My Thoughts on Lacy vs. Franklin (1 Viewer)

[Concept Coop]

I have a related question. For those people planning on taking Lacy (I'll assume with the 1.03 or higher), at what point do you feel you have to grab Franklin?

I don't think he'll be on my roster at all, after looking at a few rookie drafts. I don't feel I have to grab him. Lacy will be good enough, or he won't. If i didn't like Lacy's talent, or odds to produce, I wouldn't draft him, as another poster said.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

It seems like a stretch to suggest Franklin's value being in the 6-12 range, or close to Lacy’s. I don't think you could justify that if he was the first back taken by GB, after going late in the fourth, even.

In theory they could have had Lacy as their RB 2 and Frankln as their RB 3 on their board. Just so happens Franklin fell, in this case their "opinion" of the players may be darn near identical.

yes. franklin going in the 4th at a position they had already taken suggests that he had a 3rd round grade, if not a 2nd. Most players have grades at least a round higher by the team selecting than the round they were taken in

So they had a first round grade on Lacy?

Probably late first/high second with an injury red flag. They weren't that excited to draft him or they wouldn't have traded down when he was on the board at 55. I think it was a "welp, I guess we have to take him" moment. Lacy is definitely a late 1st/early 2nd type runner on film. Think of him and Christine Michael as similar prospects with two main differences: Lacy has immediate opportunity, and Lacy's worries are durability/conditioning, while Michael's are mainly character. Both are late first/early second level talents as pure runners who fell to the late 2nd because teams on the whole are worried about whether they'll hit their lofty ceiling.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

In theory they could have had Lacy as their RB 2 and Frankln as their RB 3 on their board. Just so happens Franklin fell, in this case their "opinion" of the players may be darn near identical.

actually..........in theory they could have had Franklin rated higher but knew they could get him later....

Come on.

Franklin could very well turn out to be better, but come on. No one could possibly beleive that and if it ws true Thompson should be fired.

 

[ShaHBucks]

They are perfect complements to each other but Lacy is a bigger and better talent. A healthy Alex Green might be better than both. Looks like Starks is gone next. Add Benson and ths is a untouchable backfield.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

It seems like a stretch to suggest Franklin's value being in the 6-12 range, or close to Lacy’s. I don't think you could justify that if he was the first back taken by GB, after going late in the fourth, even.

In theory they could have had Lacy as their RB 2 and Frankln as their RB 3 on their board. Just so happens Franklin fell, in this case their "opinion" of the players may be darn near identical.

yes. franklin going in the 4th at a position they had already taken suggests that he had a 3rd round grade, if not a 2nd. Most players have grades at least a round higher by the team selecting than the round they were taken in

So they had a first round grade on Lacy?

Probably late first/high second with an injury red flag. They weren't that excited to draft him or they wouldn't have traded down when he was on the board at 55. I think it was a "welp, I guess we have to take him" moment. Lacy is definitely a late 1st/early 2nd type runner on film. Think of him and Christine Michael as similar prospects with two main differences: Lacy has immediate opportunity, and Lacy's worries are durability/conditioning, while Michael's are mainly character. Both are late first/early second level talents as pure runners who fell to the late 2nd because teams on the whole are worried about whether they'll hit their lofty ceiling.

Yes. I think taking Franklin was surely a "hedging the bet" type move due to Lacy's red flags, in addition to him presenting good value.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

In theory they could have had Lacy as their RB 2 and Frankln as their RB 3 on their board. Just so happens Franklin fell, in this case their "opinion" of the players may be darn near identical.

actually..........in theory they could have had Franklin rated higher but knew they could get him later....

Come on.

Franklin could very well turn out to be better, but come on. No one could possibly beleive that and if it ws true Thompson should be fired.

having a feel for how the rest of the league values players is a huge part of any draft....

 

[Concept Coop]

having a feel for how the rest of the league values players is a huge part of any draft....

The hypothetical is no more likely to apply to this situation than any other. The entire league could have had Lacy #1 on their draft board, but hoped he fell to the 3rd round. That's no more unlikely than the Packers liking Franlkin more but waiting two rounds later to grab him. We can safely dismiss both as silly.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

In theory they could have had Lacy as their RB 2 and Frankln as their RB 3 on their board. Just so happens Franklin fell, in this case their "opinion" of the players may be darn near identical.

actually..........in theory they could have had Franklin rated higher but knew they could get him later....

Come on.

Franklin could very well turn out to be better, but come on. No one could possibly beleive that and if it ws true Thompson should be fired.

having a feel for how the rest of the league values players is a huge part of any draft....

It isn't a fantasy football draft where they have ADP stats. They may have some idea of where players are expected to go, but to think that an NFL GM passes up a RB to take another RB he likes less, hoping to get his preferred RB later in the draft is and perhaps a little .

 

[TheLurkerBelow]

I don't think people are ignoring the trends, I think these examples are being put forth to contradict your statement that "the last RB taken in the 4th round that mattered was in 2005."

In terms of actual production - who else has there been? There was Barber and Jacobs. Miller is an example of a guy mattering, in terms of value, but we'll have to see what he does this season, and moving forward.

Perhaps I chose my words poorly, but I don't agree that draft position doesn't matter. The trends are pretty clear, and while there are some exceptions - they're few and far between. Show me someone that can pick out the Ballards and Morrisses with any regularity, and I that person might be able to make the claim that draft spot doesn't matter. But I don't know if anyone meets that criteria - I sure as hell don't. I hit on Foster and Ballard, but like another poster pointed out, they were simply low probability gambles that paid off. Certainly nothing I can use to suggest a track record.

Bloom and Waldman are paid to share THEIR opinions, and both do a damn fine job. So I understand and respect them sticking to their guns. But when it comes down to me investing my draft picks - what the professionals think and, thus, invest, is a HUGE part of the puzzle. Especially when the trends are so clear.

