"Pedigree" by draft spot for 2nd year players (1 Viewer)

[CBower4545]

I have seen it mentioned a few times now on this board. If a player has been in the league a year and has a a good opportunity, does where he was selected really matter? Let's pretend you have two players who produced exactly the same numbers and are both the #1 RB on their team with the exact same commitment, would you rank them differently based on draft spot? The only thing in my mind a high draft pick means after you have been in the league for a year is that you should some commitment from the team and opportunities to succeed. If you have a good opportunity and commitment from the team your draft spot seems irrelevant.

It is far more important what the team says and what the player has shown in their time in the NFL.This notion of "pedigree"(based on draft spot alone) for players like Kevin Smith, Josh Morgan, Matt Forte, and others to downgrade them. Why would anyone want to use an opinion formed from data collected almost two years ago in a situation completely different from the one they are currently in to influence their current rankings? Since they have been in the NFL usually there is much better and more current information available. In all honesty by training camp I paying more attention to training camp reports from FBG and other sources then I am draft spot.

Someone explain to me how, where a player was drafted is relevant in ranking them after they are in their 2nd year and the team has given both opportunity and commitment? Knocking a 2nd year guy for his draft spot without a supporting argument isn't FBG worthy imo.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I have seen it mentioned a few times now on this board. If a player has been in the league a year and has a a good opportunity, does where he was selected really matter? Let's pretend you have two players who produced exactly the same numbers and are both the #1 RB on their team with the exact same commitment, would you rank them differently? The only thing in my mind a high draft pick means after you have been in the league for a year is that you should some commitment from the team and opportunities to succeed. If you have a good opportunity and commitment from the team your draft spot seems irrelevant.

It is far more important what the team says and what the player has shown in their time in the NFL.This notion of "pedigree"(based on draft spot alone) for players like Kevin Smith, Josh Morgan, Matt Forte, and others to downgrade them. Why would anyone want to use an opinion formed from data collected almost two years ago in a situation completely different from the one they are currently in to influence their current rankings? Since they have been in the NFL usually there is much better and more current information available. In all honesty by training camp I paying more attention to training camp reports from FBG and other sources then I am draft spot.

Someone explain to me how, where a player was drafted is relevant in ranking them after they are in their 2nd year and the team has given both opportunity and commitment? Knocking a guy for his draft spot without a supporting argument isn't FBg worthy imo.

http://blog.footballguys.com/2007/08/13/re...es-drew-part-i/The reason people bring up pedigree is because it does still matter. The evidence shows that a player's draft pick AND his rookie year production is a better predictor of future production than his rookie year production alone.

 

[Phurfur]

Marcus Colston.

 

[FUBAR]

Draft pick doesn't matter, talent does. The two are usually connected.

 

[EBF]

Draft position is usually a pretty good rough indicator of a player's talent level. It's useful with unproven young players because they haven't played enough games for us to know whether they're the real deal based on their on-field performance.

You mentioned Josh Morgan and Kevin Smith. Those guys might end up being good starters, but neither one of them has really proven anything at the NFL level. They simply haven't played enough for us to know whether or not they're any good. Since neither player was touted as an elite talent entering the league, I would err towards skepticism. I would favor other unproven talents like Rashard Mendenhall and Devin Thomas over them because they were considered better prospects entering the league. That might turn out to be wrong in this specific case, but the odds favor the higher picks when you're talking about unproven commodities.

Draft position becomes less and less relevant the more games a player has played. The fact that Tom Brady and Clinton Portis were relatively low picks is irrelevant at this point. You have to allow yourself some flexibility. When someone comes in and lights it up like Boldin or Colston, you can pretty much throw his draft position out the window. That said, there's a bit of a gray area when you're trying to determine what constitutes a strong enough rookie year to render pedigree irrelevant. Eddie Royal impressed me enough to convince me that he's the real deal. Matt Forte didn't. I'm sure other people disagree. It's subjective in most cases (except for when it's an obvious transcendent talent like Colston or Portis).

 

[FUBAR]

Draft position is usually a pretty good rough indicator of a player's talent level. It's useful with unproven young players because they haven't played enough games for us to know whether they're the real deal based on their on-field performance.

You mentioned Josh Morgan and Kevin Smith. Those guys might end up being good starters, but neither one of them has really proven anything at the NFL level. They simply haven't played enough for us to know whether or not they're any good. Since neither player was touted as an elite talent entering the league, I would err towards skepticism. I would favor other unproven talents like Rashard Mendenhall and Devin Thomas over them because they were considered better prospects entering the league. That might turn out to be wrong in this specific case, but the odds favor the higher picks when you're talking about unproven commodities.

Draft position becomes less and less relevant the more games a player has played. The fact that Tom Brady and Clinton Portis were relatively low picks is irrelevant at this point. You have to allow yourself some flexibility. When someone comes in and lights it up like Boldin or Colston, you can pretty much throw his draft position out the window. That said, there's a bit of a gray area when you're trying to determine what constitutes a strong enough rookie year to render pedigree irrelevant. Eddie Royal impressed me enough to convince me that he's the real deal. Matt Forte didn't. I'm sure other people disagree. It's subjective in most cases (except for when it's an obvious transcendent talent like Colston or Portis).

I agree with your post, but do you really consider 2nd round to be low picks?

 

[EBF]

Draft position is usually a pretty good rough indicator of a player's talent level. It's useful with unproven young players because they haven't played enough games for us to know whether they're the real deal based on their on-field performance.

You mentioned Josh Morgan and Kevin Smith. Those guys might end up being good starters, but neither one of them has really proven anything at the NFL level. They simply haven't played enough for us to know whether or not they're any good. Since neither player was touted as an elite talent entering the league, I would err towards skepticism. I would favor other unproven talents like Rashard Mendenhall and Devin Thomas over them because they were considered better prospects entering the league. That might turn out to be wrong in this specific case, but the odds favor the higher picks when you're talking about unproven commodities.

Draft position becomes less and less relevant the more games a player has played. The fact that Tom Brady and Clinton Portis were relatively low picks is irrelevant at this point. You have to allow yourself some flexibility. When someone comes in and lights it up like Boldin or Colston, you can pretty much throw his draft position out the window. That said, there's a bit of a gray area when you're trying to determine what constitutes a strong enough rookie year to render pedigree irrelevant. Eddie Royal impressed me enough to convince me that he's the real deal. Matt Forte didn't. I'm sure other people disagree. It's subjective in most cases (except for when it's an obvious transcendent talent like Colston or Portis).

I agree with your post, but do you really consider 2nd round to be low picks?

Two out of three second round picks fail. They're not low picks, you can't assume that they're going to succeed.

 

[Kleck]

I wouldn't consider a 2nd rounder being a low pick, but I agree with the point being made. As more games are played, I usually care less and less about where the player was drafted.

 

[coolnerd]

I think this one of those things that vary from poster to poster. Some place heavy stock into draft postion, some believe in thier talent evaluation from watching games (college and pro both). The third category is the most difficult because these are the people who in one thread will down grade a player because he was a third round pick and this next on tell us why we should be excited about another player at the same position because he was a third round pick. The last group is simply tryintg to win arguments versus rely on a consistent set of standards. I try to pay attention to the context of the entire thread.

Overall though, pedigree (college production and draft position) matters some. Trying to figure how much from poster to poster is difficult.

 

[CBower4545]

I have seen it mentioned a few times now on this board. If a player has been in the league a year and has a a good opportunity, does where he was selected really matter? Let's pretend you have two players who produced exactly the same numbers and are both the #1 RB on their team with the exact same commitment, would you rank them differently? The only thing in my mind a high draft pick means after you have been in the league for a year is that you should some commitment from the team and opportunities to succeed. If you have a good opportunity and commitment from the team your draft spot seems irrelevant.

It is far more important what the team says and what the player has shown in their time in the NFL.This notion of "pedigree"(based on draft spot alone) for players like Kevin Smith, Josh Morgan, Matt Forte, and others to downgrade them. Why would anyone want to use an opinion formed from data collected almost two years ago in a situation completely different from the one they are currently in to influence their current rankings? Since they have been in the NFL usually there is much better and more current information available. In all honesty by training camp I paying more attention to training camp reports from FBG and other sources then I am draft spot.

Someone explain to me how, where a player was drafted is relevant in ranking them after they are in their 2nd year and the team has given both opportunity and commitment? Knocking a guy for his draft spot without a supporting argument isn't FBg worthy imo.

http://blog.footballguys.com/2007/08/13/re...es-drew-part-i/The reason people bring up pedigree is because it does still matter. The evidence shows that a player's draft pick AND his rookie year production is a better predictor of future production than his rookie year production alone.

