Good point but I believe it's just as flawed going back to draft lists with no commentary from last season. The above lists at least show the running backs were indeed well thought of while in college two years ago. I for one, when compiling draft rankings over the years (did it for a few seasons during the Tuff Sports days and the first year with Footballguys), never bothered to rank players NOT coming out and that is why the above links are flawed. Perhaps players iffy to come out last year at best were dropped down the rankings.
At the time those lists were compiled, Jackson and Jones were just as "iffy" as Williams/Brown. For the 100th time, all four were juniors.If the rankings from the sites I provided are flawed (and they probably are seriously flawed in a lot of ways) it was NOT because Williams was "iffy". As for Brown, nobody much cared whether he was coming out or not as it concerned the top of the rankings.
It's interesting how you can provide SOLID evidence for the prevailing views a year or two ago and people still want to discount it because they just don't want to believe it.
Those lists DO NOT indicate that Jackson and Jones are better backs than Benson, Williams and Brown. But they most certainly do lend some insight into which backs people THOUGHT were best at that time. That's waht I've been yelling about all off-season and it's frustrating because everyone believes what they want to believe regardless of the evidence.
You can make very good arguments that the 2005 backs are better than previous years' classes, but continuing to use misconceptions ain't the way to go about it.
When ranked together in years past, Jackson and Jones were viewed as superior backs - it's really hard to deny that fact. If you want to make your case, you are just going to have to come up with evidence that the 2005 class has shown something significant in the last year, or that the 2004, 2002 2001 classes etc were all over-rated, or something else to that effect.
Hold on a sec. I, and nobody else said Benson, Williams and Brown are definitely stronger than Jackson and Jones (both of whom I loved last year and still do). The point being made is the depth of this RB depth is greater than it's ever been. There are a lot of players who have a good shot at contributing in 2005 and beyond. More so than a typical draft.
Actually, quite a few people have said and continue to say that. If you didn't say it or imply it, that's cool.I've agreed that this year's depth is nice, but it's not amazing or anything, it's just nice.
Folks keep pointing to guys as amazing depth whose prospects really aren't any better than 2nd tier backs' from any other year.
We've got:
Benson/Williams/Brown - nce group at the top
---
then the rest:
Fason/Barber/Morency/McClendon/Shelton/Moats/Sproles/Clarrett and maybe a few more here or there.
That second tier has a lot of guys in it (a few more than other years maybe), but NONE of them are the sure-shots that people in this thread are making them out to be.
They are no better than Tatum Bell, Julius Jones, Greg Jones, Mewelde Moore, Cedric Cobbs, Michael Turner etc. In fact, they may well turn out to be a lot worse.
In 2003 three you had Musa Smith, Chris Brown, Fargas, Pinner, Dom Davis, Ont Smith, Lee Suggs, Q-dog in the "second tier". Those guys are just as good as the 2005 second tier and again, very possibly better.
In 2002, the second tier would have been Portis, Betts, Gordon, Westbrook, Wells, Davenport. Not really all that bad either (Portis was a borderline 2nd tier guy).
2001 2nd tier was A train, Lamont Jordan, Travis Henry, James Jackson, Barlow, Rudi Johnson, Buckhalter, Blaylock. That's 5 guys who are or were once good starters in the NFL and a couple of other decent backups.
Sproles is 5'6". Enough said.
Harris looks decent, not great. Relatively weak pro-day.
Moats is not big, not all that fast. Some potential, but nothing too exciting. Lots of people disagree though.
Morency just ran 4.7s at his pro-day at 212 pounds. He's 25 years old.
Fason was also clocked over 4.6 to go with other pedestrian measurables (tall and thin).
Barber is hard to judge. Definitely has talent, but hasn't worked out yet (didn't run at combine). Has had mediocre college career.
Davis is another smurf.
Gore, sadly, is probably done. The knees just aren't there.
Shelton is intriguing, but obviously has a fair amount of risk associated with him.
Clarrett is what he is. Most here (and probably the NFL) have given up on him.
There IS some talent on that list, and I am obviously slanting the "analysis" toward the negatives. But that group frankly just doesn't blow me away like it does a lot of others around here.
So where is the amazing difference in depth? Again, I grant you that it is slightly better than average in terms of sheer numbers that have a CHANCE to be real NFL players, but other than that, they aren't any better than any other years' guys, and the quality of them may in fact be a little worse now that I look at it.
and thanks to barry jive for clarifying that my upside/downside was based on things working out for arrington. im not going to put the downside as curtis enis for every rookie RB because that adds nothing to the discussion.
You are right about the medicore comment - it is more just an indication that he hasn't racked up numbers like some of the other guys (again, as you say, much like Williams).
