How many NFL teams could a rookie RB actually start for this year? (1 Viewer)

[gianmarco]

I'd like to see if we can come up with a consensus list of teams where a RB could come in and start this year. I'll break it down to starting from week 1 like Lynch did last year to starting at some point in the year.

Rookie RB likely to start week 1:

1. Detroit

2. Chicago

3. Whichever team drafts McFadden

Rookie RB POSSIBLE to start at some point in 2008 (not just 2nd RB in RBBC, but actually the starter or getting the majority of carries in a RBBC)

1. Seattle

2. Cincinnati

3. Tennessee

4. NYJ

5. Denver

6. Oakland

7. Carolina

8. Arizona

9. Houston

Which do you disagree with? Which do you feel I left off?

I was originally going to wait and post the reason why I'm starting this, but I think I will go ahead and include it here to hopefully garner a little more interest. I've seen some threads talking about which places might be a surprise to get RB's, and I think there's going to be a lot of these guys going to situations where they will be sitting behind an entrenched starter for at least 1-2 yrs. It happens every year. However, because this RB class is so deep, it seems that people are valuing late 1st round rookie picks awfully high and might get less than they expect from it. As deep as this class is and as nice as it may be to get one of these guys, it may actually be a good year to TRADE those late 1sts and get some value.

J. Charles, Forte, Rice, K. Smith, C. Johnson, and others may very well end up in places not listed here. Even on that bottom list, it's not going to be easy to unseat a guy like Edge or Henry or T. Jones or Rudi in their 1st year. Possible, but not likely. Therefore, their values could take big hits once the draft occurs and during the year.

Think of guys from last year that got stuck behind starters. Leonard, Booker, Henry, B. Jackson, M. Bush, Pittman, Irons, Hunt. Look at their values now? I know as a group, not nearly as deep and talented as the 2008 class, but a big part of it is that they are all mired in bad situations due to starters ahead of them. Out of that group, only B. Jackson and C. Henry had a legit shot at starting last year and didn't get it.

When you look at the list of teams above, there are just not enough spots available for the # of good RB's coming out this year and a lot of these 2nd tier guys like Rice, Jones, Johnson, Charles, Smith are going to end up on a team with an entrenched starter and may not see the field for at least 1-2 yrs. I would argue that the value play this year is to trade those 1.7-1.8 picks or lower for value now (if you're planning on using them on a RB) and then try to reacquire these guys during the season or next year when their value drops.

So, what does your list of "available openings" for these guys look like? My guess is, using my list above, 5-6 RB's tops from the 2008 class will be making significant contributions this year.

 

[EBF]

Looks like you've got a good list there.

McFadden will play a prominent role wherever he goes. OAK, NYJ, and NE seem like the most likely destinations.

I think Detroit and Chicago definitely want to upgrade their starting spots. Mendenhall would give either of them the 330 carry north-south workhorse it needs. I look for those teams to strongly consider him if he falls to their pick. They should also consider Stewart and will probably look at guys like Forte, Rice, and Choice in the mid rounds if they miss out on the first round backs. Both of these teams will add a body and that guy will have a very good chance of starting at some point next season.

Most of the other spots look like RBBC for 2008 with the only exception being if the team drafted a guy like Stewart or Mendenhall. Those two backs could start for CAR, CIN, TEN, DEN, or SEA next season.

 

[gianmarco]

Looks like you've got a good list there. McFadden will play a prominent role wherever he goes. OAK, NYJ, and NE seem like the most likely destinations. I think Detroit and Chicago definitely want to upgrade their starting spots. Mendenhall would give either of them the 330 carry north-south workhorse it needs. I look for those teams to strongly consider him if he falls to their pick. They should also consider Stewart and will probably look at guys like Forte, Rice, and Choice in the mid rounds if they miss out on the first round backs. Both of these teams will add a body and that guy will have a very good chance of starting at some point next season. Most of the other spots look like RBBC for 2008 with the only exception being if the team drafted a guy like Stewart or Mendenhall. Those two backs could start for CAR, CIN, TEN, DEN, or SEA next season.

Yeah, I didn't think of your last statement when I put that list up, but if either Mendenhall or Stewart land somewhere on that 2nd list, then I think that actually helps the other RB's in terms of FF chances. Those 2 guys could start, as you said, this year, plus McFadden, and then you get an extra 1-2 guys to start in that first list. EBF, do you think we will be looking at these 2nd tier RB's just like we currently see Irons, Hunt, Leonard, Henry by the middle of the season despite them being more talented? It just seems the supply this year far outweighs the demand and there's gonna be a lot of disappointed people who paid a pretty penny for those 1.9-1.12 picks and watch their RB sit on the bench for the next 2 yrs.After I posted this, I went back and looked at all the RB's drafted in rookie drafts the last few yrs, and it's really not a good sign to see so few have any decent value today.

 

[gianmarco]

Btw, I would also add KC to the list of potential McFadden landing spots. There have been some rumblings going on about this and it actually makes good sense to me, particularly if KC can trade LJ.

 

[Sabertooth]

Right off the bat you miss Green Bay. If for instance Mendenhall or Stewart fell to them and they selected him, he'd probably start over Grant. I doubt they go with a back that high unless a great one slides. But in all reality Ryan Grant will be 26 before the season is over and may have just caught lightning in a bottle for one season.

I don't think Grant is as entrenched as people think he is.

 

[massraider]

Right off the bat you miss Green Bay. If for instance Mendenhall or Stewart fell to them and they selected him, he'd probably start over Grant. I doubt they go with a back that high unless a great one slides. But in all reality Ryan Grant will be 26 before the season is over and may have just caught lightning in a bottle for one season.I don't think Grant is as entrenched as people think he is.

I am sure if the Pack adds a rookie RB in the first 3 rounds, that player (whoever he is), would have an ADP somewhere around 1.7.

 

[gianmarco]

Right off the bat you miss Green Bay. If for instance Mendenhall or Stewart fell to them and they selected him, he'd probably start over Grant. I doubt the go with a back that high unless a great on slid, but in all reality Ryan Grant will be 26 before the season is over and may have just caught lightning in a bottle for one season.

Those 2 guys could land in a lot of other places and start as well. TB, NO, and NE in addition to GB are places where those 2 guys could start. But that's only if those 2 guys go there. And I don't see any of those teams, GB including, spending a 1st round pick on those RB's with their other needs. That's why they aren't on the list above since those teams are quite unlikely to go with a RB in the 1st round. I think there is little to no chance of any other RB going to those 4 teams (GB, NO, NE, TB) and starting in 2008. For GB in particular, RB is not a pressing need, both with how well Grant performed (2nd best RB for the 2nd half of the season) and the fact they spent a relatively high pick last year on BJ. I don't see them doing it again. At the very least, Grant has earned the right to have the starting job and it should be his to lose. Keep in mind, also, that GB gave up a draft pick in order to acquire Grant and that is not something they do often at all. They were unwilling to do it for Moss, even. From what I read a lot last year, the GB F.O. was pretty high on Grant and he did nothing to prove them wrong in 2007.

 

[EBF]

EBF, do you think we will be looking at these 2nd tier RB's just like we currently see Irons, Hunt, Leonard, Henry by the middle of the season despite them being more talented? It just seems the supply this year far outweighs the demand and there's gonna be a lot of disappointed people who paid a pretty penny for those 1.9-1.12 picks and watch their RB sit on the bench for the next 2 yrs.

A few points here:1. Many of this year's top backs profile as change of pace backs and/or special teams contributors in the short term. A team probably isn't going to take Chris Johnson, Felix Jones, Jamaal Charles, or Steve Slaton to be its starter. These are guys who will be drafted to provide a little pop off the bench and maybe eventually develop into a full-time guy ala Westbrook and Tiki. 2. Of course these rookie backs won't all make an immediate impact. Typically there are only 2-4 rookie backs who play a prominent role right out of the gate. Bottom line is that if you think a guy has the goods, you draft him in your dynasty draft and hold him until he gets his opportunity. Everyone who deserves a shot gets a shot eventually. 3. These guys aren't all good. Historical odds say roughly 70% of first round RB's succeed, 35% of second round RB's, 30% of third round RB's, and about 10% of 4th round RB's. Most of the prospects we're talking about will fail to become reliable NFL starters. The value is really concentrated in the McFadden/Mendenhall/Stewart trifecta. The other guys should be viewed as talented, but flawed. However, I do like this crop and I think the depth is exceptional. There are some interesting late round sleepers this year.