I agree, but I think phrasing this a different way might make more sense to people who feel that draft slot doesn't matter, or matters very little. Replace the concept of "round the player was drafted" with "measure of physical ability". I think it's an easy, and obvious, case to argue that a player's physical ability, or talent, directly correlates to how often a player is successful in the NFL. The round a player was drafted in is a very good way to measure that physical ability.

When I say that prior to seeing a rookie play against NFL competition, the round they are drafted in is a critical data point when making your fantasy draft selection, I basically mean that more talented players are more likely to succeed and be fantasy producers. The draft is a very good measure of how those who are much smarter than me, meaning all 32 NFL teams, measured each player's talent.

Lacy was a second round talent and Franklin a fourth. With that measure in mind, and taking into consideration the type of RBs they are, and the team they are on, but without having seen either play at the NFL level, I'm betting my money that Lacy is the better fantasy producer over his career.

 

[Keith Lewis]

Changing my earlier stance. After a while the smoke clears and I'm left with these prevailing thoughts -

Super impressed with Lacy at Alabama, I have only seen YouTube highlights of Franklin.

Lacy drafted much higher.

A good number of RB stars out of Round 2. Not so in Round 4.

Give me Lacy all day, once the smoke and mirrors clear its an easy choice.

 

[DropKick]

I agree with those saying that the best approach is to generally ignore draft round at this point in favor of examining talent, opportunity/situation, and health/injury history.

But could we find anyone with a better track record than the NFL? 50% hit rate in round one, less than 25% in round 2. It just goes down from there, the 4th giving us a couple RB1s a decade. Throwing that information out the window, and ignoring what 32 professional franchises think and invest - that seems a bit much.

I side with COOP here... The vast majority of us are not true talent evaluators. We are more information gatherers. And the NFL evaluators saw Lacy as a 2nd round talent and Franklin as a 4th. I understand the draft isn't an exact science but, in general, the 2nd rounder is more likely to be the better back.

I think his point is NOT that Lacy is definitively the better back - but he isn't worthy of a top 10 pick. I agree with that. If you think Franklin impacts Lacy's value, how much does Lacy impact Franklin? I'd have a very tough time pulling the trigger on Franklin except in formats where RBs were very difficult to acquire and/or I had a huge hole at the position.

ETA: Fortunately, our draft is in August so there is plenty of time to watch this situation develop.

That's not honest.

Lacy was the next to last pick of the 2nd, and that team had already passed on him in the 2nd as well. Trading down.

So every team that could have drafted him in the 2nd, did pass on him (as the Seahawks also traded down). The Packers didnt pass on him twice though.

Then at the end of the 4th, that same team was willing to trade UP for Franklin.

Ummm.. it's dishonest? Lacy went late 2nd; Franklin late 4th. Plenty of teams pass just because they have no interest in a RB at that stage of the draft. David Wilson went with the last pick of the first round last year... is he not a 1st round choice?

 

[LawFitz]

Draft position won't matter come training camp, especially with a late 2nd vs a late 4th. Pick Lacy high at your own peril. Franklin can play. He's not great at anything, but is good to very good at everything and has shown much better durability despite the smaller stature.

 

[DropKick]

Draft position won't matter come training camp, especially with a late 2nd vs a late 4th. Pick Lacy high at your own peril. Franklin can play. He's not great at anything, but is good to very good at everything and has shown much better durability despite the smaller stature.

I don't think anyone believes draft position is the "be all end all". It's given the drafting of Lacy, do you like Franklin's chances enough to invest a high pick? I think this takes a strong opinion of Franklin (like yours) and also a pessimistic outlook for Lacy.

If Franklin was drafted in the same spot but to a team with different circumstances (heir apparent, marginal starter) I would be more likely to invest the pick. I have no aversion to 4th round draft picks.

If you really believe in Franklin, take him. With so many question marks in this draft, he may be as good a bet as many others. Personally, I like the WRs and think there will be some impact players.

 

[Andrew Garda]

Late to the party (all the beer is gone ) but a few thoughts from a guy who covered the Packers all last year (and has been aharassed by Packers fans many years previously):

Franklin needs to improve his pass blocking - he is more useful in the pass game save for that. If he can't do that, he won't see the field. Ultimately that's going to be a huge factor because GB has had so many issues protecting Rodgers they need a back who can pass block.

Lacy has to prove himself. I believe Lacy was higher on their board than Franklin but they didn't expect to see him there in the (late) second. At that point it was almost BPA. His injury issues and the out of shape pro day made Franklin more of a priority, but I don't think it was a :code red: kind of thing because they also like DuJuan Harris (who may yet factor into this potential mess in Training Camp).

Re: Packers at the goal line—yes they primarily throw there but they also run (especially with a really terrible off-tackle john Kuhn play). I believe they will run more with Lacy there. Just a gut feeling mostly.

The Packers, as pointed out, had Ryan Grant run the ball 280+ twice before his wheels came off. They used Benson plenty in five games last season—I believe as others here they will run the ball more. There will be plenty of NFL carries to go around but ultimately not a ton of fantasy carries. In the end, I don't expect GB to sit with just one back because Lacy/Franklin (and to some extent, Harris) are very different backs.

My expectation—and it's early—is Lacy gets a lot of the carries overall with an emphasis on short yardage opportunities (incl goal line) and Franklin will see a lot of secondary down work as well as chances in the pass game.

I do agree with Bloom to some extent that outside of the top 10 of a NFL draft, *most* draft position is irrelevant—especially when we're talking RBs in the late second and beyond. The better player will play. This would be different if Lacy was an early 1st rounder but - and we have to remember this - nothign is guaranteed. Just ask David Wilson during his rookie season.

In the end though, this *smells* like some version of a RBBC between these two (and again I don't write off Harris quite yet). I won't take either in the top 5 of a rookie draft and Lacy is barely in the top ten—and part of that is due to the fact that I am very down on the QBs this year overall.