So let's go inside the numbers you reference in your article and dig a little bit and see what we find. I don't think this is a great sample size to draw conclusions from but since this is the sample size Chase pick this is the one I will analyze. So lets just say for arguments sake that we expect at least 2 or more years of #2 RB production or better out of our early performers. (note I gave 150+ FBG fantasy points for #2 RB and 190+ #1 RB and elite as 225+ as my thresholds)

(note chase does not include supplemental picks but since I am contending picks don't matter I have included them)

Chase's top group

name year overall pick yards notes

Jerome Bettis 1993 1st 10 1429 Stud

Curt Warner 1983 1st 3 1449 Good 1 Elite 3 #2 rb yrs

Earl Campbell 1978 1st 1 1450 Stud

Barry Sanders 1989 1st 3 1470 Stud

Curtis Martin 1995 3rd 74 1487 Stud

Ottis Anderson 1979 1st 8 1605 Stud

George Rogers 1981 1st 1 1674 OK 2 #2 Rb yrs and 1 #1 RB

Eric Dickerson 1983 1st 2 1808 Stud

Only one RB has ever perform in this group and not been selected in the 1st round, he was a career stud. The 1st rounders produced 5 out of 7 studs and no busts in this group. But can that really be compared to the later round guys? They were a perfect one for one. Suffice it to say if you run for 1400+ yards in your rookie year your future is bright. There is nothing in this group to suggest early performing studs in the top picks are more likely then early performing studs from lower picks. There is no real conclusion to be drawn from this group about our argument. Now it does appear that you are more likely to put big numbers in your first year if drafted early but that has nothing to do with our argument.

Chase's second group

name year overall pick yards notes

Greg Bell 1984 26 1100 3 more #1 RB yrs (big gap best at end)

Kevin Mack 1985 Supp 1104 about 4 more #2 Rb yrs

Karim Abdul-Jabbar1996 80 1116 1 more #1 RB

Terrell Davis 1995 196 1117 3 truly Elite yrs Studly when healthy

Joe Delaney 1981 41 1121 Bust

Corey Dillon 1997 43 1129 Studly

Bobby Humphrey 1989 supp 1151 1 more #2 RB bust

John Stephens 1988 17 1168 bust - only two years of 118 & 146 FPs

Joe Cribbs 1980 29 1185 2 #1 RB - Pretty busty

Marshall Faulk 1994 2 1282 stud

Billy Sims 1980 1 1300 1 elite season 1 #1 rb yr

Rueben Mayes 1986 57 1353 bust

Eddie George 1996 14 1368 Stud

So lets just say for arguments sake that we expect at least 2 or more years of #2 RB production or better.

(note I gave 150+ FBG fantasy points for #2 RB and 195+ #1 RB)

Busts

17th overall

29th overall

41st overall

57th overall

80th overall

Supplemental

So you have 2 high picks 3 middle picks and 1 supplemental.

So next group has met our expectations but not much more

OK

1st overall

26th overall

Supplemental

So you have 2 high picks and 1 supplemental

The last group more then exceeded our expectations.

Studs

1st

14th

43rd

196th

So what is the conclusion here? The lower guys produced just as many studs. Was beat 2 to 4 on busts and 2 to 1 on OKs. So the higher drfted guys did perform better out of this group but only slightly. I don't think that there is enough here to establish anything in our argument. However you do see the farther down you get the less bright a player's future looks.

Chase's third Group

name year overall pick yards notes

Johnny Johnson 1990 169 926 2 #2 Rb yrs

Emmitt Smith 1990 17 937 stud

Rodney Thomas 1995 89 947 bust

Leonard Russell 1991 14 959 1 #2 RB - bust

Warrick Dunn 1997 12 978 pretty good (not ever elite though)

Errict Rhett 1994 34 1011 1 #1 Rb yr - bust

Ricky Watters 1992 45 1013 stud

Ronald Moore 1993 87 1018 bust

William Andrews 1979 79 1023 pretty good 2 elite seasons 1 #1 Rb 1 #2 RB

Terry Miller 1978 5 1060 bust

Reggie Brooks 1993 45 1063 bust

Ickey Woods 1988 31 1066 bust

Rashaan Salaam 1995 21 1074 bust

Busts

5th overall

14th overall

21st overall

31st overall

34th overall

45th overall

87th overall

89th overall

So you have 4 busts in the top 32 and 2 in the next 32 and 2 later. It looks pretty even to me between higher guys and lower guys.

OK

169th overall

Only one later guy fits the mold here.

Good

12th overall

79th overall

1 to 1 high guys verse later guys.

Studs

17th overall

45th overall

again 1 to 1 high guys verse later guys.

If anything in the last group the low guys hit more then the high guys but really there is no winner here.

Final conclusion:

After going through everyone of the early performing guys I still cannot see where higher draft picks are out performing lower draft picks after both players have had similar high end production. I really don't see how this study you have quoted Chase invalidates my point. In fact when I look at your data indepth it only makes me feel better about my position. What I have maintained from the beginning is that player that have shown us something and have a good opportunity and the commitment of their organization will succeed just as much as the higher drafted guys.Comparing Rbs that didn't perform to by draft position I would think would tilt towards the higher guys, because they will get more opportunities then the lower guys. It's about talent and situation not draft status from over a year ago. Current information is more valuable then older information. Again I have looked at every early performing Rb in your study and compared them against each other based on draft position looking at how they performed in FBG points and cannot see where in this you have drawn the conclusion that early performing high picks are more likely to continue performing the low picks. I have tried but I still do not get this line of thinking.

I like Chases study it's interesting but I don't think it disproves my point if anything his data supports my claims. Some problems with Chases study as it relates to our discussion. It assumes the only thing we know is when a player is drafted and how he performed year 1. That might be necessary in doing a statistical study but it does not reflect the real world. We have access to more information then just that. We can looked at what the offense is doing, we can see if they organization drafts a replacement, we can look at training camp reports, and we can beak down film of what they are doing in the NFL. For instance Dominic Rhodes would have met Chase's condition as an early performer who was a late draft pick. But we knew Rhodes had edge in his way and did not have an opportunity or the support of the organization to succeed. These kinds of studies are fascinating but not always applicable to these discussions.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Player A and Player B are both drafted the same year.

I project that Player A (a top five draft pick) will average 85 rushing yards per game during his first five seasons in the league.

I project that Player B (a late second-rounder) will average 65 rushing yards per game during his first five seasons in the league.

In Week One of their rookie seasons, Player A and Player B both rush for 75 yards. That's not a huge deal -- one week's performance isn't enough to modify my expectations a whole lot, especially considering that both RBs were within ten yards of my projected average for them. But it's enough to move my expectations a bit. Maybe I'll decrease my projection for Player A down to 84.9 rushing yards per game (going forward) in his first five seasons. And I'll increase my projection for Player B up to 65.1 yards per game.

Over the next several weeks, generally the same thing happens, and after each week I use the new information to update my projections.

By the end of 16 games, if Player A and Player B have both averaged 75 yards per game over the course of the season, my updated projections (going forward) might be something like 78 yards per game for Player A and 72 yards per game for Player B.

In general, after Player A's first season, my updated projection for him will be somewhere between my original expectation and his actual results so far. The same will be true for Player B.

So if Player A and Player B have given similar performances after one year, and I had higher expectations for Player A than for Player B before that season started, I will still have higher expectations for Player A after the season ends, although by a smaller margin.

(This is an oversimplified, but reasonable enough for illustrative purposes, application of Bayes Theorem.)

The more games they play, the less my original expectations matter in comparison to their actual performance (for purposes of determining my current projections). But one season's worth of games isn't necessarily enough to discount my original expectations entirely.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I did an article for Draftguys a couple years back that talked about draft position and fantasy success: Link

 

[gianmarco]

Draft position is usually a pretty good rough indicator of a player's talent level. It's useful with unproven young players because they haven't played enough games for us to know whether they're the real deal based on their on-field performance.



You mentioned Josh Morgan and Kevin Smith. Those guys might end up being good starters, but neither one of them has really proven anything at the NFL level. They simply haven't played enough for us to know whether or not they're any good. Since neither player was touted as an elite talent entering the league, I would err towards skepticism. I would favor other unproven talents like Rashard Mendenhall and Devin Thomas over them because they were considered better prospects entering the league. That might turn out to be wrong in this specific case, but the odds favor the higher picks when you're talking about unproven commodities.

Draft position becomes less and less relevant the more games a player has played. The fact that Tom Brady and Clinton Portis were relatively low picks is irrelevant at this point. You have to allow yourself some flexibility. When someone comes in and lights it up like Boldin or Colston, you can pretty much throw his draft position out the window. That said, there's a bit of a gray area when you're trying to determine what constitutes a strong enough rookie year to render pedigree irrelevant. Eddie Royal impressed me enough to convince me that he's the real deal. Matt Forte didn't. I'm sure other people disagree. It's subjective in most cases (except for when it's an obvious transcendent talent like Colston or Portis).

Kevin Smith hasn't proven anything at the NFL level? Exaggerate much? The guy doesn't have multiple seasons under his belt and he didn't put together an elite ROY campaign, but to say he hasn't proven anything is a joke. You want to compare Josh Morgan vs. Devin Thomas, then fine. Even though Morgan played more than Thomas, he still has a good bit to prove. 238 carries and 39 catches while only being the starter for half the year is a decent body of work to go on. Factor in he was a very high 3rd round pick and they obviously plan on keeping him as their main RB, then I'd say he's proven something so far.

