them out of David's equation so that the number is no longer artificially low.I mentioned above that the top rookie RBs are drafted in the RB2 to RB3 range in redraft leagues. RB2 is certainly earlier than round 5.

I'm a PPG guy. I mentioned above that any stat analysis using season long rankings instead of PPG is skewed. I didnt adjust any stats for rookies. I adjusted stats for all RBs the same way. By using PPG, we automatically negate the injury factor. I treat veterans the exact same way as I do the rookies. I'm not inflating the value of rookies by giving them anything I dont give veterans. Its David that was trying create an artificially low number by not factoring injuries or starting opportunities. I simply brought the more realistic numbers to the surface.

 

[David Yudkin]

Let's try this again, since there are two factors at work here--the total points picture and the PPG average.

Over the past 5 years, the highest scoring rookie RB have been: Portis, LT, Rhodes, DDavis, Shipp, A-Train, KJones, CWilliams, Brown, and WGreen.

Depending upon when your draft was and who the other owners in your league were, I'm guessing a good portion of those were not on the radar (Rhodes, Davis, A-Train, and Shipp).

I generally have to draft months before the season starts, so many times it is unclear how things will play out and who will get hurt in camp. In my drafts, many people felt that some of the other highly touted rookie backs would step in and win the job, making their selection a dicey proposition.

The only RB in that group that started from day one and played all 16 games was LT who did fine. Last year, CWilliams was thought to be the starter and had some injury issues, but in the games he did play he still ranked a somewhat lukewarm 21st in PPG. He had some great games to start the season, but he certainly had mixed results the rest of the way.

IMO, ranking as a borderline RB2 is not exactly going to make or break your fantasy team, but it's safe to say that that is not making a major impact one way or the other. In today's game, rookies seem to need to know and do more than in the past, and that could be part of the reason why they are not making more of an impact from game one of the season. Similarly, some of the recent backs have had some nagging injuries, and while I think that's mostly a coincidence it may be just another adjustment to the speed and rigors of the pro game.

Players like Julius Jones and Kevin Jones were drafted quite high fantasy wise and also met with mixed results. They did well when they were healthy and played, but that was a fraction of the season. So how do you account for that? An "A" in their good games and an "F" when they didn't play? I don't know, I'm just wondering out loud . . .

As for rookies as a whole, if we are debating the value and merits of a handful of RB and not much has even been mentioned about QB, WR, and TE, I stand by my statement that rookies have limited return on investment. As a statement in general, many times rookies are not given the chance to step in from the get go and many times are weaned into the lineup to learn as they go. Historically, going back even farther than 5 or 10 years, most WR and TE post marginal to ok fantasy numbers and player like Moss, Boldin, and Shockey are clearly the exception.

Obviously, at some point in all drafts it's worth considering anyone at any position in the later rounds, and at that point it really doesn't much matter if a player is a rookie or a veteran as most guys taken in the 18th to 20th rounds of drafts are flyers anyway. If you don't hit paydirt with these guys, you didn't invest much to begin with. But selecting say Gharles Rogers in the 8th or 9th might not have been the best bet to hang your hat on.

 

[UnknownCoach]

Over the past 10 years, the highest scoring rookie RB have been: Portis, LT, Rhodes, DDavis, Shipp, A-Train, KJones, CWilliams, Brown, and WGreen.

Edge was number 1 and Dunn was probably somewhere around 15 (guessing). Both scored more than most players on your list. As far as the rookie backs that come out of the woodwork, the exact same is true of veterans every year. Bottum line, when given the chance to start, rookie RBs produce. For unheralded rookie backs to do so well only further proves that rookie RBs do well as a whole. A veteran who comes out of the woodwork can do just as well but I think you'd find the veteran coming out of the woodwork has a smaller chance of producing well than the rookie coming out of the woodwork.

I'm not disputing other positions, only RBs and only because you made it a point in your article to try to prove that first round RBs dont produce a good return on your investment. Yet I've displayed clear evidence that they do.

You almost seem to be referring to keeper league drafts rather than redraft league drafts. In redraft leagues, very little value is assigned to a rookie who doesnt have a clear shot at starting. A very heralded rookie might be drafted as one of the first handcuffs... along with the top veteran handcuffs. Nothing wrong with that. Maybe you have an issue with handcuffing.