Anyway that's my - and I don't wanna leave the thread without throwing props to Sig on an excellent break down of the players and their landing spot.

 

[Tau837]

Not disagreeing with the idea that Green Bay will run more, but IMO citing what happened years ago with Ryan Grant is not particularly relevant. The offense has evolved since then.

 

[Pipes]

Not disagreeing with the idea that Green Bay will run more, but IMO citing what happened years ago with Ryan Grant is not particularly relevant. The offense has evolved since then.

It's completely relevant. Some have stated the McCarthy hates running the ball 2008 and 2009 proves otherwise. The biggest reason they haven't run the ball was having lousy RB's the last few years or in Starks case guys that can't stay healthy.

 

[tdmills]

Not disagreeing with the idea that Green Bay will run more, but IMO citing what happened years ago with Ryan Grant is not particularly relevant. The offense has evolved since then.

It's completely relevant. Some have stated the McCarthy hates running the ball 2008 and 2009 proves otherwise. The biggest reason they haven't run the ball was having lousy RB's the last few years or in Starks case guys that can't stay healthy.

It could also be that McCarthy got pass happy because he has Rodgers and all those weapons. When in doubt go with what's happened the last few years.

 

[LawFitz]

Not disagreeing with the idea that Green Bay will run more, but IMO citing what happened years ago with Ryan Grant is not particularly relevant. The offense has evolved since then.

It's completely relevant. Some have stated the McCarthy hates running the ball 2008 and 2009 proves otherwise. The biggest reason they haven't run the ball was having lousy RB's the last few years or in Starks case guys that can't stay healthy.

It could also be that McCarthy got pass happy because he has Rodgers and all those weapons. When in doubt go with what's happened the last few years.

Uh, or not. ALL coaches want to run the ball. It protects both sides of their team. The problem arises when they can't.

 

[tdmills]

Not disagreeing with the idea that Green Bay will run more, but IMO citing what happened years ago with Ryan Grant is not particularly relevant. The offense has evolved since then.

It's completely relevant. Some have stated the McCarthy hates running the ball 2008 and 2009 proves otherwise. The biggest reason they haven't run the ball was having lousy RB's the last few years or in Starks case guys that can't stay healthy.

It could also be that McCarthy got pass happy because he has Rodgers and all those weapons. When in doubt go with what's happened the last few years.

Uh, or not. ALL coaches want to run the ball. It protects both sides of their team. The problem arises when they can't.

Have you seen Mike Martz, Air Cordyell, Mouse Davis, etc? The Rams lost a super bowl because Martz refused to run the ball even though he had Marshall Faulk. All i'm saying is it's possible McCarthy has become pass happy.

 

[Concept Coop]

They were pretty close to league average in rushing totals. They don't need to change much to provide a solid fantasy option at RB, in terms of carries. They had 14 fewer carries than the Vikings, for example, who led the league in production. It's going to come down to what their RBs do with each carry.

And, looking at the "pass happy" teams and their running production. Yes please. NO, Den, NE all had great blanket RB production. The issue was how they split that pie, not that there weren't enough touches. And the staff hasn't shown a desire for a RBBC to this point; not more than the average team, at least. They just didn't get procution and health from any one guy for very long.

 

[EBF]

4th round RBs drafted in the past decade:

Lamar Miller

Robert Turbin

Roy Helu

Kendall Hunter

Delone Carter

Taiwan Jones

Bilal Powell

Jamie Harper

Joe McKnight

Mike Goodson

Andre Brown

Gartrell Johnson

Tashard Choice

Michael Bush

Antonio Pittman

Dwayne Wright

Leon Washington

PJ Daniels

Marion Barber

Brandon Jacobs

Ciatrick Fason

Manuel White

Alvin Pearman

Darren Sproles

Mewelde Moore

Cedric Cobbs

Artose Pinner

Domanick Davis

Onterrio Smith

Quentin Griffin

Lee Suggs

LaBrandon Toefield

That's 32 RBs. Only Davis, Sproles, Jacobs, and Barber were true success stories. There are a few others like Bush and Miller that could potentially be counted as hits, but overall this is a barren wasteland. You're looking at probably a 10-15% hit rate. Those aren't the odds I'm looking for from a top 15 rookie pick. I don't mind betting against the house if I've got a special reason to believe in a guy, but I'm not optimistic about Franklin. Below average physical ability. Drafted in a range where 85% of prospects fail. No thanks.

 

[tdmills]

4th round RBs drafted in the past decade:

Lamar Miller

Robert Turbin

Roy Helu

Kendall Hunter

Delone Carter

Taiwan Jones

Bilal Powell

Jamie Harper

Joe McKnight

Mike Goodson

Andre Brown

Gartrell Johnson

Tashard Choice

Michael Bush

Antonio Pittman

Dwayne Wright

Leon Washington

PJ Daniels

Marion Barber

Brandon Jacobs

Ciatrick Fason

Manuel White

Alvin Pearman

Darren Sproles

Mewelde Moore

Cedric Cobbs

Artose Pinner

Domanick Davis

Onterrio Smith

Quentin Griffin

Lee Suggs

LaBrandon Toefield

That's 32 RBs. Only Davis, Sproles, Jacobs, and Barber were true success stories. There are a few others like Bush and Miller that could potentially be counted as hits, but overall this is a barren wasteland. You're looking at probably a 10-15% hit rate. Those aren't the odds I'm looking for from a top 15 rookie pick. I don't mind betting against the house if I've got a special reason to believe in a guy, but I'm not optimistic about Franklin. Below average physical ability. Drafted in a range where 85% of prospects fail. No thanks.

Why stop at round 4? Why not compare late 2nd round success rates?