 

[Sabertooth]

Right off the bat you miss Green Bay. If for instance Mendenhall or Stewart fell to them and they selected him, he'd probably start over Grant. I doubt the go with a back that high unless a great on slid, but in all reality Ryan Grant will be 26 before the season is over and may have just caught lightning in a bottle for one season.

Those 2 guys could land in a lot of other places and start as well. TB, NO, and NE in addition to GB are places where those 2 guys could start. But that's only if those 2 guys go there. And I don't see any of those teams, GB including, spending a 1st round pick on those RB's with their other needs. That's why they aren't on the list above since those teams are quite unlikely to go with a RB in the 1st round. I think there is little to no chance of any other RB going to those 4 teams (GB, NO, NE, TB) and starting in 2008. For GB in particular, RB is not a pressing need, both with how well Grant performed (2nd best RB for the 2nd half of the season) and the fact they spent a relatively high pick last year on BJ. I don't see them doing it again. At the very least, Grant has earned the right to have the starting job and it should be his to lose. Keep in mind, also, that GB gave up a draft pick in order to acquire Grant and that is not something they do often at all. They were unwilling to do it for Moss, even. From what I read a lot last year, the GB F.O. was pretty high on Grant and he did nothing to prove them wrong in 2007.

Where do the Packers have a pressing need that can be filled by a late first round pick? Corner...would be nickel IF he grasps the system. Maybe safety. Maybe DE, but again they'd have to beat out KGB to start. I am just throwing them out as a possibility.

 

[EBF]

Right off the bat you miss Green Bay. If for instance Mendenhall or Stewart fell to them and they selected him, he'd probably start over Grant. I doubt the go with a back that high unless a great on slid, but in all reality Ryan Grant will be 26 before the season is over and may have just caught lightning in a bottle for one season.

Those 2 guys could land in a lot of other places and start as well. TB, NO, and NE in addition to GB are places where those 2 guys could start. But that's only if those 2 guys go there. And I don't see any of those teams, GB including, spending a 1st round pick on those RB's with their other needs. That's why they aren't on the list above since those teams are quite unlikely to go with a RB in the 1st round. I think there is little to no chance of any other RB going to those 4 teams (GB, NO, NE, TB) and starting in 2008. For GB in particular, RB is not a pressing need, both with how well Grant performed (2nd best RB for the 2nd half of the season) and the fact they spent a relatively high pick last year on BJ. I don't see them doing it again. At the very least, Grant has earned the right to have the starting job and it should be his to lose. Keep in mind, also, that GB gave up a draft pick in order to acquire Grant and that is not something they do often at all. They were unwilling to do it for Moss, even. From what I read a lot last year, the GB F.O. was pretty high on Grant and he did nothing to prove them wrong in 2007.

That about sums up my take on GB. Grant did well enough to earn an extended look. They used a high pick on Brandon Jackson and they still have Vernand Morency (and maybe Deshawn Wynn?). I don't think their need is acute enough to justify an early RB pick. About the only way I can see it happening is if Stewart falls to their first round pick and they have him graded as a top 10-15 player.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Right off the bat you miss Green Bay. If for instance Mendenhall or Stewart fell to them and they selected him, he'd probably start over Grant. I doubt they go with a back that high unless a great one slides. But in all reality Ryan Grant will be 26 before the season is over and may have just caught lightning in a bottle for one season.I don't think Grant is as entrenched as people think he is.

The way Stewart seems to be falling, he could be a contender to start for MOST NFL teams. With the exception of LT (whom Stewart could replace soon), Portis, Peterson, Jackson and a couple other elite backs, Stewart would be RBBC at worst. Dallas, Pittsburgh, Cleveland... A lot of the teams we see as set may concider this guy an upgrade at the starting RB spot at the end of round 1. I know this thread isn't really about Stewart, but the big 3 (and Rice IMO) would make good starters for most teams. I would think it easier to make a list of who the top 4 or 5 backs couldn't start for. As for the 2nd/3rd tier RBs, there's very few teams that would draft them as an upgrade starter, and you'll likely have to wait for injury or contract expiration for their opportunity. I've already gotten the 4th, agreed in principal for the 5th and am going to make a play for the 2nd. I think if you get a top 4 or 5 you have a much higher chance of getting a starter. After that, it's gotta be in the stars.

 

[gianmarco]

Right off the bat you miss Green Bay. If for instance Mendenhall or Stewart fell to them and they selected him, he'd probably start over Grant. I doubt the go with a back that high unless a great on slid, but in all reality Ryan Grant will be 26 before the season is over and may have just caught lightning in a bottle for one season.

Those 2 guys could land in a lot of other places and start as well. TB, NO, and NE in addition to GB are places where those 2 guys could start. But that's only if those 2 guys go there. And I don't see any of those teams, GB including, spending a 1st round pick on those RB's with their other needs. That's why they aren't on the list above since those teams are quite unlikely to go with a RB in the 1st round. I think there is little to no chance of any other RB going to those 4 teams (GB, NO, NE, TB) and starting in 2008. For GB in particular, RB is not a pressing need, both with how well Grant performed (2nd best RB for the 2nd half of the season) and the fact they spent a relatively high pick last year on BJ. I don't see them doing it again. At the very least, Grant has earned the right to have the starting job and it should be his to lose. Keep in mind, also, that GB gave up a draft pick in order to acquire Grant and that is not something they do often at all. They were unwilling to do it for Moss, even. From what I read a lot last year, the GB F.O. was pretty high on Grant and he did nothing to prove them wrong in 2007.

Where do the Packers have a pressing need that can be filled by a late first round pick? Corner...would be nickel IF he grasps the system. Maybe safety. Maybe DE, but again they'd have to beat out KGB to start. I am just throwing them out as a possibility.

Well, GB definitely doesn't have as many dire needs as a lot of other teams. But, the OL is definitely one that can be upgraded. You listed some others. I also wouldn't put it past them to even look at a QB and would prefer that over a RB, to be honest.The other thing to keep in mind is that I seriously doubt that either Stewart or Mendenhall even makes it to GB so the point will be moot. But, as EBF pointed out, if one of them do and have him rated that highly, then I might be surprised if they didn't pull the trigger. Stranger things have happened.

 

[gianmarco]

Right off the bat you miss Green Bay. If for instance Mendenhall or Stewart fell to them and they selected him, he'd probably start over Grant. I doubt they go with a back that high unless a great one slides. But in all reality Ryan Grant will be 26 before the season is over and may have just caught lightning in a bottle for one season.

I don't think Grant is as entrenched as people think he is.

The way Stewart seems to be falling, he could be a contender to start for MOST NFL teams. With the exception of LT (whom Stewart could replace soon), Portis, Peterson, Jackson and a couple other elite backs, Stewart would be RBBC at worst. Dallas, Pittsburgh, Cleveland... A lot of the teams we see as set may concider this guy an upgrade at the starting RB spot at the end of round 1. I know this thread isn't really about Stewart, but the big 3 (and Rice IMO) would make good starters for most teams. I would think it easier to make a list of who the top 4 or 5 backs couldn't start for. As for the 2nd/3rd tier RBs, there's very few teams that would draft them as an upgrade starter, and you'll likely have to wait for injury or contract expiration for their opportunity. I've already gotten the 4th, agreed in principal for the 5th and am going to make a play for the 2nd. I think if you get a top 4 or 5 you have a much higher chance of getting a starter. After that, it's gotta be in the stars.

I agree with that bolded statement. Which was why I posted this to begin with because the idea of getting a quality RB in the late 1st is overriding the reality that the RB selected there will likely not get a shot for a while. When the RB class isn't too deep, it's not too hard to see that because the top tier guys get to start sooner and the others wait for their shot. I don't think many were expecting Hunt and Leonard to get a starting shot last year. This year, there are a bunch of guys that are probably capable to do it this year IF given the shot. Most won't get that chance, though.

 

[Christo]

I think Detroit and Chicago definitely want to upgrade their starting spots. Mendenhall would give either of them the 330 carry north-south workhorse it needs.

They hope. I seem to remember Chicago thinking Benson was the 330 carry north-south runner it needed.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Right off the bat you miss Green Bay. If for instance Mendenhall or Stewart fell to them and they selected him, he'd probably start over Grant. I doubt they go with a back that high unless a great one slides. But in all reality Ryan Grant will be 26 before the season is over and may have just caught lightning in a bottle for one season.

I don't think Grant is as entrenched as people think he is.