EBF, it's not all white and black. You don't just have guys that are proven and guys that aren't proven and nothing in between. There are gray areas. There's a continuum. One player can be more or less proven than another. Guys like Mendenhall, Thomas, Morgan are further to one end of the spectrum. Kevin Smith is considerably further away from them and has showed he can play at the next level. Whether or not he can sustain that level of production is a different story, but let's not go overboard and describe his rookie campaign as "not proving much".

 

[purplehaze67]

I think another part of it is that, in general, the greater the NFL draft pedigree, the more it cost (in terms of draft pick or trade) to acquire the guy for FF. Owners still remember that mid-first or valuable established vet that they had to give up for a guy just a year ago and sometimes, aren't willing to sell at a "loss" so soon.

 

[Biabreakable]

Player A and Player B are both drafted the same year.

I project that Player A (a top five draft pick) will average 85 rushing yards per game during his first five seasons in the league.

I project that Player B (a late second-rounder) will average 65 rushing yards per game during his first five seasons in the league.

In Week One of their rookie seasons, Player A and Player B both rush for 75 yards. That's not a huge deal -- one week's performance isn't enough to modify my expectations a whole lot, especially considering that both RBs were within ten yards of my projected average for them. But it's enough to move my expectations a bit. Maybe I'll decrease my projection for Player A down to 84.9 rushing yards per game (going forward) in his first five seasons. And I'll increase my projection for Player B up to 65.1 yards per game.

Over the next several weeks, generally the same thing happens, and after each week I use the new information to update my projections.

By the end of 16 games, if Player A and Player B have both averaged 75 yards per game over the course of the season, my updated projections (going forward) might be something like 78 yards per game for Player A and 72 yards per game for Player B.

In general, after Player A's first season, my updated projection for him will be somewhere between my original expectation and his actual results so far. The same will be true for Player B.

So if Player A and Player B have given similar performances after one year, and I had higher expectations for Player A than for Player B before that season started, I will still have higher expectations for Player A after the season ends, although by a smaller margin.

(This is an oversimplified, but reasonable enough for illustrative purposes, application of Bayes Theorem.)

The more games they play, the less my original expectations matter in comparison to their actual performance (for purposes of determining my current projections). But one season's worth of games isn't necessarily enough to discount my original expectations entirely.

Was kind of trying to explain this in another thread but you say it much better than me.

I don't update projections weekly but that process still goes on in my head. As I think it does with a lot of people.

For some people seeing 8 games or 16 games is enough for them to draw a conclushion. And these have been a few times when this is the case for me. But usualy I need to see more like 20 games from a guy before having an expectation based mostly on past performance. For slow starters this might be much longer before you have a decent body of work to look at.

Up to that point tools like draft position, team tendencies, your assesment of the players talent and the players expected role are what you use to guess what might happen until what happens does.

 

[EBF]

Kevin Smith hasn't proven anything at the NFL level? Exaggerate much? The guy doesn't have multiple seasons under his belt and he didn't put together an elite ROY campaign, but to say he hasn't proven anything is a joke. You want to compare Josh Morgan vs. Devin Thomas, then fine. Even though Morgan played more than Thomas, he still has a good bit to prove. 238 carries and 39 carries while only being the starter for half the year is a decent body of work to go on. Factor in he was a very high 3rd round pick and they obviously plan on keeping him as their main RB, then I'd say he's proven something so far. EBF, it's not all white and black. You don't just have guys that are proven and guys that aren't proven and nothing in between. There are gray areas. There's a continuum. One player can be more or less proven than another. Guys like Mendenhall, Thomas, Morgan are further to one end of the spectrum. Kevin Smith is considerably further away from them and has showed he can play at the next level. Whether or not he can sustain that level of production is a different story, but let's not go overboard and describe his rookie campaign as "not proving much".

One decent season proves virtually nothing. I've been playing FF long enough to have seen a lot of guys like Kevin Smith come and go. Anthony Thomas, Chris Brown, Julius Jones, Kevin Jones, Michael Bennett, Laurence Maroney, Joseph Addai, and Kevan Barlow are good recent examples of players who were given way too much credit for a small body of work. What Smith did last year really doesn't tell us anything. He might eventually prove to be a starting caliber back or he might not be any better than retreads like Justin Fargas, Ladell Betts, Earnest Graham, and Mewelde Moore (who have also put together decent stretches of production). Any RB who's good enough to stick on an NFL roster is capable of producing decent stats if given the opportunity. However, only a small fraction of RBs are talented enough to consistently demand a high workload. I don't think Smith's 2008 season told us which category he's in.

 

[gianmarco]

Kevin Smith hasn't proven anything at the NFL level? Exaggerate much? The guy doesn't have multiple seasons under his belt and he didn't put together an elite ROY campaign, but to say he hasn't proven anything is a joke. You want to compare Josh Morgan vs. Devin Thomas, then fine. Even though Morgan played more than Thomas, he still has a good bit to prove. 238 carries and 39 carries while only being the starter for half the year is a decent body of work to go on. Factor in he was a very high 3rd round pick and they obviously plan on keeping him as their main RB, then I'd say he's proven something so far. EBF, it's not all white and black. You don't just have guys that are proven and guys that aren't proven and nothing in between. There are gray areas. There's a continuum. One player can be more or less proven than another. Guys like Mendenhall, Thomas, Morgan are further to one end of the spectrum. Kevin Smith is considerably further away from them and has showed he can play at the next level. Whether or not he can sustain that level of production is a different story, but let's not go overboard and describe his rookie campaign as "not proving much".

One decent season proves virtually nothing. I've been playing FF long enough to have seen a lot of guys like Kevin Smith come and go. Anthony Thomas, Chris Brown, Julius Jones, Kevin Jones, Michael Bennett, Laurence Maroney, Joseph Addai, and Kevan Barlow are good recent examples of players who were given way too much credit for a small body of work. What Smith did last year really doesn't tell us anything. He might eventually prove to be a starting caliber back or he might not be any better than retreads like Justin Fargas, Ladell Betts, Earnest Graham, and Mewelde Moore (who have also put together decent stretches of production). Any RB who's good enough to stick on an NFL roster is capable of producing decent stats if given the opportunity. However, only a small fraction of RBs are talented enough to consistently demand a high workload. I don't think Smith's 2008 season told us which category he's in.

Again, extremes. This isn't just a 2 answer question--yes or no. It's a continuum. I'm not putting Smith in the HOF. I'm not calling him the next LT or AP. I'm not saying he's a top 5 RB. I'm not saying he's going to be a starter in the league in 5 years.What I AM saying is that he HAS proven something. How much you make of it is a different story. Where he goes from here is a different story. But he's proven that he can play at the NFL level and he's proven he can do it in a less than an ideal situation. Sure, he could be the next J. Jones or Maroney or Barlow, but a lot of those guys you listed also had 1st round "pedigree". ANY player can fall by the wayside. The point is, Kevin Smith could have done a lot worse than what he did with his touches and his carries and it would have given us a different picture. Likewise, failure during the 1st year doesn't doom a player to be a bust either. It's all relative. But to discount what he did in 1 year because of where he was drafted but then to turn around and say Eddie Royal's campaign DOES prove something makes no sense whatsoever. Bottom line is Kevin Smith has proven he can play at the NFL level. He hasn't proven he can sustain it. 2 different entities. Not all NFL players ever show enough promise to see the field. Troy Williamson never did. Meachem so far hasn't. JJ Arrington hasn't. I'm not saying pedigree has no value whatsoever. As MT discussed above, take 2 even players who perform equally, I'll take the guy with the higher draft spot almost without question. But at this point, Kevin Smith as a 3rd round pick has proven more than Mendenhall as a 1st round pick. Doesn't mean Smith is better and doesn't mean Smith is going to last longer, but he's certainly proven more. Discounting what he's done to say it means nothing just because other guys have flamed out after their 1st season is short-sighted to me.

 

[Biabreakable]

I did an article for Draftguys a couple years back that talked about draft position and fantasy success: Link

This is some nice work struxboy. I think you should look at 10 years if it is easy to add to the study for better sample size.

 

[EBF]

I'm aware that it's not black and white. I acknowledged that in my first post:

That said, there's a bit of a gray area when you're trying to determine what constitutes a strong enough rookie year to render pedigree irrelevant. Eddie Royal impressed me enough to convince me that he's the real deal. Matt Forte didn't. I'm sure other people disagree. It's subjective in most cases (except for when it's an obvious transcendent talent like Colston or Portis).

As far as Royal vs. Smith, it does make sense to be sold on one and skeptical of the other. The number of WRs who catch 90 passes in their first season is dwarfed by the number of RBs who rush for 900 yards in their first season. What Smith did is common. What Royal did is rare. Royal is also a superior athlete with a better draft pedigree. Here are season totals for three different RBs:

245 carries, 1,154 yards (4.7 YPC)

220 carries, 1,067 yards (4.9 YPC)

222 carries, 1,009 yards (4.5 YPC)

Pretty impressive, right? If a rookie came in and put up numbers like this, you would probably think he was destined for a very nice career. You might be surprised to learn that the numbers above belong to Ladell Betts, Chris Brown, and Justin Fargas. When a mediocre journeyman puts together a decent season, we don't automatically assume that he's destined for a good career. Yet when an unproven young RB puts together a decent season, he almost always vaults into the top 10-15 of the consensus dynasty RB rankings. Sometimes he's the real deal (LT, Gore, Portis) and sometimes he's a mediocre fraud (C. Brown, Julius, Addai). How can we distinguish between the two?