 

[DropKick]

4th round RBs drafted in the past decade:

Lamar Miller

Robert Turbin

Roy Helu

Kendall Hunter

Delone Carter

Taiwan Jones

Bilal Powell

Jamie Harper

Joe McKnight

Mike Goodson

Andre Brown

Gartrell Johnson

Tashard Choice

Michael Bush

Antonio Pittman

Dwayne Wright

Leon Washington

PJ Daniels

Marion Barber

Brandon Jacobs

Ciatrick Fason

Manuel White

Alvin Pearman

Darren Sproles

Mewelde Moore

Cedric Cobbs

Artose Pinner

Domanick Davis

Onterrio Smith

Quentin Griffin

Lee Suggs

LaBrandon Toefield

That's 32 RBs. Only Davis, Sproles, Jacobs, and Barber were true success stories. There are a few others like Bush and Miller that could potentially be counted as hits, but overall this is a barren wasteland. You're looking at probably a 10-15% hit rate. Those aren't the odds I'm looking for from a top 15 rookie pick. I don't mind betting against the house if I've got a special reason to believe in a guy, but I'm not optimistic about Franklin. Below average physical ability. Drafted in a range where 85% of prospects fail. No thanks.

I think this was Coop's original point. And, FWIW, Davis, Barber and Jacobs were no more than flashes in the pan.

 

[smackdaddies]

Hard to compare this draft to past drafts, re: running backs

What draft in recent history was so barren of RB picks at the top? I think in most years Lacy would of been a late one, early two, and Franklin a 3rd rounder.

 

[Faust]

I posted this in the Lacy thread, but thought that it should go here as well:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000166312/article/eddie-lacy-ill-play-on-day-1-for-green-bay-packers

Excerpt:

Regardless, it's hard to imagine Lacy being asked to be a "bell cow" back in Green Bay. DuJuan Harris showed a lot of promise last year. The Packers also traded up in the fourth round to draft former UCLA running back Johnathan Franklin. While Franklin might not be the power runner that Lacy is, he's a three-down back just like Lacy.

"I don't know how you can't be excited about Franklin," Packers coach Mike McCarthy said. "I'm really looking forward to see how he grabs the rope and runs with it."

The Packers did a nice job building wide receiver depth over the last few years. When one player was hurt, the group barely suffered. That could now be the case for them at running back, too.

 

[Shutout]

4th round RBs drafted in the past decade:

Lamar Miller

Robert Turbin

Roy Helu

Kendall Hunter

Delone Carter

Taiwan Jones

Bilal Powell

Jamie Harper

Joe McKnight

Mike Goodson

Andre Brown

Gartrell Johnson

Tashard Choice

Michael Bush

Antonio Pittman

Dwayne Wright

Leon Washington

PJ Daniels

Marion Barber

Brandon Jacobs

Ciatrick Fason

Manuel White

Alvin Pearman

Darren Sproles

Mewelde Moore

Cedric Cobbs

Artose Pinner

Domanick Davis

Onterrio Smith

Quentin Griffin

Lee Suggs

LaBrandon Toefield

That's 32 RBs. Only Davis, Sproles, Jacobs, and Barber were true success stories. There are a few others like Bush and Miller that could potentially be counted as hits, but overall this is a barren wasteland. You're looking at probably a 10-15% hit rate. Those aren't the odds I'm looking for from a top 15 rookie pick. I don't mind betting against the house if I've got a special reason to believe in a guy, but I'm not optimistic about Franklin. Below average physical ability. Drafted in a range where 85% of prospects fail. No thanks.

You guys act like time does not happen.

10 years ago, my fantasy phone manufacturer draft would have looked like this:

Tier 1-Nokia

Tier 2 (big gap)-most everyone else

Tip of the week: Although he's probably not worth more than a late-round flier, have a look at Apple. He has some good long-term potential.

Things change guys. The value of NFL RBs is not the same as it was in 2005 when Alvin Pearman was a "sneaky sleeper". As a result, you have to adjust your thoughts on the rounds they are drafted in accordingly.

 

[EBF]

Things change guys. The value of NFL RBs is not the same as it was in 2005 when Alvin Pearman was a "sneaky sleeper". As a result, you have to adjust your thoughts on the rounds they are drafted in accordingly.

I don't think there's much truth in that. We saw three RBs go in the first round last year, including one in the top 3 picks.

There are pretty clear reasons why none of this year's backs went in the first round. None of them have the right combination of athletic tools and production. Ball, Bell, Lacy, and Bernard have excellent college numbers, but don't compare to guys like Martin and Wilson from a physical ability standpoint. Michael has first round physical ability, but was not very productive in college.

If any one of these guys had both of those things, he would've been a first round pick.

 

[Concept Coop]

You guys act like time does not happen.

I don't know who's suggesting that. I think we're saying it's rare for a back drafted in the 4th round to produce quality fantasy numbers, and it is, clearly. What the NFL thinks and invests if a very important variable.

 

[tdmills]

Draft position isn't strictly on skill of the player. Value of other players in a given draft/team needs/character issues/etc.

I posted this with no response, but you can't throw out only round 4 RBs. The NFL has been recently littered with non-first round picks that perform well in FF. In fact in a standard PPR league, 50% of the top 10 were non-first round NFL selections=Foster, Rice, Morris, Charles, Gore. Only 3 of the next 10 were 1st round picks, non-first round selections=Forte, Ridley, Sproles, McCoy, Greene, LeShoure, Bradshaw.

 

[Concept Coop]

Draft position isn't strictly on skill of the player. Value of other players in a given draft/team needs/character issues/etc.

I posted this with no response, but you can't throw out only round 4 RBs. The NFL has been recently littered with non-first round picks that perform well in FF. In fact in a standard PPR league, 50% of the top 10 were non-first round NFL selections=Foster, Rice, Morris, Charles, Gore. Only 3 of the next 10 were 1st round picks, non-first round selections=Forte, Ridley, Sproles, McCoy, Greene, LeShoure, Bradshaw.