The way Stewart seems to be falling, he could be a contender to start for MOST NFL teams. With the exception of LT (whom Stewart could replace soon), Portis, Peterson, Jackson and a couple other elite backs, Stewart would be RBBC at worst. Dallas, Pittsburgh, Cleveland... A lot of the teams we see as set may concider this guy an upgrade at the starting RB spot at the end of round 1. I know this thread isn't really about Stewart, but the big 3 (and Rice IMO) would make good starters for most teams. I would think it easier to make a list of who the top 4 or 5 backs couldn't start for. As for the 2nd/3rd tier RBs, there's very few teams that would draft them as an upgrade starter, and you'll likely have to wait for injury or contract expiration for their opportunity. I've already gotten the 4th, agreed in principal for the 5th and am going to make a play for the 2nd. I think if you get a top 4 or 5 you have a much higher chance of getting a starter. After that, it's gotta be in the stars.

I agree with that bolded statement. Which was why I posted this to begin with because the idea of getting a quality RB in the late 1st is overriding the reality that the RB selected there will likely not get a shot for a while. When the RB class isn't too deep, it's not to see that because the top tier guys get to start sooner and the others wait for their shot. This year, there are a bunch of guys that are probably capable to do it this year IF given the shot. Most won't get that chance, though.

Exactly why I'm shooting for as many top 5 picks as I can. I don't have the roster space to wait 2 years for a developmental/hopeful RB. When Norwood looked like the ####, I dumped him 'cause he wasn't starting. I couldn't afford to wait for 2 years on him, only to have Turner come in expecting 70% of the carries. Hopefuls will put you square in the playoffs when they pan out, and you'll look like a genius. Meanwhile, I trade up to get guys like ADP, Mendenhall & Rice and tell you that "I hope to see you in the playoffs. I'll be waiting there for you."

 

[EBF]

I think Detroit and Chicago definitely want to upgrade their starting spots. Mendenhall would give either of them the 330 carry north-south workhorse it needs.

They hope. I seem to remember Chicago thinking Benson was the 330 carry north-south runner it needed.

Two different beasts. I think Mendenhall will be what Benson was supposed to be: a no-nonsense power runner who grinds out yards and breaks the occasional long run.

 

[duaneok66]

I'd like to see if we can come up with a consensus list of teams where a RB could come in and start this year. I'll break it down to starting from week 1 like Lynch did last year to starting at some point in the year.Rookie RB likely to start week 1:1. Detroit2. Chicago3. HoustonRookie RB POSSIBLE to start at some point in 2008 (not just 2nd RB in RBBC, but actually the starter or getting the majority of carries in a RBBC)1. Seattle2. Cincinnati3. Tennessee4. NYJ5. Denver6. Oakland7. Carolina8. ArizonaWhich do you disagree with? Which do you feel I left off? I was originally going to wait and post the reason why I'm starting this, but I think I will go ahead and include it here to hopefully garner a little more interest. I've seen some threads talking about which places might be a surprise to get RB's, and I think there's going to be a lot of these guys going to situations where they will be sitting behind an entrenched starter for at least 1-2 yrs. It happens every year. However, because this RB class is so deep, it seems that people are valuing late 1st round rookie picks awfully high and might get less than they expect from it. As deep as this class is and as nice as it may be to get one of these guys, it may actually be a good year to TRADE those late 1sts and get some value.J. Charles, Forte, Rice, K. Smith, C. Johnson, and others may very well end up in places not listed here. Even on that bottom list, it's not going to be easy to unseat a guy like Edge or Henry or T. Jones or Rudi in their 1st year. Possible, but not likely. Therefore, their values could take big hits once the draft occurs and during the year. Think of guys from last year that got stuck behind starters. Leonard, Booker, Henry, B. Jackson, M. Bush, Pittman, Irons, Hunt. Look at their values now? I know as a group, not nearly as deep and talented as the 2008 class, but a big part of it is that they are all mired in bad situations due to starters ahead of them. Out of that group, only B. Jackson and C. Henry had a legit shot at starting last year and didn't get it. When you look at the list of teams above, there are just not enough spots available for the # of good RB's coming out this year and a lot of these 2nd tier guys like Rice, Jones, Johnson, Charles, Smith are going to end up on a team with an entrenched starter and may not see the field for at least 1-2 yrs. I would argue that the value play this year is to trade those 1.7-1.8 picks or lower for value now (if you're planning on using them on a RB) and then try to reacquire these guys during the season or next year when their value drops. So, what does your list of "available openings" for these guys look like? My guess is, using my list above, 5-6 RB's tops from the 2008 class will be making significant contributions this year.

excellent post . . . I agree with the 3 teams having a chance for a rookie RB to start . . .

 

[Kleck]

Right off the bat you miss Green Bay. If for instance Mendenhall or Stewart fell to them and they selected him, he'd probably start over Grant. I doubt the go with a back that high unless a great on slid, but in all reality Ryan Grant will be 26 before the season is over and may have just caught lightning in a bottle for one season.

Those 2 guys could land in a lot of other places and start as well. TB, NO, and NE in addition to GB are places where those 2 guys could start. But that's only if those 2 guys go there. And I don't see any of those teams, GB including, spending a 1st round pick on those RB's with their other needs. That's why they aren't on the list above since those teams are quite unlikely to go with a RB in the 1st round. I think there is little to no chance of any other RB going to those 4 teams (GB, NO, NE, TB) and starting in 2008. For GB in particular, RB is not a pressing need, both with how well Grant performed (2nd best RB for the 2nd half of the season) and the fact they spent a relatively high pick last year on BJ. I don't see them doing it again. At the very least, Grant has earned the right to have the starting job and it should be his to lose. Keep in mind, also, that GB gave up a draft pick in order to acquire Grant and that is not something they do often at all. They were unwilling to do it for Moss, even. From what I read a lot last year, the GB F.O. was pretty high on Grant and he did nothing to prove them wrong in 2007.

That about sums up my take on GB. Grant did well enough to earn an extended look. They used a high pick on Brandon Jackson and they still have Vernand Morency (and maybe Deshawn Wynn?). I don't think their need is acute enough to justify an early RB pick. About the only way I can see it happening is if Stewart falls to their first round pick and they have him graded as a top 10-15 player.

"Need" is not a word in Ted Thompson's draft dictionary. His philosophy is simply "BPA", "System" and "Packer People".

 

[Couch Potato]

excellent post . . . I agree with the 3 teams having a chance for a rookie RB to start . . .

I don't. HOU won't take a 1st round RB. They have other needs that they rate higher. I've kept up with my reading, and it seems the national media and all the mocksters want to ignore what the team and the local writers keep saying, which is that their system is not one in which they need to invest in RB in this way (much like the old Denver days) and they just don't feel a RB is their best use of a 1st round investment. Everyone loves to keep ignoring that, and deciding for the team what they are going to do, but I'm telling you now it'll be Green and Brown, backed up by C Taylor and/or D Walker, with a likely 2nd day rookie added -- but not as a starter.

 

[gianmarco]

excellent post . . . I agree with the 3 teams having a chance for a rookie RB to start . . .

I don't. HOU won't take a 1st round RB. They have other needs that they rate higher. I've kept up with my reading, and it seems the national media and all the mocksters want to ignore what the team and the local writers keep saying, which is that their system is not one in which they need to invest in RB in this way (much like the old Denver days) and they just don't feel a RB is their best use of a 1st round investment. Everyone loves to keep ignoring that, and deciding for the team what they are going to do, but I'm telling you now it'll be Green and Brown, backed up by C Taylor and/or D Walker, with a likely 2nd day rookie added -- but not as a starter.

I also don't think they'll go with a 1st round RB unless Stewart falls to them. But, I think they will get one in the 2nd or 3rd round and I think that RB has a chance to start week 1, much like the old Denver days. None of the current RB's on the roster have even a remote grip on the starting job.

 

[Couch Potato]

excellent post . . .

I agree with the 3 teams having a chance for a rookie RB to start . . .

I don't. HOU won't take a 1st round RB. They have other needs that they rate higher. I've kept up with my reading, and it seems the national media and all the mocksters want to ignore what the team and the local writers keep saying, which is that their system is not one in which they need to invest in RB in this way (much like the old Denver days) and they just don't feel a RB is their best use of a 1st round investment. Everyone loves to keep ignoring that, and deciding for the team what they are going to do, but I'm telling you now it'll be Green and Brown, backed up by C Taylor and/or D Walker, with a likely 2nd day rookie added -- but not as a starter.