That's the tricky part. Frank Gore was picked in the exact same draft slot as Kevin Smith. He was a miserable performer at his pro day, but he ended up being the real deal. Joseph Addai was a first round pick. He put on a show at the combine, but has been a disappointment for anyone who used a top 10 FF pick on him. Pedigree isn't 100% accurate. Even first round picks fail about 35-50% of the time. Nevertheless, there's no denying that the hit percentage is better in the higher rounds. So I do think draft position is one of the few objective factors you can incorporate into your overall analysis of unproven players. If they were touted as elite talents entering the league then I'm more inclined to believe that their short term success is not a mirage. That's not the same as automatically thinking every first round pick is better than every lower pick. I liked Clinton Portis a lot more than William Green after their rookie years. I think you have to examine each case and ask yourself whether there are strong objective and subjective reasons to believe that the player will succeed. Some players are so impressive that you can immediately throw their pedigree out the window, but when it comes to unproven players or people who aren't impressive enough to immediately win my subjective approval, I tend to gravitate towards prospects with better pedigrees.

Look at Deuce McAllister, Shaun Alexander, and Larry Johnson. These guys accomplished virtually nothing as rookies. If all you did was look at their immediate returns, you would've written them off as busts (and a lot of people did downgrade them). But there were objective reasons to be optimistic. All three of these players were first round picks. They weren't productive, but they had promising pedigrees. If you acquired them while they were riding the bench, you got a steal. It doesn't always work that way (Chris Perry, Cedric Benson, etc), but first round picks have a certain probability of success that makes them valuable assets even before they've proven whether they're legit of fraudulent. That's why I might be inclined to draft Mendenhall over guys like Smith and Forte. The very fact that he was a first round pick gives him value even though he's proven absolutely nothing on an NFL football field.

As far as Kevin Smith is concerned, I don't see any strong objective evidence to suggest that he's an above average NFL RB and he hasn't impressed me enough to win my subjective approval. Right now he's just a promising RB who may or may not last as a starter in the league. I can get guys like that 3-4 rounds later than where he's usually picked.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Draft pick doesn't matter, talent does. The two are usually connected.

 

[phillyphan07]

I have seen it mentioned a few times now on this board. If a player has been in the league a year and has a a good opportunity, does where he was selected really matter? Let's pretend you have two players who produced exactly the same numbers and are both the #1 RB on their team with the exact same commitment, would you rank them differently based on draft spot? The only thing in my mind a high draft pick means after you have been in the league for a year is that you should some commitment from the team and opportunities to succeed. If you have a good opportunity and commitment from the team your draft spot seems irrelevant. It is far more important what the team says and what the player has shown in their time in the NFL.This notion of "pedigree"(based on draft spot alone) for players like Kevin Smith, Josh Morgan, Matt Forte, and others to downgrade them. Why would anyone want to use an opinion formed from data collected almost two years ago in a situation completely different from the one they are currently in to influence their current rankings? Since they have been in the NFL usually there is much better and more current information available. In all honesty by training camp I paying more attention to training camp reports from FBG and other sources then I am draft spot. Someone explain to me how, where a player was drafted is relevant in ranking them after they are in their 2nd year and the team has given both opportunity and commitment? Knocking a 2nd year guy for his draft spot without a supporting argument isn't FBG worthy imo.

Let me think outside the box here. And by think outside the box, I mean let me assume that the point of fantasy football is to win the fantasy football championship and not to win an argument over the proper way to value fantasy football talent.Isn't it an advantage if the other guy values players incorrectly?Isn't that guy the first person you run to when your 1st round pick doesn't pan out?Isn't that guy the first person you run to when he has a 4th rounder that does pan out?

 

[gianmarco]

I'm aware that it's not black and white. I acknowledged that in my first post:

That said, there's a bit of a gray area when you're trying to determine what constitutes a strong enough rookie year to render pedigree irrelevant. Eddie Royal impressed me enough to convince me that he's the real deal. Matt Forte didn't. I'm sure other people disagree. It's subjective in most cases (except for when it's an obvious transcendent talent like Colston or Portis).

As far as Royal vs. Smith, it does make sense to be sold on one and skeptical of the other. The number of WRs who catch 90 passes in their first season is dwarfed by the number of RBs who rush for 900 yards in their first season. What Smith did is common. What Royal did is rare. Royal is also a superior athlete with a better draft pedigree. Here are season totals for three different RBs:

245 carries, 1,154 yards (4.7 YPC)

220 carries, 1,067 yards (4.9 YPC)

222 carries, 1,009 yards (4.5 YPC)

Pretty impressive, right? If a rookie came in and put up numbers like this, you would probably think he was destined for a very nice career. You might be surprised to learn that the numbers above belong to Ladell Betts, Chris Brown, and Justin Fargas. When a mediocre journeyman puts together a decent season, we don't automatically assume that he's destined for a good career. Yet when an unproven young RB puts together a decent season, he almost always vaults into the top 10-15 of the consensus dynasty RB rankings. Sometimes he's the real deal (LT, Gore, Portis) and sometimes he's a mediocre fraud (C. Brown, Julius, Addai). How can we distinguish between the two?

That's the tricky part. Frank Gore was picked in the exact same draft slot as Kevin Smith. He was a miserable performer at his pro day, but he ended up being the real deal. Joseph Addai was a first round pick. He put on a show at the combine, but has been a disappointment for anyone who used a top 10 FF pick on him. Pedigree isn't 100% accurate. Even first round picks fail about 35-50% of the time. Nevertheless, there's no denying that the hit percentage is better in the higher rounds. So I do think draft position is one of the few objective factors you can incorporate into your overall analysis of unproven players. If they were touted as elite talents entering the league then I'm more inclined to believe that their short term success is not a mirage. That's not the same as automatically thinking every first round pick is better than every lower pick. I liked Clinton Portis a lot more than William Green after their rookie years. I think you have to examine each case and ask yourself whether there are strong objective and subjective reasons to believe that the player will succeed. Some players are so impressive that you can immediately throw their pedigree out the window, but when it comes to unproven players or people who aren't impressive enough to immediately win my subjective approval, I tend to gravitate towards prospects with better pedigrees.

Look at Deuce McAllister, Shaun Alexander, and Larry Johnson. These guys accomplished virtually nothing as rookies. If all you did was look at their immediate returns, you would've written them off as busts (and a lot of people did downgrade them). But there were objective reasons to be optimistic. All three of these players were first round picks. They weren't productive, but they had promising pedigrees. If you acquired them while they were riding the bench, you got a steal. It doesn't always work that way (Chris Perry, Cedric Benson, etc), but first round picks have a certain probability of success that makes them valuable assets even before they've proven whether they're legit of fraudulent. That's why I might be inclined to draft Mendenhall over guys like Smith and Forte. The very fact that he was a first round pick gives him value even though he's proven absolutely nothing on an NFL football field.

As far as Kevin Smith is concerned, I don't see any strong objective evidence to suggest that he's an above average NFL RB and he hasn't impressed me enough to win my subjective approval. Right now he's just a promising RB who may or may not last as a starter in the league. I can get guys like that 3-4 rounds later than where he's usually picked.

I'm in 100% agreement with this post. Where we disagree is the fact that Kevin Smith hasn't proven anything. His chances for future success are higher than if he had simply run for 400 yds, scored 2 TDs, and caught a few passes for 2008. As you stated, there are lower drafted players who go on to be successful and there are higher drafted players that bust. It's using all the information (draft spot, talent, situation, 1st year performance, etc.) that helps you evaluate a guy. I'm not saying you have to like Kevin Smith. I'm not saying you have to think he's more than just an average talent whose value comes from situation. But I've seen you say the same thing more than once in different spots that he hasn't proved anything yet and I think that simply isn't true.

 

[doowain]

I'm aware that it's not black and white. I acknowledged that in my first post:

That said, there's a bit of a gray area when you're trying to determine what constitutes a strong enough rookie year to render pedigree irrelevant. Eddie Royal impressed me enough to convince me that he's the real deal. Matt Forte didn't. I'm sure other people disagree. It's subjective in most cases (except for when it's an obvious transcendent talent like Colston or Portis).

As far as Royal vs. Smith, it does make sense to be sold on one and skeptical of the other. The number of WRs who catch 90 passes in their first season is dwarfed by the number of RBs who rush for 900 yards in their first season. What Smith did is common. What Royal did is rare. Royal is also a superior athlete with a better draft pedigree. Here are season totals for three different RBs:

245 carries, 1,154 yards (4.7 YPC)

220 carries, 1,067 yards (4.9 YPC)

222 carries, 1,009 yards (4.5 YPC)

Pretty impressive, right? If a rookie came in and put up numbers like this, you would probably think he was destined for a very nice career. You might be surprised to learn that the numbers above belong to Ladell Betts, Chris Brown, and Justin Fargas. When a mediocre journeyman puts together a decent season, we don't automatically assume that he's destined for a good career. Yet when an unproven young RB puts together a decent season, he almost always vaults into the top 10-15 of the consensus dynasty RB rankings. Sometimes he's the real deal (LT, Gore, Portis) and sometimes he's a mediocre fraud (C. Brown, Julius, Addai). How can we distinguish between the two?