I agree, but EBF used a 10 years sample size. That's pretty solid, statistically. Each and every player is unique in talent/situation, etc. But there is a trend that's hard to ignore. How many people win the lottery every year? Does that make it a good investment?

If the collective minds of the 32 NFL teams let a player fall to the 4th round, history shows 10-15% odds of that player ever being a startable option.

If Arian Foster and Alfred Morris teach us anything, I think it's to allow room on your roster for upside gambles. Not to go all in on a select option.

 

[EBF]

It's all about the odds, not the exceptions. The success rate for players drops significantly as you get deeper into the draft. My recollection is that it goes something like:

1st round - 40-50%

2nd round - 30-35%

3rd round - 30%

4th round - 10%

Any RB chosen outside the first four rounds is a major underdog to amount to anything significant.

 

[humpback]

Draft position isn't strictly on skill of the player. Value of other players in a given draft/team needs/character issues/etc.

I posted this with no response, but you can't throw out only round 4 RBs. The NFL has been recently littered with non-first round picks that perform well in FF. In fact in a standard PPR league, 50% of the top 10 were non-first round NFL selections=Foster, Rice, Morris, Charles, Gore. Only 3 of the next 10 were 1st round picks, non-first round selections=Forte, Ridley, Sproles, McCoy, Greene, LeShoure, Bradshaw.

I agree, but EBF used a 10 years sample size. That's pretty solid, statistically. Each and every player is unique in talent/situation, etc. But there is a trend that's hard to ignore. How many people win the lottery every year? Does that make it a good investment?

If the collective minds of the 32 NFL teams let a player fall to the 4th round, history shows 10-15% odds of that player ever being a startable option.

If Arian Foster and Alfred Morris teach us anything, I think it's to allow room on your roster for upside gambles. Not to go all in on a select option.

I posted this in another thread, but the success rates for 2nd round RBs haven't been much better over the past 10 years.

Also, no one is suggesting going "all in" on Franklin. Most are talking about a mid 1st to early 2nd round rookie pick in a weak class full of gambles.

 

[Concept Coop]

I posted this in another thread, but the success rates for 2nd round RBs haven't been much better over the past 10 years.

Also, no one is suggesting going "all in" on Franklin. Most are talking about a mid 1st to early 2nd round rookie pick in a weak class full of gambles.

If more than double constitutes "much better", then I think you're wrong.

When talking about a 1st round pick, I consider that all in when used on a 4th NFL pick. Especially when others drafted in that range are going a full round+ later.

 

[Shutout]

Things change guys. The value of NFL RBs is not the same as it was in 2005 when Alvin Pearman was a "sneaky sleeper". As a result, you have to adjust your thoughts on the rounds they are drafted in accordingly.

I don't think there's much truth in that. We saw three RBs go in the first round last year, including one in the top 3 picks.

There are pretty clear reasons why none of this year's backs went in the first round. None of them have the right combination of athletic tools and production. Ball, Bell, Lacy, and Bernard have excellent college numbers, but don't compare to guys like Martin and Wilson from a physical ability standpoint. Michael has first round physical ability, but was not very productive in college.

If any one of these guys had both of those things, he would've been a first round pick.

Maybe this is true but maybe not. The skeptic in this conversation could say:

Yes, 3 went last year. Of them, one was being touted as the greatest RB to come out of college since way back when Peterson came out, so yes, you always take once in a decade players. Add in to that that all thre teams that took a RB were pretty much starving for a relevant RB due to simply having nobody worth anything or significant concers. Add in to that, two of those picks were the very bottom of round one and at least five teams with legitimate RB needs passed on them. And add to that, one of those RBS taken was taken by the SB champs and can be argued that with top talent at every position, what did they really need other than the position that they had injured players at?

I don't want to knead the point all day but just saying, in general, it is not surprising at all that RBs go later now. Its just not the same. In the late 80's or early 90's, the league was different and a team without a RB was a dead man walking. Now, teams without top Rbs don't blink. Some things HAve changed.

 

[EBF]

If Arian Foster and Alfred Morris teach us anything, I think it's to allow room on your roster for upside gambles. Not to go all in on a select option.

I think the best generic approach to building rookie rankings is to organize the players based on the round they were selected in, and then to arrange them within those clusters based on personal preference. In theory, you should almost never take a 4th or 5th round NFL draft pick ahead of a 1st/2nd/3rd.

In practice, it's a little more complicated than that. The relatively low value of the TE and QB positions in most FF leagues pushes those guys down the board. I'm often willing to take a 2nd-3rd round WR ahead of a 1st round QB or TE. On the flipside, the supply/demand equation at RB means you almost always have to reach if you want to get one. At every level of the draft they will be picked higher than where the odds dictate, and if you want to land one you need to play by those rules.

I understand the urge to bet against the house. When you spend a lot of time evaluating these players and looking at everything, sometimes you might decide that the later picks are better for whatever reason. This year I've got Boyce/Harper/Patton all rated ahead of Goodwin/Williams/Bailey. I'd be a hypocrite to say you're a fool if you don't rigidly draft according to where guys went in the NFL draft, but it's an important factor. Any time you take a 5th rounder like Zac Stacy ahead of players who went in the 2nd-3rd round, you are betting against the odds.

 

[Concept Coop]

I don't want to knead the point all day but just saying, in general, it is not surprising at all that RBs go later now. Its just not the same. In the late 80's or early 90's, the league was different and a team without a RB was a dead man walking. Now, teams without top Rbs don't blink. Some things HAve changed.

You're 100% right, here. We'll all have to adjust as the NFL does. And I think the hobby has done a good job of doing that.

 

[humpback]

I posted this in another thread, but the success rates for 2nd round RBs haven't been much better over the past 10 years.