I also don't think they'll go with a 1st round RB unless Stewart falls to them. But, I think they will get one in the 2nd or 3rd round and I think that RB has a chance to start week 1, much like the old Denver days. None of the current RB's on the roster have even a remote grip on the starting job.

Your opinion, which I don't share. Also, they have no 2nd round pick. Their next pick is the 16th pick of the 3rd round, who will not start over Green and Brown. Believe what you choose to believe, but you'll be wrong. Kubiak has a plan for rebuilding this team, and for 2008 it does not include a new starting RB.

 

[gianmarco]

excellent post . . .

I agree with the 3 teams having a chance for a rookie RB to start . . .

I don't. HOU won't take a 1st round RB. They have other needs that they rate higher. I've kept up with my reading, and it seems the national media and all the mocksters want to ignore what the team and the local writers keep saying, which is that their system is not one in which they need to invest in RB in this way (much like the old Denver days) and they just don't feel a RB is their best use of a 1st round investment. Everyone loves to keep ignoring that, and deciding for the team what they are going to do, but I'm telling you now it'll be Green and Brown, backed up by C Taylor and/or D Walker, with a likely 2nd day rookie added -- but not as a starter.

I also don't think they'll go with a 1st round RB unless Stewart falls to them. But, I think they will get one in the 2nd or 3rd round and I think that RB has a chance to start week 1, much like the old Denver days. None of the current RB's on the roster have even a remote grip on the starting job.

Your opinion, which I don't share. Also, they have no 2nd round pick. Their next pick is the 16th pick of the 3rd round, who will not start over Green and Brown. Believe what you choose to believe, but you'll be wrong. Kubiak has a plan for rebuilding this team, and for 2008 it does not include a new starting RB.

Didn't realize the lack of a 2nd. Considering they probably will wait until the 3rd and do have other needs, you might indeed be right. I should probably drop them to the 2nd list.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I'd like to see if we can come up with a consensus list of teams where a RB could come in and start this year. I'll break it down to starting from week 1 like Lynch did last year to starting at some point in the year.Rookie RB likely to start week 1:1. Detroit2. Chicago3. HoustonRookie RB POSSIBLE to start at some point in 2008 (not just 2nd RB in RBBC, but actually the starter or getting the majority of carries in a RBBC)1. Seattle2. Cincinnati3. Tennessee4. NYJ5. Denver6. Oakland7. Carolina8. ArizonaWhich do you disagree with? Which do you feel I left off? I was originally going to wait and post the reason why I'm starting this, but I think I will go ahead and include it here to hopefully garner a little more interest. I've seen some threads talking about which places might be a surprise to get RB's, and I think there's going to be a lot of these guys going to situations where they will be sitting behind an entrenched starter for at least 1-2 yrs. It happens every year. However, because this RB class is so deep, it seems that people are valuing late 1st round rookie picks awfully high and might get less than they expect from it. As deep as this class is and as nice as it may be to get one of these guys, it may actually be a good year to TRADE those late 1sts and get some value.J. Charles, Forte, Rice, K. Smith, C. Johnson, and others may very well end up in places not listed here. Even on that bottom list, it's not going to be easy to unseat a guy like Edge or Henry or T. Jones or Rudi in their 1st year. Possible, but not likely. Therefore, their values could take big hits once the draft occurs and during the year. Think of guys from last year that got stuck behind starters. Leonard, Booker, Henry, B. Jackson, M. Bush, Pittman, Irons, Hunt. Look at their values now? I know as a group, not nearly as deep and talented as the 2008 class, but a big part of it is that they are all mired in bad situations due to starters ahead of them. Out of that group, only B. Jackson and C. Henry had a legit shot at starting last year and didn't get it. When you look at the list of teams above, there are just not enough spots available for the # of good RB's coming out this year and a lot of these 2nd tier guys like Rice, Jones, Johnson, Charles, Smith are going to end up on a team with an entrenched starter and may not see the field for at least 1-2 yrs. I would argue that the value play this year is to trade those 1.7-1.8 picks or lower for value now (if you're planning on using them on a RB) and then try to reacquire these guys during the season or next year when their value drops. So, what does your list of "available openings" for these guys look like? My guess is, using my list above, 5-6 RB's tops from the 2008 class will be making significant contributions this year.

I agree with another poster above about GB. I think too many people get caught up in the hype of guys like Grant and Graham. While great stories last year, IMO there are a handful of guys in the draft this year that are more talented than those two. I mentioned TB, but the other team I am keeping an eye on is Clev. They are slowly putting together a hell of a team and if they draft a RB in the first couple rounds that would be a situation to keep an eye on too, nothing else at least for the end of this year or 2009.

 

[gianmarco]

I just think TB makes much more sense than GB. They already have capable RB's as well as a 2nd round pick from last year. I highly doubt they go RB in round 1 or 2 unless the value is there and I just don't see it.

And yes, Grant may be a 1 yr wonder. But I can't imagine any scenario that he isn't the clear starter heading into week 1 given how well he performed last year. If he falters, then maybe, but that's not what's expected. The list above has guys who already have the starting job but haven't done much with it or are getting quite elder. My only real exception to that on that list is Oakland, and I personally think that Fargas will be the starter, however I think they deserve to be on there for a number of reasons.

As far as Grant not being talented, I just respectfully disagree. He may not have the pedigree that some others have, but he looked very good last year on a team that was atrocious trying to run the ball before he stepped in. I like his prospects a lot going into 2008, but I may be in the minority there. For me, he's the guy most likely to crack the top 5 that isn't in most top 10's right now. I could be wrong, but he impressed me quite a bit last year.

TB may deserve to be on that list, but Graham did quite well. He's on the older side, but I think he also has the job as of right now. If he falters, which I think is much more likely than it is for Grant, then yes, it could happen. But, I think it might be pushing it to expect a guy drafted by TB to likely get the job at some point in 2008.

 

[Couch Potato]

Gianmarco, I don't expect you to be 100% up on all things. None of us are. I'm tuned in to the HOU RB situation because one of my teams is a dynasty I took over last season and am having to try to rebuild, and Green and Brown are on the team. So, I've had an acute interest in whether we'd have a starter come from that team or not. Early in the offseason I too thought Green would be cut and a young stud brought in. But they brought Alex Gibbs out of retirement to get their one-cut scheme up to speed, decided to keep Green, added Chris Brown in mid-March, and appear to be going with that in 2008.2009 is another story. I'm assuming I have a reprieve for one year and that's about it. Anyway, from Rotoworld...

Ahman Green-RB- Texans Mar. 26 - 10:20 am et The Texans are not expected to draft an early round running back this April.The Houston Chronicle's John McClain believes the team will draft a lower round back who fits the one-cut-and-go style that new offensive line coach Alex Gibbs is installing. Good news for Ahman Green and Chris Brown, both with a shot at legit production with the obvious health caveats.

Chris Brown-RB - Texans Mar. 14 - 11:52 am et Chris Brown's two-year deal with the Texans is worth $3.6 million and contains an $800,000 signing bonus."Chris fits what we're doing," coach Gary Kubiak said. "He's had some injury issues, but we think if we handle Chris and Ahman (Green) right, they can be very productive." Brown's signing bonus makes it likely he'll be on the final roster. Darius Walker and Chris Taylor appear to be fighting for one spot.

Chris Brown-RB - Texans Mar. 13 - 5:34 pm et Texans agreed to terms with Chris Brown on a two-year contract, according to NFL Network's Adam Schefter.We're not huge fans of Brown because he wears down easily, but Houston is a perfect landing spot for him. He could hit long runs in a zone scheme, and only Ahman Green, Chris Taylor, and Darius Walker are in his way. We expect a committee approach, and Brown has a good chance to find a role. Houston seems less likely to take a running back early in the draft now.

 

[gianmarco]

Gianmarco, I don't expect you to be 100% up on all things. None of us are. I'm tuned in to the HOU RB situation because one of my teams is a dynasty I took over last season and am having to try to rebuild, and Green and Brown are on the team. So, I've had an acute interest in whether we'd have a starter come from that team or not. Early in the offseason I too thought Green would be cut and a young stud brought in. But they brought Alex Gibbs out of retirement to get their one-cut scheme up to speed, decided to keep Green, added Chris Brown in mid-March, and appear to be going with that in 2008.2009 is a different story. I'm assuming I have a reprieve for one year and that's about it. ):Anyway, from Rotoworld...