That's the tricky part. Frank Gore was picked in the exact same draft slot as Kevin Smith. He was a miserable performer at his pro day, but he ended up being the real deal. Joseph Addai was a first round pick. He put on a show at the combine, but has been a disappointment for anyone who used a top 10 FF pick on him. Pedigree isn't 100% accurate. Even first round picks fail about 35-50% of the time. Nevertheless, there's no denying that the hit percentage is better in the higher rounds. So I do think draft position is one of the few objective factors you can incorporate into your overall analysis of unproven players. If they were touted as elite talents entering the league then I'm more inclined to believe that their short term success is not a mirage. That's not the same as automatically thinking every first round pick is better than every lower pick. I liked Clinton Portis a lot more than William Green after their rookie years. I think you have to examine each case and ask yourself whether there are strong objective and subjective reasons to believe that the player will succeed. Some players are so impressive that you can immediately throw their pedigree out the window, but when it comes to unproven players or people who aren't impressive enough to immediately win my subjective approval, I tend to gravitate towards prospects with better pedigrees.

Look at Deuce McAllister, Shaun Alexander, and Larry Johnson. These guys accomplished virtually nothing as rookies. If all you did was look at their immediate returns, you would've written them off as busts (and a lot of people did downgrade them). But there were objective reasons to be optimistic. All three of these players were first round picks. They weren't productive, but they had promising pedigrees. If you acquired them while they were riding the bench, you got a steal. It doesn't always work that way (Chris Perry, Cedric Benson, etc), but first round picks have a certain probability of success that makes them valuable assets even before they've proven whether they're legit of fraudulent. That's why I might be inclined to draft Mendenhall over guys like Smith and Forte. The very fact that he was a first round pick gives him value even though he's proven absolutely nothing on an NFL football field.

As far as Kevin Smith is concerned, I don't see any strong objective evidence to suggest that he's an above average NFL RB and he hasn't impressed me enough to win my subjective approval. Right now he's just a promising RB who may or may not last as a starter in the league. I can get guys like that 3-4 rounds later than where he's usually picked.

Eddie Royal is the next Michael Clayton.....Oh, and what had Rashard Mendenhall proven in his one year as a starter at Illinois that made you comfortable taking him in the early 2nd round in BBIII? One year of stats proves nothing about a player, right? I mean, any RB can put up stats with enough opportunity.

 

[crnerblitz]

Ya know, I think looking at Adrian Peterson and how my evaluation of his talent changed during his rookiee season has some bearing. Even when the draft pedigree is high I still can remain skeptical. I was of ADP.

The i-net scouts said he ran too high, didn't avoid contact, had hard hands. Yes he was still rated the FF 1.1 rookie pick but word was it was a down year for rooks and he was the best of a down year. I believed them. I even posted several times on here that I wasn't buying the hype. Go ahead do a search and look it up.

Then the Kid started piling up the stats EARLY in the season. This got my attention because the Vikes wern't supposed to be a good running team.

I tuned into the Vikings games. What I saw was a special talent on the field A kid who had wiggle, slide, kick, fluid hips and ran with vision and authority. After watching 3 games I quickly pulled the trigger on a guy whose value could only go higher.

Conclusion. You have to watch the kids for yourself and determine freely if the kids have "IT" or if they just are "taking advantage". That difference, and making the most of your own first hand opinion makes or breaks dynasty teams. Act or be left behind regardless of draft position.

 

[kremenull]

That's why I might be inclined to draft Mendenhall over guys like Smith and Forte

Somebody has gone a little bit too far on this one...... Now you just may not draft Forte, as you are not a believer, but I just can't believe that you would draft Mendenhall ahead of Forte in any draft format......other than last year's rookie and dynasty (start-up) drafts

 

[doowain]

That's why I might be inclined to draft Mendenhall over guys like Smith and Forte

Somebody has gone a little bit too far on this one...... Now you just may not draft Forte, as you are not a believer, but I just can't believe that you would draft Mendenhall ahead of Forte in any draft format......other than last year's rookie and dynasty (start-up) drafts

Wow, I must've skimmed over that quote from EBF. Even drafting Mendenhall over Smith is a stretch IMO. EBF wants to talk about not overvaluing young, unproven RBs (Smith) and he compares them to Julius Jones, Anthony Thomas, etc....yet he's quick to defend Mendenhall to the bitter end. I don't get it. The guy had one good year at Illinois, wasn't special enough to unseat Pierre Thomas while he was there, yet he's somehow incapable of being a worse NFL player than Smith or Forte just because he was a 1st round pick? I fail to see the connection.

 

[corpcow]

Ya know, I think looking at Adrian Peterson and how my evaluation of his talent changed during his rookiee season has some bearing. Even when the draft pedigree is high I still can remain skeptical. I was of ADP.

The i-net scouts said he ran too high, didn't avoid contact, had hard hands. Yes he was still rated the FF 1.1 rookie pick but word was it was a down year for rooks and he was the best of a down year. I believed them. I even posted several times on here that I wasn't buying the hype. Go ahead do a search and look it up.

Then the Kid started piling up the stats EARLY in the season. This got my attention because the Vikes wern't supposed to be a good running team.

I tuned into the Vikings games. What I saw was a special talent on the field A kid who had wiggle, slide, kick, fluid hips and ran with vision and authority. After watching 3 games I quickly pulled the trigger on a guy whose value could only go higher.

Conclusion. You have to watch the kids for yourself and determine freely if the kids have "IT" or if they just are "taking advantage". That difference, and making the most of your own first hand opinion makes or breaks dynasty teams. Act or be left behind regardless of draft position.

Really? The Vikes were a pretty dominant running team at the time with one of the best lines in football. Their passing game was atrocious, their entire offense was based around the run, and Chester Taylor (by all accounts an "average" talent) just put up over 1200 yards on 300 carries (>4.0 YPC) with teams stacking the box. I think the real contrast was putting a guy like ADP with his talent in that situation... with less carries, the same line (actually didn't they lose Birk last year?) he put up 5.6 YPC and more TDs.

 

[corpcow]

That's why I might be inclined to draft Mendenhall over guys like Smith and Forte

Somebody has gone a little bit too far on this one...... Now you just may not draft Forte, as you are not a believer, but I just can't believe that you would draft Mendenhall ahead of Forte in any draft format......other than last year's rookie and dynasty (start-up) drafts

Wow, I must've skimmed over that quote from EBF. Even drafting Mendenhall over Smith is a stretch IMO. EBF wants to talk about not overvaluing young, unproven RBs (Smith) and he compares them to Julius Jones, Anthony Thomas, etc....yet he's quick to defend Mendenhall to the bitter end. I don't get it. The guy had one good year at Illinois, wasn't special enough to unseat Pierre Thomas while he was there, yet he's somehow incapable of being a worse NFL player than Smith or Forte just because he was a 1st round pick? I fail to see the connection.

You know, maybe we should start weighting draft position based on the TEAM that drafted them. E.g., the Steelers have a pretty impressive track record with their first round picks. So do teams like Indy, the Pats, the Giants, SDC, etc. Conversely, franchises like the Lions have been pretty poor in recent years (before the new front office, so we'll see how this year plays out). But, my point maybe is that we should not only look at draft position but % success by the GM/FO making the selection.

I still believe draft position is a relevant but not dispositive factor. It generally tells you something about the overall potential/talent of the player, but obviously there's more that goes into success. As Maurice said, it's all about refinement over time. Early on in their careers, we don't know much about a player - so, talent/potential needs to be factored in heavily and one way that is objectively captured is in the draft position/grade.

Of course, it's also relevant to look at why a player was drafted late. Generally a player is going to slip because there is "more risk on the table" - if you have the physical tools, have shown the mental ability, have good character, and produced well, you'll be a high pick. As you move down the draft board, one or more of those become question marks. For me, I tend to focus on players taken late in the draft who are EXCEPTIONAL at most of those things but fell because a real lack in one particular area. In other words, I'd rather have a player who has one really bad thing to address than players who are mediocre across the board, because they have less upside.

 

[Football Jones]

This thing is impossible to quantify. Matt Forte & Chris Johnson are good examples. Some FFers are still hesitant, but their natural running/catching ability are at the elite level, IMO. You still want to use every bit of info available, but I believe your eyes are still the best indicator of success.

In the end, that's what FF is (evaluating what you see).