Also, no one is suggesting going "all in" on Franklin. Most are talking about a mid 1st to early 2nd round rookie pick in a weak class full of gambles.

If more than double constitutes "much better", then I think you're wrong.

When talking about a 1st round pick, I consider that all in when used on a 4th NFL pick. Especially when others drafted in that range are going a full round+ later.

I guess it depends on what you call a "true success story", but the rate I got for 2nd rounders was 18.2%, certainly not more than double.

The point is, most rookies aren't going to be good fantasy players, no matter what round they are picked in. It doesn't make much sense to me to be perfectly fine spending an early #1 on a guy who is very likely to bust, but not be fine spending a later #1 on a guy who is somewhat more likely to bust.

 

[Concept Coop]

I guess it depends on what you call a "true success story", but the rate I got for 2nd rounders was 18.2%, certainly not more than double.

The point is, most rookies aren't going to be good fantasy players, no matter what round they are picked in. It doesn't make much sense to me to be perfectly fine spending an early #1 on a guy who is very likely to bust, but not be fine spending a later #1 on a guy who is somewhat more likely to bust.

I'd be interested in seeing your criteria and seeing what 4th rounders meet it. Just off the top of my head, McCoy, Forte, MJD, Ray Rice - all major hits. Even the 4th rounders that do hit don't measure up to that.

The hit rate, and production of the average hit, is enough for me to greatly discount a player drafted in the 4th round, compared to one in the 2nd round. I see some don't agree, but I personally see a pretty clear trend.

 

[EBF]

I don't want to knead the point all day but just saying, in general, it is not surprising at all that RBs go later now. Its just not the same. In the late 80's or early 90's, the league was different and a team without a RB was a dead man walking. Now, teams without top Rbs don't blink. Some things HAve changed.

If anything, that just makes it all the more impressive when a RB goes in the first round. Teams know that the position isn't critical for success and that they can plug in any number of journeymen and still get decent results. If a team knows all of that and still decides to use a 1st round pick on a RB, it stands to reason that they must think he's a pretty special talent.

There are really only two types of RBs who reliably get picked in the first round with any regularity. One of them is the ~200 pound type with electric speed and home run skills (Reggie Bush, Chris Johnson, CJ Spiller, David Wilson). The other is the 215+ pound workhorse type. For one of those backs to get picked in the first round, he usually needs to hit certain baseline numbers in the combine drills (4.5 40, 35" vertical leap, 10" broad jump). You occasionally see a guy sneak into the first round if he doesn't have the numbers (Ingram, Moreno, Benson), but in general there's a pretty clear archetype for what a first round RB looks like. A back with great college production and exceptional physical qualities, either with elite speed/explosiveness or a rare combination of bulk/speed/explosiveness.

There's nobody who quite fits the mold this year. Lacy, Bell, and Ball clearly don't have the workout numbers. Michael fits the physical profile, but doesn't have the production. Bernard is right on the cusp, and that's probably why he was the first back chosen. He almost fits the mold. If he had been a little faster or bigger, he might have gone top 30. Ultimately, none of these guys really stand out on paper though. It's likely that 1-2 of them will have success in the NFL, but the reason they fell in the draft has more to do with their talent level than the league's disregard for the RB position. None of these backs are exceptional enough to justify the investment.

 

[cstu]

I don't want to knead the point all day but just saying, in general, it is not surprising at all that RBs go later now. Its just not the same. In the late 80's or early 90's, the league was different and a team without a RB was a dead man walking. Now, teams without top Rbs don't blink. Some things HAve changed.

If anything, that just makes it all the more impressive when a RB goes in the first round. Teams know that the position isn't critical for success and that they can plug in any number of journeymen and still get decent results. If a team knows all of that and still decides to use a 1st round pick on a RB, it stands to reason that they must think he's a pretty special talent.

There are really only two types of RBs who reliably get picked in the first round with any regularity. One of them is the ~200 pound type with electric speed and home run skills (Reggie Bush, Chris Johnson, CJ Spiller, David Wilson). The other is the 215+ pound workhorse type. For one of those backs to get picked in the first round, he usually needs to hit certain baseline numbers in the combine drills (4.5 40, 35" vertical leap, 10" broad jump). You occasionally see a guy sneak into the first round if he doesn't have the numbers (Ingram, Moreno, Benson), but in general there's a pretty clear archetype for what a first round RB looks like. A back with great college production and exceptional physical qualities, either with elite speed/explosiveness or a rare combination of bulk/speed/explosiveness.

There's nobody who quite fits the mold this year. Lacy, Bell, and Ball clearly don't have the workout numbers. Michael fits the physical profile, but doesn't have the production. Bernard is right on the cusp, and that's probably why he was the first back chosen. He almost fits the mold. If he had been a little faster or bigger, he might have gone top 30. Ultimately, none of these guys really stand out on paper though. It's likely that 1-2 of them will have success in the NFL, but the reason they fell in the draft has more to do with their talent level than the league's disregard for the RB position. None of these backs are exceptional enough to justify the investment.

40 time is very over-rated. If you can get a carbon copy of Brian Westbrook you do it even if it doesn't fit the mold of what a 1st round RB should be.

 

[ZWK]

It's all about the odds, not the exceptions. The success rate for players drops significantly as you get deeper into the draft. My recollection is that it goes something like:

1st round - 40-50%

2nd round - 30-35%

3rd round - 30%

4th round - 10%

Any RB chosen outside the first four rounds is a major underdog to amount to anything significant.

If we define "success" as 50+ VBD cumulative during his career, then the success rate for RBs drafted 1993-2006 is:

58% round 1

29% round 2

20% round 3

13% round 4

10% round 5

6% round 6

2% round 7

 

[EBF]

I agree that 40 times are overrated. The issue with Lacy/Ball/Bell runs deeper than that. The vertical and broad jump do a pretty good job of quantifying lower body explosiveness. With a first round RB prospect, you usually want a see a vertical of at least 35" and a broad jump of at least 10'. Those are basically the minimums for what I would consider a "good" result in those drills. Anything around 38" and 10'8" starts to shade more towards "elite." That's the territory of special athletes like Peterson, Stewart, Spiller, C Johnson, and Reggie Bush.