Ahman Green-RB- Texans Mar. 26 - 10:20 am et The Texans are not expected to draft an early round running back this April.The Houston Chronicle's John McClain believes the team will draft a lower round back who fits the one-cut-and-go style that new offensive line coach Alex Gibbs is installing. Good news for Ahman Green and Chris Brown, both with a shot at legit production with the obvious health caveats.

Chris Brown-RB - Texans Mar. 14 - 11:52 am et Chris Brown's two-year deal with the Texans is worth $3.6 million and contains an $800,000 signing bonus."Chris fits what we're doing," coach Gary Kubiak said. "He's had some injury issues, but we think if we handle Chris and Ahman (Green) right, they can be very productive." Brown's signing bonus makes it likely he'll be on the final roster. Darius Walker and Chris Taylor appear to be fighting for one spot.

Chris Brown-RB - Texans Mar. 13 - 5:34 pm et Texans agreed to terms with Chris Brown on a two-year contract, according to NFL Network's Adam Schefter.We're not huge fans of Brown because he wears down easily, but Houston is a perfect landing spot for him. He could hit long runs in a zone scheme, and only Ahman Green, Chris Taylor, and Darius Walker are in his way. We expect a committee approach, and Brown has a good chance to find a role. Houston seems less likely to take a running back early in the draft now.

Thanks for that info, CP. As I noted above, I see where you're coming from and it's pretty clear you have been paying attention to that situation much more than I have. I've already adjusted the OP and moved Houston down in the 2nd list. Thanks

 

[gianmarco]

Thought I would throw this out:

"(KFFL) John McClain, of the Houston Chronicle, reports the Houston Texans are looking for a running back in the 2008 NFL Draft. The Texans would like a back who fits the zone scheme they are using."

Doesn't specify early or late round picks, but still being reported.

 

[Riffraff]

Rookie RB likely to start week 1:

1. Detroit

2. Chicago

3. Whichever team drafts McFadden

Add Tampa Bay here. They have 4-5 guys, but none have a lock on the starting job. And all are cutable.

Rookie RB POSSIBLE to start at some point in 2008 (not just 2nd RB in RBBC, but actually the starter or getting the majority of carries in a RBBC)

1. Seattle

2. Cincinnati

3. Tennessee

4. NYJ

5. Denver

6. Oakland

7. Carolina

8. Arizona

9. Houston

Add Dallas here. A rookie can come in and get a good amount of carries. If the rookie does well, re-signing Barber wouldn't be a priority.

Add Miami here. Ronnie Brown has been in the league 3 years and has been injured all 3. Ricky is up there and Booker isn't anything to worry about.

Add Cleveland here. Yes Jamal re-signed for 2 years, but they have to get a back-up on the squad. That back-up could be a viable option by the end of the year.

 

[bigmurd]

Does anyone else think that the fact that the Seahawks gave JJ a 4 yr 16m contract with 5.5 million for this coming season is a sign that thy will not likely draft a RB?

 

[loose circuits]

Rookie RB likely to start week 1:

1. Detroit

2. Chicago

3. Whichever team drafts McFadden

Add Tampa Bay here. They have 4-5 guys, but none have a lock on the starting job. And all are cutable.

Rookie RB POSSIBLE to start at some point in 2008 (not just 2nd RB in RBBC, but actually the starter or getting the majority of carries in a RBBC)

1. Seattle

2. Cincinnati

3. Tennessee

4. NYJ

5. Denver

6. Oakland

7. Carolina

8. Arizona

9. Houston

Add Dallas here. A rookie can come in and get a good amount of carries. If the rookie does well, re-signing Barber wouldn't be a priority.

Add Miami here. Ronnie Brown has been in the league 3 years and has been injured all 3. Ricky is up there and Booker isn't anything to worry about.

Add Cleveland here. Yes Jamal re-signed for 2 years, but they have to get a back-up on the squad. That back-up could be a viable option by the end of the year.

that's 14 teams and there are only 10 guys I see being a feature back. I would say the supply almost doesn't meet the demand. Enter the deep sleepers like Cory Boyd and Thomas Brown, etc... of course that is looking at best case scenario for any of them. Anyways, going after those type of guys may not be a bad idea if you land a Selvin Young, Pierre Thomas, or MJD. End up with decent value there...everybody knew last years backs sucked, but those that drafted Leonard, Hunt, etc... in the 2nd overpaid. Would have been much better off going with Gonzo, S. Smith, Rice, etc... This year I think the situation changes completely due to the overwhelming amount of talent combined with the uncertainity at many backs. Nobody even mentioned a team like San Diego who needs a solid back-up and that RB would have value due to LT's age because they could move into the #2 role. At least 1 or 2 other teams could end up drafting a RB high (like Cinci and Irons last year) where you just don't see it happening. I can't wait personally...On the other hand, I may take Houston off the list as I think they like Walker and C. Taylor. Heard nothing but good news about them...

 

[gianmarco]

Rookie RB likely to start week 1:

1. Detroit

2. Chicago

3. Whichever team drafts McFadden

Add Tampa Bay here. They have 4-5 guys, but none have a lock on the starting job. And all are cutable.

Rookie RB POSSIBLE to start at some point in 2008 (not just 2nd RB in RBBC, but actually the starter or getting the majority of carries in a RBBC)

1. Seattle

2. Cincinnati

3. Tennessee

4. NYJ

5. Denver

6. Oakland

7. Carolina

8. Arizona

9. Houston

Add Dallas here. A rookie can come in and get a good amount of carries. If the rookie does well, re-signing Barber wouldn't be a priority.

Add Miami here. Ronnie Brown has been in the league 3 years and has been injured all 3. Ricky is up there and Booker isn't anything to worry about.

Add Cleveland here. Yes Jamal re-signed for 2 years, but they have to get a back-up on the squad. That back-up could be a viable option by the end of the year.

that's 14 teams and there are only 10 guys I see being a feature back. I would say the supply almost doesn't meet the demand. Enter the deep sleepers like Cory Boyd and Thomas Brown, etc... of course that is looking at best case scenario for any of them. Anyways, going after those type of guys may not be a bad idea if you land a Selvin Young, Pierre Thomas, or MJD. End up with decent value there...everybody knew last years backs sucked, but those that drafted Leonard, Hunt, etc... in the 2nd overpaid. Would have been much better off going with Gonzo, S. Smith, Rice, etc... This year I think the situation changes completely due to the overwhelming amount of talent combined with the uncertainity at many backs. Nobody even mentioned a team like San Diego who needs a solid back-up and that RB would have value due to LT's age because they could move into the #2 role. At least 1 or 2 other teams could end up drafting a RB high (like Cinci and Irons last year) where you just don't see it happening. I can't wait personally...On the other hand, I may take Houston off the list as I think they like Walker and C. Taylor. Heard nothing but good news about them...

That's 14 spots, but that 2nd list are only POSSIBLES. I would be surprised if 3 of those teams have rookies starting for them at some point this season.

 

[loose circuits]

Rookie RB likely to start week 1:

1. Detroit

2. Chicago

3. Whichever team drafts McFadden

Add Tampa Bay here. They have 4-5 guys, but none have a lock on the starting job. And all are cutable.

Rookie RB POSSIBLE to start at some point in 2008 (not just 2nd RB in RBBC, but actually the starter or getting the majority of carries in a RBBC)

1. Seattle

2. Cincinnati

3. Tennessee

4. NYJ

5. Denver

6. Oakland

7. Carolina

8. Arizona

9. Houston

Add Dallas here. A rookie can come in and get a good amount of carries. If the rookie does well, re-signing Barber wouldn't be a priority.

Add Miami here. Ronnie Brown has been in the league 3 years and has been injured all 3. Ricky is up there and Booker isn't anything to worry about.

Add Cleveland here. Yes Jamal re-signed for 2 years, but they have to get a back-up on the squad. That back-up could be a viable option by the end of the year.

that's 14 teams and there are only 10 guys I see being a feature back. I would say the supply almost doesn't meet the demand. Enter the deep sleepers like Cory Boyd and Thomas Brown, etc... of course that is looking at best case scenario for any of them. Anyways, going after those type of guys may not be a bad idea if you land a Selvin Young, Pierre Thomas, or MJD. End up with decent value there...everybody knew last years backs sucked, but those that drafted Leonard, Hunt, etc... in the 2nd overpaid. Would have been much better off going with Gonzo, S. Smith, Rice, etc... This year I think the situation changes completely due to the overwhelming amount of talent combined with the uncertainity at many backs. Nobody even mentioned a team like San Diego who needs a solid back-up and that RB would have value due to LT's age because they could move into the #2 role. At least 1 or 2 other teams could end up drafting a RB high (like Cinci and Irons last year) where you just don't see it happening. I can't wait personally...On the other hand, I may take Houston off the list as I think they like Walker and C. Taylor. Heard nothing but good news about them...