 

[David Yudkin]

Over the past 10 years, the highest scoring rookie RB have been:  Portis, LT, Rhodes, DDavis, Shipp, A-Train, KJones, CWilliams, Brown, and WGreen.

Edge was number 1 and Dunn was probably somewhere around 15 (guessing). Both scored more than most players on your list. As far as the rookie backs that come out of the woodwork, the exact same is true of veterans every year. Bottum line, when given the chance to start, rookie RBs produce. For unheralded rookie backs to do so well only further proves that rookie RBs do well as a whole. A veteran who comes out of the woodwork can do just as well but I think you'd find the veteran coming out of the woodwork has a smaller chance of producing well than the rookie coming out of the woodwork.

I'm not disputing other positions, only RBs and only because you made it a point in your article to try to prove that first round RBs dont produce a good return on your investment. Yet I've displayed clear evidence that they do.

You almost seem to be referring to keeper league drafts rather than redraft league drafts. In redraft leagues, very little value is assigned to a rookie who doesnt have a clear shot at starting. A very heralded rookie might be drafted as one of the first handcuffs... along with the top veteran handcuffs. Nothing wrong with that. Maybe you have an issue with handcuffing.

I meant to say past 5 years not 10.

 

[UnknownCoach]

I meant to say past 5 years not 10.

Blowing more artificial smoke.In the past 5 years we've had what? 5 first round RBs with an open hole to a starting job. Jones, Williams, Tomlinson, Bennett, and Green.

Jones, Williams, and LT all provided a return on investment by your definition. All three even scored as RB1s when featured and healthy. Bennett and Green produced RB3 numbers. Nothing wrong with that percentage. You sure are trying to make a small sample size though.

 

[wannabee]

I meant to say past 5 years not 10.

Blowing more artificial smoke.In the past 5 years we've had what? 5 first round RBs with an open hole to a starting job. Jones, Williams, Tomlinson, Bennett, and Green.

Jones, Williams, and LT all provided a return on investment by your definition. All three even scored as RB1s when featured and healthy. Bennett and Green produced RB3 numbers. Nothing wrong with that percentage. You sure are trying to make a small sample size though.

Dayne was drafted to start. You might be able to include Duckett, too. They each were not drafted to be in a RBBC. They just played poorly enough to be in one.

 

[-OZ-]

were not drafted to be in a RBBC. They just played poorly enough to be in one.

Maybe my memory is foggy, but I remember both being acclaimed as "thunder" in a lightning and thunder RBBC. Dunn and Tiki were definetly part of the gameplans.

 

[wannabee]

were not drafted to be in a RBBC.  They just played poorly enough to be in one.

Maybe my memory is foggy, but I remember both being acclaimed as "thunder" in a lightning and thunder RBBC. Dunn and Tiki were definetly part of the gameplans.

Oz, I know it might be semantics, but I think the Giants and Falcons wanted the 1st rounders to be 2-down backs. To me, that is what the question is. Think of Rudi, Dillon, etc. I could be wrong, but this is how I see the situation those were drafted into. Dayne, for example had 228 carries his rookie year, more than Tiki had in only 4 starts. Just because they failed does not mean they were not drafted to be the focus.

So, how do these two situations differ than that of Green? He had competition, too.

 

[UnknownCoach]

Oz, I know it might be semantics, but I think the Giants and Falcons wanted the 1st rounders to be 2-down backs. To me, that is what the question is. Think of Rudi, Dillon, etc.

I could be wrong, but this is how I see the situation those were drafted into. Dayne, for example had 228 carries his rookie year, more than Tiki had in only 4 starts. Just because they failed does not mean they were not drafted to be the focus.

So, how do these two situations differ than that of Green? He had competition, too.

Definately not true with Duckett. Dunn was paid huge money to come to Atlanta and was drafted higher than Duckett. Duckett was not drafted into a featured role at all.Dayne is outside the 5 year mark. If you include him, you have to include a lot of others as well.