If you look at last year's class, here are their numbers.

Trent Richardson

BMI - 33.5

40 - 4.48

Vertical - ??

Broad Jump - ??

Doug Martin

BMI - 32.7

40 - 4.46

Vertical - 36"

Broad Jump - 10'0"

David Wilson

BMI - 29.9

40 - 4.38

Vertical - 41"

Broad Jump - 11'0"

Now compare that to this year's crop:

Gio Bernard

BMI - 30.4

40 - 4.50

Vertical - 33.5"

Broad Jump - 10'2"

LeVeon Bell

BMI - 30.1

40 - 4.56

Vertical - 31.5"

Broad Jump - 9'10"

Montee Ball

BMI - 30.4

40 - 4.51-4.59

Vertical - 32"

Broad Jump - 9'10"

Eddie Lacy

BMI - 32.2

40 - 4.64

Vertical - 33.5"

Broad Jump - 9'7"

Christine Michael

BMI - 31.6

40 - 4.43

Vertical - 43"

Broad Jump - 10'5"

You can see that this year's class pales in comparison from a physical tools standpoint. Michael is the only one with comparable athleticism, but his production is well below the other backs in this discussion. Ball, Bell, and Lacy have serious deficits when you look at their jump numbers. That indicates a lack of fast-twitch lower body explosiveness. Bernard would be pretty close to meeting the cutoffs, but his low vertical leap is slight red flag. And if you compare him to the similarly sized David Wilson, you can see the night and day difference between a special athlete and a guy who's more borderline.

You can get drafted in the first round without special tools, but many of the players who meet that description have been disappointments to varying degrees (Moreno, Ingram, Benson). There are numerous top level backs in the NFL who didn't have eye-popping workout numbers (Turner, Gore, McCoy, Foster). It's not a death sentence. While there's clearly value in the numbers, I don't think they do a good job of quantifying foot quickness, vision, or instincts. Hence why I retain some hope for a guy like Stepfan Taylor even though he's a dog with fleas on paper. I think if you look at that Ball/Bell/Lacy cluster, there's a pretty good chance that at least one of those guys will be a solid player. At the same time, it's pretty easy to understand why none of them were first round backs. They don't really meet the standard.

 

[cstu]

Bernard would be pretty close to meeting the cutoffs, but his low vertical leap is slight red flag.

I would cut him some slack because he's only 5-8.

 

[tdmills]

Bernard would be pretty close to meeting the cutoffs, but his low vertical leap is slight red flag.

I would cut him some slack because he's only 5-8.

Height makes no difference on vertical jump. It's adjusted according to reach= height + arm length.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

EBF, you like Boyce over Dobson, right?

Appealing to draft position as a reason to draft one player over another is where you go when you have no arguments on the merits. It's an argument you make in theory, but in practice you evaluate the two players. If you disagree with the evaluation, then disagree with the take on the player. You obviously see how when two teams take players at the same position, but rounds apart, you can still rationally prefer the later drafted player. I think it's even fair to say, when it's close, use draft position to break the tie. What I don't agree with is draft position as THE REASON to take player A over player B without any further analysis.

 

[EBF]

Who says there hasn't been any further analysis? I was down on Franklin before he fell in the draft. He doesn't have standout physical tools and didn't really look like a starter to me on film. In his case, there's nothing about him that points to an above average career outlook. I can see him being a decent complementary back, but anything above that would be a big surprise.

Boyce was also drafted pretty late. The difference for me is that he looks more promising and has much better physical tools. He has arguably the best size/speed ratio in the WR class with his 28.6 BMI and 4.38 speed. He also looked like the best athlete in the group during the combine drills. He probably would've been drafted a little higher if not for his broken pinkie. Add it all up and he looks like a player who's likely to exceed his draft slot.

 

[tdmills]

Who says there hasn't been any further analysis? I was down on Franklin before he fell in the draft. He doesn't have standout physical tools and didn't really look like a starter to me on film. In his case, there's nothing about him that points to an above average career outlook. I can see him being a decent complementary back, but anything above that would be a big surprise.

Boyce was also drafted pretty late. The difference for me is that he looks more promising and has much better physical tools. He has arguably the best size/speed ratio in the WR class with his 28.6 BMI and 4.38 speed. He also looked like the best athlete in the group during the combine drills. He probably would've been drafted a little higher if not for his broken pinkie. Add it all up and he looks like a player who's likely to exceed his draft slot.

You're all about BMI with WR's, i'm not. 5'11 is a negative for a WR, much less a positive because he's "thick". Tall and fast= size/speed ratio for WRs.

Mark Harrison/Justin Hunter/Patterson/Rogers/Fuller all have almost 3 inches on the guy and are within about .1 of his 40 time on a track.

 

[Shutout]

Who says there hasn't been any further analysis? I was down on Franklin before he fell in the draft. He doesn't have standout physical tools and didn't really look like a starter to me on film. In his case, there's nothing about him that points to an above average career outlook. I can see him being a decent complementary back, but anything above that would be a big surprise.

Boyce was also drafted pretty late. The difference for me is that he looks more promising and has much better physical tools. He has arguably the best size/speed ratio in the WR class with his 28.6 BMI and 4.38 speed. He also looked like the best athlete in the group during the combine drills. He probably would've been drafted a little higher if not for his broken pinkie. Add it all up and he looks like a player who's likely to exceed his draft slot.

You're all about BMI with WR's, i'm not. 5'11 is a negative for a WR, much less a positive because he's "thick". Tall and fast= size/speed ratio for WRs.