That's 14 spots, but that 2nd list are only POSSIBLES. I would be surprised if 3 of those teams have rookies starting for them at some point this season.

the problem with that is you don't know where the 3 Rb's will come from either. I agree that you can't count on a rookie starting right away and maybe I am confusing responding to the actual point of this thread and thinking out loud. Looking at the RB situations across the league there may be solid spots available across the league. Nobody can predict starting RB's that come out of no where, but you want guys that can get on rosters and get opportunities. That's what I am looking for, especially if I think they are talented. You may have to wait a year or two, but you could also end up with a solid RB2 for a late 1st round pick. It's not like picking the WR's there is a calculated risk either. In this case, I'll take the player I have rated higher. Which ends up being about 10 backs before I think about taking a WR, QB, or whatever...the odds of getting immediate rewards from QB's is similar and to a certain extent WR's as well. I try to stay away from the Brandon Jackson affect as far as looking at open starting spots in black/white. You end up overpaying for lesser talented...

 

[gianmarco]

Rookie RB likely to start week 1:

1. Detroit

2. Chicago

3. Whichever team drafts McFadden

Add Tampa Bay here. They have 4-5 guys, but none have a lock on the starting job. And all are cutable.

Rookie RB POSSIBLE to start at some point in 2008 (not just 2nd RB in RBBC, but actually the starter or getting the majority of carries in a RBBC)

1. Seattle

2. Cincinnati

3. Tennessee

4. NYJ

5. Denver

6. Oakland

7. Carolina

8. Arizona

9. Houston

Add Dallas here. A rookie can come in and get a good amount of carries. If the rookie does well, re-signing Barber wouldn't be a priority.

Add Miami here. Ronnie Brown has been in the league 3 years and has been injured all 3. Ricky is up there and Booker isn't anything to worry about.

Add Cleveland here. Yes Jamal re-signed for 2 years, but they have to get a back-up on the squad. That back-up could be a viable option by the end of the year.

that's 14 teams and there are only 10 guys I see being a feature back. I would say the supply almost doesn't meet the demand. Enter the deep sleepers like Cory Boyd and Thomas Brown, etc... of course that is looking at best case scenario for any of them. Anyways, going after those type of guys may not be a bad idea if you land a Selvin Young, Pierre Thomas, or MJD. End up with decent value there...everybody knew last years backs sucked, but those that drafted Leonard, Hunt, etc... in the 2nd overpaid. Would have been much better off going with Gonzo, S. Smith, Rice, etc... This year I think the situation changes completely due to the overwhelming amount of talent combined with the uncertainity at many backs. Nobody even mentioned a team like San Diego who needs a solid back-up and that RB would have value due to LT's age because they could move into the #2 role. At least 1 or 2 other teams could end up drafting a RB high (like Cinci and Irons last year) where you just don't see it happening. I can't wait personally...On the other hand, I may take Houston off the list as I think they like Walker and C. Taylor. Heard nothing but good news about them...

That's 14 spots, but that 2nd list are only POSSIBLES. I would be surprised if 3 of those teams have rookies starting for them at some point this season.

the problem with that is you don't know where the 3 Rb's will come from either. I agree that you can't count on a rookie starting right away and maybe I am confusing responding to the actual point of this thread and thinking out loud. Looking at the RB situations across the league there may be solid spots available across the league. Nobody can predict starting RB's that come out of no where, but you want guys that can get on rosters and get opportunities. That's what I am looking for, especially if I think they are talented. You may have to wait a year or two, but you could also end up with a solid RB2 for a late 1st round pick. It's not like picking the WR's there is a calculated risk either. In this case, I'll take the player I have rated higher. Which ends up being about 10 backs before I think about taking a WR, QB, or whatever...the odds of getting immediate rewards from QB's is similar and to a certain extent WR's as well. I try to stay away from the Brandon Jackson affect as far as looking at open starting spots in black/white. You end up overpaying for lesser talented...

What I'm saying is that there are so many talented backs and many of them are seen pretty evenly that after the top 3, you're gonna see the next 3-4 likely going to be the RB's that end up in favorable situations with a possible chance to start this year (list 2), and the rest from picks 1.8 or 1.9 and lower will likely be SOL. Yes, they will be talented backs, but you will have to wait for them. However, those picks this year seem to have higher value because of the talent pool without realizing that there is likely going to be a limited amount of playing potential. If I owned a late pick, I would seriously consider giving it up despite the talent there if you can get good value.

 

[loose circuits]

Rookie RB likely to start week 1:

1. Detroit

2. Chicago

3. Whichever team drafts McFadden

Add Tampa Bay here. They have 4-5 guys, but none have a lock on the starting job. And all are cutable.

Rookie RB POSSIBLE to start at some point in 2008 (not just 2nd RB in RBBC, but actually the starter or getting the majority of carries in a RBBC)

1. Seattle

2. Cincinnati

3. Tennessee

4. NYJ

5. Denver

6. Oakland

7. Carolina

8. Arizona

9. Houston

Add Dallas here. A rookie can come in and get a good amount of carries. If the rookie does well, re-signing Barber wouldn't be a priority.

Add Miami here. Ronnie Brown has been in the league 3 years and has been injured all 3. Ricky is up there and Booker isn't anything to worry about.

Add Cleveland here. Yes Jamal re-signed for 2 years, but they have to get a back-up on the squad. That back-up could be a viable option by the end of the year.

that's 14 teams and there are only 10 guys I see being a feature back. I would say the supply almost doesn't meet the demand. Enter the deep sleepers like Cory Boyd and Thomas Brown, etc... of course that is looking at best case scenario for any of them. Anyways, going after those type of guys may not be a bad idea if you land a Selvin Young, Pierre Thomas, or MJD. End up with decent value there...everybody knew last years backs sucked, but those that drafted Leonard, Hunt, etc... in the 2nd overpaid. Would have been much better off going with Gonzo, S. Smith, Rice, etc... This year I think the situation changes completely due to the overwhelming amount of talent combined with the uncertainity at many backs. Nobody even mentioned a team like San Diego who needs a solid back-up and that RB would have value due to LT's age because they could move into the #2 role. At least 1 or 2 other teams could end up drafting a RB high (like Cinci and Irons last year) where you just don't see it happening. I can't wait personally...On the other hand, I may take Houston off the list as I think they like Walker and C. Taylor. Heard nothing but good news about them...

That's 14 spots, but that 2nd list are only POSSIBLES. I would be surprised if 3 of those teams have rookies starting for them at some point this season.

the problem with that is you don't know where the 3 Rb's will come from either. I agree that you can't count on a rookie starting right away and maybe I am confusing responding to the actual point of this thread and thinking out loud. Looking at the RB situations across the league there may be solid spots available across the league. Nobody can predict starting RB's that come out of no where, but you want guys that can get on rosters and get opportunities. That's what I am looking for, especially if I think they are talented. You may have to wait a year or two, but you could also end up with a solid RB2 for a late 1st round pick. It's not like picking the WR's there is a calculated risk either. In this case, I'll take the player I have rated higher. Which ends up being about 10 backs before I think about taking a WR, QB, or whatever...the odds of getting immediate rewards from QB's is similar and to a certain extent WR's as well. I try to stay away from the Brandon Jackson affect as far as looking at open starting spots in black/white. You end up overpaying for lesser talented...

What I'm saying is that there are so many talented backs and many of them are seen pretty evenly that after the top 3, you're gonna see the next 3-4 likely going to be the RB's that end up in favorable situations with a possible chance to start this year (list 2), and the rest from picks 1.8 or 1.9 and lower will likely be SOL. Yes, they will be talented backs, but you will have to wait for them. However, those picks this year seem to have higher value because of the talent pool without realizing that there is likely going to be a limited amount of playing potential. If I owned a late pick, I would seriously consider giving it up despite the talent there if you can get good value.

i don't think we are far apart, but we are looking towards 2 different things. I don't draft based off immediate return, I also weigh things like the system and future potential. For example, San Diego's back-up is going to have value because of the system. Most people are projecting LT for 2 or so more years, and it could be shorter. If something happens you have the guy in a great system. Arguably, LT has shown some signs of wear...an argument could be made for the San Diego #2 over a lot of the teams you have on that listIt's too difficult to predict the short term. We don't know what coaches are thinking. You are basically overpaying because there is a chance you might grab the next MJD, MBIII, etc... in the late 1st. With the WR options in this draft, I'll go RB 10 of the top 12 picks. I think a more accurate question would be how many roster spots are there. The rookies have to make the roster 1st and traditionally, like it or not, very few RB's produce in their rookie seasons regardless of whether there is an established veteran or not. there is just so much turnover at the RB spot, it's hard to predict

 

[gianmarco]

Rookie RB likely to start week 1:

1. Detroit

2. Chicago

3. Whichever team drafts McFadden

Add Tampa Bay here. They have 4-5 guys, but none have a lock on the starting job. And all are cutable.