 

[RockHard]

That's why I might be inclined to draft Mendenhall over guys like Smith and Forte

Somebody has gone a little bit too far on this one...... Now you just may not draft Forte, as you are not a believer, but I just can't believe that you would draft Mendenhall ahead of Forte in any draft format......other than last year's rookie and dynasty (start-up) drafts

Wow, I must've skimmed over that quote from EBF. Even drafting Mendenhall over Smith is a stretch IMO. EBF wants to talk about not overvaluing young, unproven RBs (Smith) and he compares them to Julius Jones, Anthony Thomas, etc....yet he's quick to defend Mendenhall to the bitter end. I don't get it. The guy had one good year at Illinois, wasn't special enough to unseat Pierre Thomas while he was there, yet he's somehow incapable of being a worse NFL player than Smith or Forte just because he was a 1st round pick? I fail to see the connection.

To call Mendenhall a one year wonder is somewhat disingenuous. Mendenhall has been identified as an elite player dating back to high school. Pierre Thomas was the primary ball carrier at Illinois due to Mendenhall's fumbling problems not because he was a better talent. Mendenhall's 2006 production nearly matched Thomas's with a lot less touches.

Rushing		  RecievingMendenhall 78	640	8.2	5   12   164	13.7   1Thomas	131	755	5.8	5   12	79	6.6	1

Mendenhall's college production along with his performance at the combine lead me to believe that he will be one of the premier backs in the league.

 

[EBF]

That's why I might be inclined to draft Mendenhall over guys like Smith and Forte

Somebody has gone a little bit too far on this one...... Now you just may not draft Forte, as you are not a believer, but I just can't believe that you would draft Mendenhall ahead of Forte in any draft format......other than last year's rookie and dynasty (start-up) drafts

Wow, I must've skimmed over that quote from EBF. Even drafting Mendenhall over Smith is a stretch IMO. EBF wants to talk about not overvaluing young, unproven RBs (Smith) and he compares them to Julius Jones, Anthony Thomas, etc....yet he's quick to defend Mendenhall to the bitter end. I don't get it. The guy had one good year at Illinois, wasn't special enough to unseat Pierre Thomas while he was there, yet he's somehow incapable of being a worse NFL player than Smith or Forte just because he was a 1st round pick? I fail to see the connection.

I think you missed one of my key points: that unproven players who were high draft picks have a pretty significant probability of success even if they haven't accomplished anything on the football field yet. The argument for putting a high value on Mendenhall despite his lack of production is the same argument for putting a high value on Larry Johnson, Shaun Alexander, and Deuce McAllister after their quiet rookie years. These players were recognized as first round talents by NFL scouts and had the potential to boom in a big way once they got a chance to start. Maybe Mendenhall is closer to Cedric Benson or Chris Perry than he is to Alexander or LJ, but my subjective opinion has always been that he's a quality franchise back destined to become a good starter in the NFL. Nothing he did last year changed that opinion. He didn't play enough for me to upgrade or downgrade him.Just because I understand why reaching for unproven RBs is generally a bad idea doesn't mean I'm not willing to violate that maxim in specific cases if I have strong reason to believe that a player will succeed. I drafted Reggie Bush at 1.03 in the HyperActive 1 startup draft before he had played a down in the NFL. In the case of BYB3, I wanted a young RB to go with my long term approach. Mendenhall seemed like a solid choice at RB12 given the other options on the board. I could've done better (Turner or Stewart) or I could've done worse (Maroney or McGahee). I expect Mendenhall to be pretty good, so I'm not unhappy with the pick. It's kind of irrelevant either way. What I did in this draft or that draft has no bearing on whether or not what I'm saying about teams overvaluing young RBs is true.

As for Mendenhall vs. Smith/Forte, it's a moot point since Mendenhall regularly falls to the 5th-6th round while people reach for Forte in the 1st round and Smith in the 3rd-4th round. I would much rather grab Mendenhall at his ADP than use a premium pick on one of those guys.

 

[gregjcross]

That's why I might be inclined to draft Mendenhall over guys like Smith and Forte

Somebody has gone a little bit too far on this one...... Now you just may not draft Forte, as you are not a believer, but I just can't believe that you would draft Mendenhall ahead of Forte in any draft format......other than last year's rookie and dynasty (start-up) drafts

Wow, I must've skimmed over that quote from EBF. Even drafting Mendenhall over Smith is a stretch IMO. EBF wants to talk about not overvaluing young, unproven RBs (Smith) and he compares them to Julius Jones, Anthony Thomas, etc....yet he's quick to defend Mendenhall to the bitter end. I don't get it. The guy had one good year at Illinois, wasn't special enough to unseat Pierre Thomas while he was there, yet he's somehow incapable of being a worse NFL player than Smith or Forte just because he was a 1st round pick? I fail to see the connection.

I think you missed one of my key points: that unproven players who were high draft picks have a pretty significant probability of success even if they haven't accomplished anything on the football field yet. The argument for putting a high value on Mendenhall despite his lack of production is the same argument for putting a high value on Larry Johnson, Shaun Alexander, and Deuce McAllister after their quiet rookie years. These players were recognized as first round talents by NFL scouts and had the potential to boom in a big way once they got a chance to start. Maybe Mendenhall is closer to Cedric Benson or Chris Perry than he is to Alexander or LJ, but my subjective opinion has always been that he's a quality franchise back destined to become a good starter in the NFL. Nothing he did last year changed that opinion. He didn't play enough for me to upgrade or downgrade him.Just because I understand why reaching for unproven RBs is generally a bad idea doesn't mean I'm not willing to violate that maxim in specific cases if I have strong reason to believe that a player will succeed. I drafted Reggie Bush at 1.03 in the HyperActive 1 startup draft before he had played a down in the NFL. In the case of BYB3, I wanted a young RB to go with my long term approach. Mendenhall seemed like a solid choice at RB12 given the other options on the board. I could've done better (Turner or Stewart) or I could've done worse (Maroney or McGahee). I expect Mendenhall to be pretty good, so I'm not unhappy with the pick. It's kind of irrelevant either way. What I did in this draft or that draft has no bearing on whether or not what I'm saying about teams overvaluing young RBs is true.

As for Mendenhall vs. Smith/Forte, it's a moot point since Mendenhall regularly falls to the 5th-6th round while people reach for Forte in the 1st round and Smith in the 3rd-4th round. I would much rather grab Mendenhall at his ADP than use a premium pick on one of those guys.

I think Lamont Jordan backs up your points on this, Like Mendenhall, the guy did nothing with the Jets for three years , backing up a potential hall of famer in C-Martin, though he had a 100 yard game sharing time. But then he got his real shot at PT and, **you can relate this to his pedigree**, he was a stud in the frist year. Failed the second year due to QB /O-line issues and again ooked like a stud in year 3 (2007)with OAK, then hurt yet again in .and.. I believe that DET Kevin Jones (first rounder) reflects the other points about small sample sizes. End of his rookie year , he had a very hot 8 games. I remember someone saying "Kevin Jones is better than Fred Taylor in dynasty"....... that is VERY TYPICAL of how people rate rookie first round RBs, going overboard on them. He would never be close to Fred Taylor again in his career.

 

[Biabreakable]

The main reason I still hang on to Carnell Williams is because of where he was drafted. What he was expected to do and the chance that he might be healthy enough to get a chance to play again.

If this were a player who had been drafted in the 4th round he might not be on my roster anymore.

And likewise if you are looking for buy low opportunities I think draft position is something to consider. Getting Thomas Jones after he failed in Arizona for example. Garrison Hearst is another one.

These guys have a lot of talent. It is usualy injuries that cause them to fail. A player with that kind of talent gets more chances to come back than a guy drafted in round 4 will.

 

[loose circuits]

strictly using numbers is difficult to form a solid basis as there are too many factors that you can't put in a quantitative format. Injuries, situations, offensive line turnover, defense keeping games close (for RB's), etc... I think you have to evaluate each player using all factors in a qualitative way.

The difference between Smith and journeyman like Fargas, Graham, etc... is that he is in an ideal situation and has a decent history if you look at his college career combined with his action last year. Plenty to like there. Read a report on Rotoworld that Mo Morris should only get 5 touches a game or something like that...

Eddie Royal on the other hand loses his QB, but steps into an offense that should suit his abilities so there is plenty to like there as well.

An interesting study would be to check the top 12- 24 RB's/WR's for each of the past 5 years and note their draft position. My assumption would be that you would find they come from all different rounds.

 

[loose circuits]

This may be somewhat relevant to this discussion when evaluating 2nd year players.

quick study of rookie WR's since 2000 who had over 500 yds rec:

1 Peter Warrick (improved)

1 Sylvester Morris (injury)

2 DJax (improved)

2 Snoop Minnis (injury)

1 Chambers (regressed slightly)

3 Rod Gardner (improved)

4 Koren Robinson (improved)

5 Josh Reed (improved)

6 Ashley Lelie (improved)

2 D. Stallworth (regressed, but started fewer games)

3 Boldin (injury)

3 Colbert (regressed big time, never heard from again)

4 Clayton (see above)

5 Lee Evans (regressed a little)

6 Roy (regressed a little, injury?)

7 Fitz (improved)

8 Reggie Brown (improvement)

9 Braylon (improvement)

10 Colston (improvement)

11 Jennings (improved)

12 Holmes (improved)

7 James Jones (regressed)

13 Bowe (improved)

14 Calvin (improved)

14 7 3

I see a 58% chance that he improves on his 500 yds

I see a 29% chance that he regresses

and a 13% chance he gets injured

looks like a lot more guys improved then didn't using a baseline of 500 yds. Did I miss any? I was using NFL.com's draft history to look it up, so it's possible I overlooked someone.