Mark Harrison/Justin Hunter/Patterson/Rogers/Fuller all have almost 3 inches on the guy and are within about .1 of his 40 time on a track.

I agree with this. I don't have the data behind it back it up like some of you guys do but I usually find my breakout WRs using the old-fashioned eyeball test + paying attention to the teams that draft them and how they are likely to use the player. This is not an axiom but, by and large, when I see a Wr that I think is getting ready to bust out, it is almost always a guy that has the right blend of height/speed and the team is finding a way to use him correctly. In general, you don't see too many long-term success stories at the position for WRs that clock in under 6'2" or so.

 

[EBF]

Who says there hasn't been any further analysis? I was down on Franklin before he fell in the draft. He doesn't have standout physical tools and didn't really look like a starter to me on film. In his case, there's nothing about him that points to an above average career outlook. I can see him being a decent complementary back, but anything above that would be a big surprise.

Boyce was also drafted pretty late. The difference for me is that he looks more promising and has much better physical tools. He has arguably the best size/speed ratio in the WR class with his 28.6 BMI and 4.38 speed. He also looked like the best athlete in the group during the combine drills. He probably would've been drafted a little higher if not for his broken pinkie. Add it all up and he looks like a player who's likely to exceed his draft slot.

You're all about BMI with WR's, i'm not. 5'11 is a negative for a WR, much less a positive because he's "thick". Tall and fast= size/speed ratio for WRs.

Mark Harrison/Justin Hunter/Patterson/Rogers/Fuller all have almost 3 inches on the guy and are within about .1 of his 40 time on a track.

It's not a coincidence that people who pay close attention to workout numbers have all recognized height/weight ratio as an important part of the equation. You can talk to anyone who spends a lot of time on this stuff and they'll agree that it's a big part of the puzzle. Height without strength doesn't = big receiver. Likewise, short doesn't necessarily = small receiver. Victor Cruz is only 5'11.5", but because he has a 28.3 BMI and 41.5" vertical, he's able to play a physical game, hold up to the beating, and win jump balls.

In general, thinner players need more speed in order to function at a high level (DeSean Jackson). Thicker players don't have to be as fast because they can win battles on the basis of sheer strength and physicality (Anquan Boldin). The best of both worlds is when you get a player who's both big and explosive. Players like Calvin, Dez, Andre, and VJax are pretty ideal from that standpoint.

Boyce doesn't have the same height or vertical leaping ability as those guys and that's probably why he'll be more of a WR2-WR3 for FF purposes, but he's arguably the best athlete at WR in the draft from a tools standpoint. 28.6 BMI (higher than Calvin, Fitzgerald, and Crabtree) paired with 4.38 speed and a 10'11" broad jump (an elite mark for anyone, much less a 5'11" athlete on the high end of the BMI scale). What those numbers suggest is a player who's very strong, but also possesses elite vertical explosiveness. It's rare to find those two traits in the same body. If that weren't enough, he also did 6.68 seconds in the three cone drill, which was the lowest time of any receiver drafted in the first 6 rounds.

 

[tdmills]

Who says there hasn't been any further analysis? I was down on Franklin before he fell in the draft. He doesn't have standout physical tools and didn't really look like a starter to me on film. In his case, there's nothing about him that points to an above average career outlook. I can see him being a decent complementary back, but anything above that would be a big surprise.

Boyce was also drafted pretty late. The difference for me is that he looks more promising and has much better physical tools. He has arguably the best size/speed ratio in the WR class with his 28.6 BMI and 4.38 speed. He also looked like the best athlete in the group during the combine drills. He probably would've been drafted a little higher if not for his broken pinkie. Add it all up and he looks like a player who's likely to exceed his draft slot.

You're all about BMI with WR's, i'm not. 5'11 is a negative for a WR, much less a positive because he's "thick". Tall and fast= size/speed ratio for WRs.

Mark Harrison/Justin Hunter/Patterson/Rogers/Fuller all have almost 3 inches on the guy and are within about .1 of his 40 time on a track.

It's not a coincidence that people who pay close attention to workout numbers have all recognized height/weight ratio as an important part of the equation. You can talk to anyone who spends a lot of time on this stuff and they'll agree that it's a big part of the puzzle. Height without strength doesn't = big receiver. Likewise, short doesn't necessarily = small receiver. Victor Cruz is only 5'11.5", but because he has a 28.3 BMI and 41.5" vertical, he's able to play a physical game, hold up to the beating, and win jump balls.

In general, thinner players need more speed in order to function at a high level (DeSean Jackson). Thicker players don't have to be as fast because they can win battles on the basis of sheer strength and physicality (Anquan Boldin). The best of both worlds is when you get a player who's both big and explosive. Players like Calvin, Dez, Andre, and VJax are pretty ideal from that standpoint.

Boyce doesn't have the same height or vertical leaping ability as those guys and that's probably why he'll be more of a WR2-WR3 for FF purposes, but he's arguably the best athlete at WR in the draft from a tools standpoint. 28.6 BMI (higher than Calvin, Fitzgerald, and Crabtree) paired with 4.38 speed and a 10'11" broad jump (an elite mark for anyone, much less a 5'11" athlete on the high end of the BMI scale). What those numbers suggest is a player who's very strong, but also possesses elite vertical explosiveness. It's rare to find those two traits in the same body. If that weren't enough, he also did 6.68 seconds in the three cone drill, which was the lowest time of any receiver drafted in the first 6 rounds.

I don't understand you're need to talk down and present your point in an arrogant way.

Greatest WR's in NFL History in recent memory:

Jerry Rice= 6'2 200

Randy Moss= 6'4 210

Marvin Harrison= 6'0 185

Cris Carter= 6'3 202

TO= 6'3 222

Michael Irvin= 6'2 207

Isaac Bruce= 6'0 188

Only 1 with a good BMI