 

[David Yudkin]

This certianly is open to debate, but here are the RB over the past 10 years that I see had a decent chance to start or were thought of as starters when they were drafted. By that I mean that some fantasy folks thought that they would be the starter for all or most of the season. Whether that was an informed decision is another matter, but here's who I came up with . . .

2005

Ronnie Brown

Cedric Benson

Cadillac Williams

JJ Arrington

Frank Gore

2004

Steven Jackson

Kevin Jones

Tatum Bell

Julius Jones

2003

Tony Hollings

Lee Suggs

2002

William Green

TJ Duckett

DeShaun Foster

Clinton Portis

2001

LT

Michael Bennett

2000

Ron Dayne

Thomas Jones

1999

Edge

Rickey Williams

1998

Curtis Enis

Robert Edwards

1997

Warrick Dunn

1996

Lawrence Philips

Tim Biakabutuka

IMO, several prominent guys WERE NOT drafted as starters and took over for an injured player in their rookie season including Jamal Lewis (Priest Holmes), Fred Taylor (James Stewart), and Corey Dillon (Ki-Jana Carter). I also think Portis somewhat falls in that category, but many people he would win the starting job anyway.

I don't have the time right now to assess each of those guys rookie seasons, but maybe some others of you can get things started . . .

 

[-OZ-]

Oz, I know it might be semantics, but I think the Giants and Falcons wanted the 1st rounders to be 2-down backs. To me, that is what the question is. Think of Rudi, Dillon, etc.

I could be wrong, but this is how I see the situation those were drafted into. Dayne, for example had 228 carries his rookie year, more than Tiki had in only 4 starts. Just because they failed does not mean they were not drafted to be the focus.

So, how do these two situations differ than that of Green? He had competition, too.

Definately not true with Duckett. Dunn was paid huge money to come to Atlanta and was drafted higher than Duckett. Duckett was not drafted into a featured role at all.Dayne is outside the 5 year mark. If you include him, you have to include a lot of others as well.

IIRC, the world was pretty much shocked when Atlanta drafted Duckett.You're probably right on Dayne. Tiki hadn't turned it on until they drafted Dayne.

 

[UnknownCoach]

Jamal Lewis belongs on that list. Even though Holmes was on the team, management made it clear from the beginning that Lewis was their man. The reason Lewis didnt start off the year was because of an injury and the fact that he missed most all of training camp. Not because of Holmes.

I think part of your theory has to do with the most recent draft. We all knew Brown had 4 games as a starter but we also all knew that Ricky was coming back in week 5. Ricky is one of the very very best backs in the NFL. A lot of people are down on any player with character issues so a lot of people were down on Ricky. So a lot of people made the mistake of discounting Ricky Williams but a lot of people didnt make that mistake as well. It was not so much an issue of people overvalueing Brown as much as some people undervalueing Williams.

Thomas Jones was named the starter by the Bears immediately after Benson was drafted. Simuliar to the Williams situation, a lot of people were just down on Jones due to his past. So here again we had some people undervaluing Jones. Clearly though Benson wasnt drafted into a starting role.

Arrington was a second round pick and played for the worst rushing team in the NFL. He could have been Larry Johnson and still wouldnt have finished as an RB2. Because he was a second round pick (and wasnt projected as a first rounder by anybody), he compares more with guys like Portis and Julius Jones than guys like Lewis or Caddy.

Gore was clearly the backup to Barlow. Barlow had a huge contract and the 49ers kept him when they could have cut him to save money. Which they would have done if they were really looking to go a different direction at RB last year. Gore was drafted late to not at all in virtually all redrafts.

 

[UnknownCoach]

I mentioned before that 2003 didnt have any back with an open shot at starting.

Suggs was coming off a serious injury while Green was clearly the starter at the time.

Hollings was a pure project and everybody knew that he wasnt a polished running back. He had only played the position one year before coming to the NFL. Stacey Mack was the starter which isnt saying much but we all knew this. While the Texans were willing to depart with a second round pick in the expansion draft, they were only willing to do so because they had an extra second round pick (expected to be a late second) they considered spareable. Davis was a more realistic shot than Hollings and Davis is the guy who took the job. But we didnt expect him to. We were all looking at Mack as the guy.

I tried to reach to find a guy for 2003 myself. There just isnt anybody though.