Rookie RB POSSIBLE to start at some point in 2008 (not just 2nd RB in RBBC, but actually the starter or getting the majority of carries in a RBBC)

1. Seattle

2. Cincinnati

3. Tennessee

4. NYJ

5. Denver

6. Oakland

7. Carolina

8. Arizona

9. Houston

Add Dallas here. A rookie can come in and get a good amount of carries. If the rookie does well, re-signing Barber wouldn't be a priority.

Add Miami here. Ronnie Brown has been in the league 3 years and has been injured all 3. Ricky is up there and Booker isn't anything to worry about.

Add Cleveland here. Yes Jamal re-signed for 2 years, but they have to get a back-up on the squad. That back-up could be a viable option by the end of the year.

that's 14 teams and there are only 10 guys I see being a feature back. I would say the supply almost doesn't meet the demand. Enter the deep sleepers like Cory Boyd and Thomas Brown, etc... of course that is looking at best case scenario for any of them. Anyways, going after those type of guys may not be a bad idea if you land a Selvin Young, Pierre Thomas, or MJD. End up with decent value there...everybody knew last years backs sucked, but those that drafted Leonard, Hunt, etc... in the 2nd overpaid. Would have been much better off going with Gonzo, S. Smith, Rice, etc... This year I think the situation changes completely due to the overwhelming amount of talent combined with the uncertainity at many backs. Nobody even mentioned a team like San Diego who needs a solid back-up and that RB would have value due to LT's age because they could move into the #2 role. At least 1 or 2 other teams could end up drafting a RB high (like Cinci and Irons last year) where you just don't see it happening. I can't wait personally...On the other hand, I may take Houston off the list as I think they like Walker and C. Taylor. Heard nothing but good news about them...

That's 14 spots, but that 2nd list are only POSSIBLES. I would be surprised if 3 of those teams have rookies starting for them at some point this season.

the problem with that is you don't know where the 3 Rb's will come from either. I agree that you can't count on a rookie starting right away and maybe I am confusing responding to the actual point of this thread and thinking out loud. Looking at the RB situations across the league there may be solid spots available across the league. Nobody can predict starting RB's that come out of no where, but you want guys that can get on rosters and get opportunities. That's what I am looking for, especially if I think they are talented. You may have to wait a year or two, but you could also end up with a solid RB2 for a late 1st round pick. It's not like picking the WR's there is a calculated risk either. In this case, I'll take the player I have rated higher. Which ends up being about 10 backs before I think about taking a WR, QB, or whatever...the odds of getting immediate rewards from QB's is similar and to a certain extent WR's as well. I try to stay away from the Brandon Jackson affect as far as looking at open starting spots in black/white. You end up overpaying for lesser talented...

What I'm saying is that there are so many talented backs and many of them are seen pretty evenly that after the top 3, you're gonna see the next 3-4 likely going to be the RB's that end up in favorable situations with a possible chance to start this year (list 2), and the rest from picks 1.8 or 1.9 and lower will likely be SOL. Yes, they will be talented backs, but you will have to wait for them. However, those picks this year seem to have higher value because of the talent pool without realizing that there is likely going to be a limited amount of playing potential. If I owned a late pick, I would seriously consider giving it up despite the talent there if you can get good value.

i don't think we are far apart, but we are looking towards 2 different things. I don't draft based off immediate return, I also weigh things like the system and future potential. For example, San Diego's back-up is going to have value because of the system. Most people are projecting LT for 2 or so more years, and it could be shorter. If something happens you have the guy in a great system. Arguably, LT has shown some signs of wear...an argument could be made for the San Diego #2 over a lot of the teams you have on that listIt's too difficult to predict the short term. We don't know what coaches are thinking. You are basically overpaying because there is a chance you might grab the next MJD, MBIII, etc... in the late 1st. With the WR options in this draft, I'll go RB 10 of the top 12 picks. I think a more accurate question would be how many roster spots are there. The rookies have to make the roster 1st and traditionally, like it or not, very few RB's produce in their rookie seasons regardless of whether there is an established veteran or not. there is just so much turnover at the RB spot, it's hard to predict

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I don't think you're understanding what I'm trying to say completely. I also don't draft based off immediate return. In most years, people with late 1st round draft picks try to take BPA and realize they will likely have to wait for them because the talent level at that point isn't usually good enough to start in their 1st year. This year, the talent level IS good enough to start in their 1st year even late in the 1st and some people are adding value to those picks because of it. I may be mistaken, but I think that is what may be happening. What will end up happening is that these guys drafted at the end of the 1st will end up sitting behind entrenched starters because of where they are drafted and their value will fall considerably back to what most late 1st round picks in other years do when they don't get a chance right away. For example, if you compare the value of guys like Irons, Chris Henry, Booker, Pittman, Hunt last year before they were drafted last year to the current value of guys like K. Smith, Forte, Charles, etc. , the guys from this year hold much more value predraft than those guys did last year. However, I have a feeling once the NFL draft and the season takes place, these guys that are currently rated higher are going to fall to similar values that guys like Hunt, Pittman, etc. hold right now (which is quite low) simply because, despite their talent, they will be in unfavorable situations due to the lack of spots where they can get playing time. In other words, the expectations for those late 1st round picks are higher than what they have been in the past because of the depth this year. People that drafted guys like Hunt and Pittman knew they were going to have to wait to get any sort of return on them. People drafting the 2nd tier guys late in the 1st round this year that fell because of where they were drafted and the small likelihood of getting on the field are going to be disappointed because they were probably expecting more due to the talent level.

Therefore, you might be able to capitalize on that drop that I am predicting will happen to these late round 1sts by trading them now if you get good value. I'm not saying to trade the pick because you aren't going to get immediate returns. That's foolish and will hurt you in the long-run. I hope you understand the difference I'm trying to point out. It may be wrong, but that's my perception of what's going on....

 

[Tau837]

I'd like to see if we can come up with a consensus list of teams where a RB could come in and start this year. I'll break it down to starting from week 1 like Lynch did last year to starting at some point in the year.Rookie RB likely to start week 1:1. Detroit2. Chicago3. Whichever team drafts McFaddenRookie RB POSSIBLE to start at some point in 2008 (not just 2nd RB in RBBC, but actually the starter or getting the majority of carries in a RBBC)1. Seattle2. Cincinnati3. Tennessee4. NYJ5. Denver6. Oakland7. Carolina8. Arizona9. Houston

I think your lists are okay, but there is a big difference between the possibility that McFadden/Mendenhall/Stewart starts for one of these teams vs. any rookie RB doing so. I think those three may very well start for any of the teams you listed... but some of the teams you listed are unlikely to draft those RBs.CP already gave Houston as an example, and I think Carolina is another. I expect Carolina might target a RB in the third round, for example, but that is likely to be Forte or Choice... and I don't see either of them starting over Williams this year.All in all, I think Cincy, Carolina, Arizona, and Houston are the ones you list that are unlikely to draft a rookie high enough/talented enough to start this year, barring injury to the current starter(s). And I think it is also fairly unlikely for the Jets or Oakland unless they get one of the big 3.ETA: And for those suggesting that Green Bay should be on the list, I completely disagree. Grant's performance last season was outstanding. He started the Packers' last 12 games, including postseason, and during that span had 222/1159/11 rushing (5.22 ypc) and 28/122/0 receiving... 1281/11 in 12 games. That scales to 1708/15, which would have been good enough for RB3 last year in fantasy terms.And, on top of that, the Packers have Jackson, a second rounder from last year, and Wynn, who they supposedly like if he can stay healthy. Not to mention Morency. I just can't see them spending a pick on a RB within the first few rounds.

 

[loose circuits]

Rookie RB likely to start week 1:

1. Detroit

2. Chicago

3. Whichever team drafts McFadden

Add Tampa Bay here. They have 4-5 guys, but none have a lock on the starting job. And all are cutable.