 

[Biabreakable]

I was looking for the thread where I layed out all the RB by draft position and how they finished each season of their career. Did this for 10 or 15 seasons a couple years ago. But I didn't find the thread.

Will try again.

 

[Jeff Tefertiller]

I was looking for the thread where I layed out all the RB by draft position and how they finished each season of their career. Did this for 10 or 15 seasons a couple years ago. But I didn't find the thread.Will try again.

i am working on a series of articles looking at every skill position draft pick dating back to 1990. Should be ready fairly soon.

 

[CBower4545]

That's why I might be inclined to draft Mendenhall over guys like Smith and Forte

Somebody has gone a little bit too far on this one...... Now you just may not draft Forte, as you are not a believer, but I just can't believe that you would draft Mendenhall ahead of Forte in any draft format......other than last year's rookie and dynasty (start-up) drafts

Wow, I must've skimmed over that quote from EBF. Even drafting Mendenhall over Smith is a stretch IMO. EBF wants to talk about not overvaluing young, unproven RBs (Smith) and he compares them to Julius Jones, Anthony Thomas, etc....yet he's quick to defend Mendenhall to the bitter end. I don't get it. The guy had one good year at Illinois, wasn't special enough to unseat Pierre Thomas while he was there, yet he's somehow incapable of being a worse NFL player than Smith or Forte just because he was a 1st round pick? I fail to see the connection.

I think you missed one of my key points: that unproven players who were high draft picks have a pretty significant probability of success even if they haven't accomplished anything on the football field yet. The argument for putting a high value on Mendenhall despite his lack of production is the same argument for putting a high value on Larry Johnson, Shaun Alexander, and Deuce McAllister after their quiet rookie years. These players were recognized as first round talents by NFL scouts and had the potential to boom in a big way once they got a chance to start. Maybe Mendenhall is closer to Cedric Benson or Chris Perry than he is to Alexander or LJ, but my subjective opinion has always been that he's a quality franchise back destined to become a good starter in the NFL. Nothing he did last year changed that opinion. He didn't play enough for me to upgrade or downgrade him.Just because I understand why reaching for unproven RBs is generally a bad idea doesn't mean I'm not willing to violate that maxim in specific cases if I have strong reason to believe that a player will succeed. I drafted Reggie Bush at 1.03 in the HyperActive 1 startup draft before he had played a down in the NFL. In the case of BYB3, I wanted a young RB to go with my long term approach. Mendenhall seemed like a solid choice at RB12 given the other options on the board. I could've done better (Turner or Stewart) or I could've done worse (Maroney or McGahee). I expect Mendenhall to be pretty good, so I'm not unhappy with the pick. It's kind of irrelevant either way. What I did in this draft or that draft has no bearing on whether or not what I'm saying about teams overvaluing young RBs is true.

As for Mendenhall vs. Smith/Forte, it's a moot point since Mendenhall regularly falls to the 5th-6th round while people reach for Forte in the 1st round and Smith in the 3rd-4th round. I would much rather grab Mendenhall at his ADP than use a premium pick on one of those guys.

As Chase did let's look at the running backs from 1978 to 1998, that have Mendenhall's "pedigree" and all the running backs from the same period who lack "pedigree" but produced top 20 numbers ala Kevin Smith. If what your saying is true we should see that a large % of Mendenhall "pedigree" guys boom in a big way, while Kevin Smith guys do not. (1978 to 1998 to avoid active players and take players who played in situations similar to today's) (note I am using 161 fantasy points as a threshold of accomplishment since it is the average top 20 number from the past three years)30 Players have been selected between 20 overall and the end of 1st round from 1978 to 1988

The 12 Never scored 100 points in any season

Steve Broussard

Vaughn Dunbar

Roger Vick

Gerald White

Greg Hill

Dexter Carter

Terrance Fergusan

Reggie Dupard

Steve Sewell

Booker Moore

Greg Hawthorne

John Avery

4 Never broke 161(top20) Fantasy Points

Brad Muster

Vargas Fergusan

Rod Bernstine

Elvis Peacock

These 16 were completely and utterly worthless to their fantasy owners

9 Broke 161 Fantasy points twice or fewer

Charlies White 215 (8th year!) once

Lorenzo Hampton 199 (2nd year) once

Craig Heyward 191.3 (8th year!) once

Gary Anderson 185 (2nd year) once

Rashaan Salaam 173 (1st year) once

(year above 161 fantasy points noted)

All of the the one year wonders are busts. No elite seasons and only one season as a low #1 to mid #2 RB is not good enough.

Cleveland gary 185 (2nd year) , 201 (4th year)

Antowain Smith 212.9 (year 5) , 170.5 (year 6)

Harvey Williams 179 (year 4) , 202.9 (year 5)

Lorenzo White 179 ( year 3) , 234.7 (year 5)

(year above 161 fantasy points noted)

I think these guys just fall in the disappointing category. At least you got something if your were patient. As Smith and Williams took awhile to give good returns and Gary and White were inconsistent.

That leaves 5 that had repeated success

Robert Smith 188 (year 5), 195 (year 6), 246 (year 8)

James Brooks 222 (year 5), 231 (year 6) , 205 (year 8), 208 (year 9), 181 (year 10)

Rodney Hampton 194.2 (year 2) , 219.6 (year 3), 192.4 (year 6) *he broke 150 in year 4 & 5

Gregg Bell 185 (year 1), 199.9 (year 2 ), 241(year 5) , 212 (year 6)

Neal Anderson 219 (year 3) , 260.9 (year 4) , 234 (year 5) ,165.5 (year 6) , 164.1 (year 7)

(year above 161 fantasy points noted)

Anderson was a stud. Hampton was very good but not a career stud he only gave one elite year adding only two other starter years. Now comes the tricky part. How much do you value Brooks and Smith? Niether could put much of anything together for 4 years, would you have held them or cut bait? Part of the problem here is in the real world you might never actual get to see their production. For the arguments sake let's just say you did keep those three inconsistent guys. Smith probably didn't do enough to be called a career stud. That would leave Brooks, Bell and Anderson as studs.

Final Breakdown

16 out of 30 worthless

5 out of 30 busts

4 out of 30 disappointments

2 out 30 Good

3 out of 30 Studs

so you have a 15% chance of getting a good or stud RB IF you are patient. It's like the chasing gutshot straight draw with two cards to come? (there both about 15% chances) Forget the low percentage for a second what is really surprising is the lack of "Boom" players Besides Neal's numbers the rest are closer to good then great.

Versus a Kevin Smith who has finished in the top 20 as a rookie. If you take an average of the past three years #20 RB it's 161 points. 14 RBs who where drafted outside of the first round have finised top 20.

6 have been busts.

Terry Kirby never finished in the top twenty again

Karim Abdul-Jabbar one more season of 211.3 FBG points

Bobby Humphrey - one more season of 177.4 points

Ickey Woods - never broke 100 fantasy points again

Reuben mayes - never broke 100 fantasy points

Kevin Mack - passed 130 four more seasons but never top 20

(year above 161 fantasy points noted)

8 have been good to studs

Name Fantasy points & year

Joe Cribbs 232 (year2), 230 (year 3) , 225.5 (year 4)

William Andrews 201 (year 2) , 275.6 (year 3 ) , 283 (year 5)

Corey Dillon 160 year 2, 185 year 3, 201 year 4, 232 year 5, 202 year 6, 251 year 8, 169 year 9, 173 year 10

Terrell Davis 274 year 2, 293 year 3, 360 year 4

Curtis Martin 251 year 2, 176 year 3, 219 year 4, 202 year 5, 237 year 6, 249 year 7, 188 year 8, 169 year 9, 278 year 9

Ricky Watters 193.6 year 2, 225 year 3, 242 year 4, 263 year 5, 197 year 6, 215 year 7, 201 year 8, 239 year 9

Herschel Walker 208 year 2, 243 year 3, 187 year 4, 162 year 5, 162 year 6, 194 year 7

Roger Craig 192 year 2, 296 year 3, 187 year 4, 263 year 6, 194 year 7

(year above 161 fantasy points noted)

So 57% of RBs who would not be considered to have "pedigree" but did place in the top 20 as a rookie become good to elite fantasy contributers quickly, while 15% of the guys with Mendenhall "pedigree" take awhile and inconsistently put up good to elite numbers.

For every Alexander there is a slew of Roger Vicks. I am looking forward to Jeff's articles. I think draft position is overstated in here and elsewhere.

 

[Biabreakable]

I was looking for the thread where I layed out all the RB by draft position and how they finished each season of their career. Did this for 10 or 15 seasons a couple years ago. But I didn't find the thread.Will try again.

i am working on a series of articles looking at every skill position draft pick dating back to 1990. Should be ready fairly soon.