Rookie RB POSSIBLE to start at some point in 2008 (not just 2nd RB in RBBC, but actually the starter or getting the majority of carries in a RBBC)

1. Seattle

2. Cincinnati

3. Tennessee

4. NYJ

5. Denver

6. Oakland

7. Carolina

8. Arizona

9. Houston

Add Dallas here. A rookie can come in and get a good amount of carries. If the rookie does well, re-signing Barber wouldn't be a priority.

Add Miami here. Ronnie Brown has been in the league 3 years and has been injured all 3. Ricky is up there and Booker isn't anything to worry about.

Add Cleveland here. Yes Jamal re-signed for 2 years, but they have to get a back-up on the squad. That back-up could be a viable option by the end of the year.

that's 14 teams and there are only 10 guys I see being a feature back. I would say the supply almost doesn't meet the demand. Enter the deep sleepers like Cory Boyd and Thomas Brown, etc... of course that is looking at best case scenario for any of them. Anyways, going after those type of guys may not be a bad idea if you land a Selvin Young, Pierre Thomas, or MJD. End up with decent value there...everybody knew last years backs sucked, but those that drafted Leonard, Hunt, etc... in the 2nd overpaid. Would have been much better off going with Gonzo, S. Smith, Rice, etc... This year I think the situation changes completely due to the overwhelming amount of talent combined with the uncertainity at many backs. Nobody even mentioned a team like San Diego who needs a solid back-up and that RB would have value due to LT's age because they could move into the #2 role. At least 1 or 2 other teams could end up drafting a RB high (like Cinci and Irons last year) where you just don't see it happening. I can't wait personally...On the other hand, I may take Houston off the list as I think they like Walker and C. Taylor. Heard nothing but good news about them...

That's 14 spots, but that 2nd list are only POSSIBLES. I would be surprised if 3 of those teams have rookies starting for them at some point this season.

the problem with that is you don't know where the 3 Rb's will come from either. I agree that you can't count on a rookie starting right away and maybe I am confusing responding to the actual point of this thread and thinking out loud. Looking at the RB situations across the league there may be solid spots available across the league. Nobody can predict starting RB's that come out of no where, but you want guys that can get on rosters and get opportunities. That's what I am looking for, especially if I think they are talented. You may have to wait a year or two, but you could also end up with a solid RB2 for a late 1st round pick. It's not like picking the WR's there is a calculated risk either. In this case, I'll take the player I have rated higher. Which ends up being about 10 backs before I think about taking a WR, QB, or whatever...the odds of getting immediate rewards from QB's is similar and to a certain extent WR's as well. I try to stay away from the Brandon Jackson affect as far as looking at open starting spots in black/white. You end up overpaying for lesser talented...

What I'm saying is that there are so many talented backs and many of them are seen pretty evenly that after the top 3, you're gonna see the next 3-4 likely going to be the RB's that end up in favorable situations with a possible chance to start this year (list 2), and the rest from picks 1.8 or 1.9 and lower will likely be SOL. Yes, they will be talented backs, but you will have to wait for them. However, those picks this year seem to have higher value because of the talent pool without realizing that there is likely going to be a limited amount of playing potential. If I owned a late pick, I would seriously consider giving it up despite the talent there if you can get good value.

i don't think we are far apart, but we are looking towards 2 different things. I don't draft based off immediate return, I also weigh things like the system and future potential. For example, San Diego's back-up is going to have value because of the system. Most people are projecting LT for 2 or so more years, and it could be shorter. If something happens you have the guy in a great system. Arguably, LT has shown some signs of wear...an argument could be made for the San Diego #2 over a lot of the teams you have on that listIt's too difficult to predict the short term. We don't know what coaches are thinking. You are basically overpaying because there is a chance you might grab the next MJD, MBIII, etc... in the late 1st. With the WR options in this draft, I'll go RB 10 of the top 12 picks. I think a more accurate question would be how many roster spots are there. The rookies have to make the roster 1st and traditionally, like it or not, very few RB's produce in their rookie seasons regardless of whether there is an established veteran or not. there is just so much turnover at the RB spot, it's hard to predict

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I don't think you're understanding what I'm trying to say completely. I also don't draft based off immediate return. In most years, people with late 1st round draft picks try to take BPA and realize they will likely have to wait for them because the talent level at that point isn't usually good enough to start in their 1st year. This year, the talent level IS good enough to start in their 1st year even late in the 1st and some people are adding value to those picks because of it. I may be mistaken, but I think that is what may be happening. What will end up happening is that these guys drafted at the end of the 1st will end up sitting behind entrenched starters because of where they are drafted and their value will fall considerably back to what most late 1st round picks in other years do when they don't get a chance right away. For example, if you compare the value of guys like Irons, Chris Henry, Booker, Pittman, Hunt last year before they were drafted last year to the current value of guys like K. Smith, Forte, Charles, etc. , the guys from this year hold much more value predraft than those guys did last year. However, I have a feeling once the NFL draft and the season takes place, these guys that are currently rated higher are going to fall to similar values that guys like Hunt, Pittman, etc. hold right now (which is quite low) simply because, despite their talent, they will be in unfavorable situations due to the lack of spots where they can get playing time. In other words, the expectations for those late 1st round picks are higher than what they have been in the past because of the depth this year. People that drafted guys like Hunt and Pittman knew they were going to have to wait to get any sort of return on them. People drafting the 2nd tier guys late in the 1st round this year that fell because of where they were drafted and the small likelihood of getting on the field are going to be disappointed because they were probably expecting more due to the talent level.

Therefore, you might be able to capitalize on that drop that I am predicting will happen to these late round 1sts by trading them now if you get good value. I'm not saying to trade the pick because you aren't going to get immediate returns. That's foolish and will hurt you in the long-run. I hope you understand the difference I'm trying to point out. It may be wrong, but that's my perception of what's going on....

it all depends on what pick you have. I offered Jamal Lewis, Vincent Jackson, and 1.6 for MJD and 1.11 recently. I don't think 1.6 is more likely than 1.11 to become a star. Assuming somebody takes a non-RB in the top 10.

 

[gianmarco]

I'd like to see if we can come up with a consensus list of teams where a RB could come in and start this year. I'll break it down to starting from week 1 like Lynch did last year to starting at some point in the year.Rookie RB likely to start week 1:1. Detroit2. Chicago3. Whichever team drafts McFaddenRookie RB POSSIBLE to start at some point in 2008 (not just 2nd RB in RBBC, but actually the starter or getting the majority of carries in a RBBC)1. Seattle2. Cincinnati3. Tennessee4. NYJ5. Denver6. Oakland7. Carolina8. Arizona9. Houston

1. Detroit, still no RB for them2. Chicago -- Forte moves up, IMO3. Oakland -- McFadden, but far from ideal4. Seattle -- still no RB taken5. Cincy -- still no RB taken6. Tenn -- Chris Johnson here, but unlikely to be starter this year, IMO7. NYJ -- still no RB taken8. Denver -- still no RB taken9. Carolina --Stewart here, far from ideal, but could get bulk of carries starting week 110. Arizona -- still no RB taken11. Houston -- still no RB takenMendenhall, Jones, Rice all taken in below average situations and all unlikely to start this year.

 

[fsufan]

I'd like to see if we can come up with a consensus list of teams where a RB could come in and start this year. I'll break it down to starting from week 1 like Lynch did last year to starting at some point in the year.Rookie RB likely to start week 1:1. Detroit2. Chicago3. Whichever team drafts McFaddenRookie RB POSSIBLE to start at some point in 2008 (not just 2nd RB in RBBC, but actually the starter or getting the majority of carries in a RBBC)1. Seattle2. Cincinnati3. Tennessee4. NYJ5. Denver6. Oakland7. Carolina8. Arizona9. Houston

1. Detroit, still no RB for them2. Chicago -- Forte moves up, IMO3. Oakland -- McFadden, but far from ideal4. Seattle -- still no RB taken5. Cincy -- still no RB taken6. Tenn -- Chris Johnson here, but unlikely to be starter this year, IMO7. NYJ -- still no RB taken8. Denver -- still no RB taken9. Carolina --Stewart here, far from ideal, but could get bulk of carries starting week 110. Arizona -- still no RB taken11. Houston -- still no RB takenMendenhall, Jones, Rice all taken in below average situations and all unlikely to start this year.

why do teams that do not need a RB draft one and teams that need one do not

 

[gianmarco]

Probably because the teams that need one just aren't very good teams and draft miserably. And teams like Pitt are smart enough to just draft BPA despite need.