Sweet bee! I look forward to seeing that. Even if I found my old work (still haven't) it needs to be updated anyways. Interested to see how you break them down.

 

[Biabreakable]

That's why I might be inclined to draft Mendenhall over guys like Smith and Forte

Somebody has gone a little bit too far on this one...... Now you just may not draft Forte, as you are not a believer, but I just can't believe that you would draft Mendenhall ahead of Forte in any draft format......other than last year's rookie and dynasty (start-up) drafts

Wow, I must've skimmed over that quote from EBF. Even drafting Mendenhall over Smith is a stretch IMO. EBF wants to talk about not overvaluing young, unproven RBs (Smith) and he compares them to Julius Jones, Anthony Thomas, etc....yet he's quick to defend Mendenhall to the bitter end. I don't get it. The guy had one good year at Illinois, wasn't special enough to unseat Pierre Thomas while he was there, yet he's somehow incapable of being a worse NFL player than Smith or Forte just because he was a 1st round pick? I fail to see the connection.

I think you missed one of my key points: that unproven players who were high draft picks have a pretty significant probability of success even if they haven't accomplished anything on the football field yet. The argument for putting a high value on Mendenhall despite his lack of production is the same argument for putting a high value on Larry Johnson, Shaun Alexander, and Deuce McAllister after their quiet rookie years. These players were recognized as first round talents by NFL scouts and had the potential to boom in a big way once they got a chance to start. Maybe Mendenhall is closer to Cedric Benson or Chris Perry than he is to Alexander or LJ, but my subjective opinion has always been that he's a quality franchise back destined to become a good starter in the NFL. Nothing he did last year changed that opinion. He didn't play enough for me to upgrade or downgrade him.Just because I understand why reaching for unproven RBs is generally a bad idea doesn't mean I'm not willing to violate that maxim in specific cases if I have strong reason to believe that a player will succeed. I drafted Reggie Bush at 1.03 in the HyperActive 1 startup draft before he had played a down in the NFL. In the case of BYB3, I wanted a young RB to go with my long term approach. Mendenhall seemed like a solid choice at RB12 given the other options on the board. I could've done better (Turner or Stewart) or I could've done worse (Maroney or McGahee). I expect Mendenhall to be pretty good, so I'm not unhappy with the pick. It's kind of irrelevant either way. What I did in this draft or that draft has no bearing on whether or not what I'm saying about teams overvaluing young RBs is true.

As for Mendenhall vs. Smith/Forte, it's a moot point since Mendenhall regularly falls to the 5th-6th round while people reach for Forte in the 1st round and Smith in the 3rd-4th round. I would much rather grab Mendenhall at his ADP than use a premium pick on one of those guys.

As Chase did let's look at the running backs from 1978 to 1998, that have Mendenhall's "pedigree" and all the running backs from the same period who lack "pedigree" but produced top 20 numbers ala Kevin Smith. If what your saying is true we should see that a large % of Mendenhall "pedigree" guys boom in a big way, while Kevin Smith guys do not. (1978 to 1998 to avoid active players and take players who played in situations similar to today's) (note I am using 161 fantasy points as a threshold of accomplishment since it is the average top 20 number from the past three years)30 Players have been selected between 20 overall and the end of 1st round from 1978 to 1988

The 12 Never scored 100 points in any season

Steve Broussard

Vaughn Dunbar

Roger Vick

Gerald White

Greg Hill

Dexter Carter

Terrance Fergusan

Reggie Dupard

Steve Sewell

Booker Moore

Greg Hawthorne

John Avery

4 Never broke 161(top20) Fantasy Points

Brad Muster

Vargas Fergusan

Rod Bernstine

Elvis Peacock

These 16 were completely and utterly worthless to their fantasy owners

9 Broke 161 Fantasy points twice or fewer

Charlies White 215 (8th year!) once

Lorenzo Hampton 199 (2nd year) once

Craig Heyward 191.3 (8th year!) once

Gary Anderson 185 (2nd year) once

Rashaan Salaam 173 (1st year) once

(year above 161 fantasy points noted)

All of the the one year wonders are busts. No elite seasons and only one season as a low #1 to mid #2 RB is not good enough.

Cleveland gary 185 (2nd year) , 201 (4th year)

Antowain Smith 212.9 (year 5) , 170.5 (year 6)

Harvey Williams 179 (year 4) , 202.9 (year 5)

Lorenzo White 179 ( year 3) , 234.7 (year 5)

(year above 161 fantasy points noted)

I think these guys just fall in the disappointing category. At least you got something if your were patient. As Smith and Williams took awhile to give good returns and Gary and White were inconsistent.

That leaves 5 that had repeated success

Robert Smith 188 (year 5), 195 (year 6), 246 (year 8)

James Brooks 222 (year 5), 231 (year 6) , 205 (year 8), 208 (year 9), 181 (year 10)

Rodney Hampton 194.2 (year 2) , 219.6 (year 3), 192.4 (year 6) *he broke 150 in year 4 & 5

Gregg Bell 185 (year 1), 199.9 (year 2 ), 241(year 5) , 212 (year 6)

Neal Anderson 219 (year 3) , 260.9 (year 4) , 234 (year 5) ,165.5 (year 6) , 164.1 (year 7)

(year above 161 fantasy points noted)

Anderson was a stud. Hampton was very good but not a career stud he only gave one elite year adding only two other starter years. Now comes the tricky part. How much do you value Brooks and Smith? Niether could put much of anything together for 4 years, would you have held them or cut bait? Part of the problem here is in the real world you might never actual get to see their production. For the arguments sake let's just say you did keep those three inconsistent guys. Smith probably didn't do enough to be called a career stud. That would leave Brooks, Bell and Anderson as studs.

Final Breakdown

16 out of 30 worthless

5 out of 30 busts

4 out of 30 disappointments

2 out 30 Good

3 out of 30 Studs

so you have a 15% chance of getting a good or stud RB IF you are patient. It's like the chasing gutshot straight draw with two cards to come? (there both about 15% chances) Forget the low percentage for a second what is really surprising is the lack of "Boom" players Besides Neal's numbers the rest are closer to good then great.

Versus a Kevin Smith who has finished in the top 20 as a rookie. If you take an average of the past three years #20 RB it's 161 points. 14 RBs who where drafted outside of the first round.

6 have been busts.

Terry Kirby never finished in the top twenty again

Karim Abdul-Jabbar one more season of 211.3 FBG points

Bobby Humphrey - one more season of 177.4 points

Ickey Woods - never broke 100 fantasy points again

Reuben mayes - never broke 100 fantasy points

Kevin Mack - passed 130 four more seasons but never top 20

(year above 161 fantasy points noted)

8 have been good to studs

Name Fantasy points & year

Joe Cribbs 232 (year2), 230 (year 3) , 225.5 (year 4)

William Andrews 201 (year 2) , 275.6 (year 3 ) , 283 (year 5)

Corey Dillon 160 year 2, 185 year 3, 201 year 4, 232 year 5, 202 year 6, 251 year 8, 169 year 9, 173 year 10

Terrell Davis 274 year 2, 293 year 3, 360 year 4

Curtis Martin 251 year 2, 176 year 3, 219 year 4, 202 year 5, 237 year 6, 249 year 7, 188 year 8, 169 year 9, 278 year 9

Ricky Watters 193.6 year 2, 225 year 3, 242 year 4, 263 year 5, 197 year 6, 215 year 7, 201 year 8, 239 year 9

Herschel Walker 208 year 2, 243 year 3, 187 year 4, 162 year 5, 162 year 6, 194 year 7

Roger Craig 192 year 2, 296 year 3, 187 year 4, 263 year 6, 194 year 7

(year above 161 fantasy points noted)

So 57% of RBs who would not be considered to have "pedigree" but did place in the top 20 as a rookie become good to elite fantasy contributers quickly, while 15% of the guys with Mendenhall "pedigree" take awhile and inconsistently put up good to elite numbers.

For every Alexander there is a slew of Roger Vicks. I am looking forward to Jeff's articles. I think draft position is overstated in here and elsewhere.

Interesting stuff. Thanks for taking the time to share this with us.I don't think you need to eliminate active players from this analysis however. If they are still active we still know what they did in year 2 ect. even though the player is not done yet. For this discussion the 1st half of the players career is more important than the 2nd half.

If you use a high draft pick on a young player and get nothing from that players 1st 3 years in the league. Well. I am not going to say that player can't be good at some point later in their career and they still might be worth rostering. But nothing for the 1st 3 years or not much and you pretty much have to accept the guy has been a bust and your assesment of the player and situation was wrong.

Injuries can happen to any player and most of the 1st round RB who have been busts. For a lot of them it is because of injuries.

I am a big proponent of players with toughness who can handle a lot of carries. Toughness is something very difficult to judge however,

From recent years of Barber and Maroney and also Ronnie Brown and Cadilac Williams. These guys shared time with each other on the college level. 3 of them were 1st round picks. One of them was a 4th rounder. I think I will be a bit more careful about guys who shared time in college however moving forward.

As it stands Barber, the 4th round pick from these 4 has been the most successful.