What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

RB is not a plug and play league as much as we like to think (1 Viewer)

Carter_Can_Fly

Footballguy
Below is a list of all the would be starting RB's for teams right now as to who is on the roster. Of course some of these guys are not healthy right now but would be starting if they were. Next to the players name is what round of the NFL draft they were taken. Although we like to think of the position as plug and play and that you don't need to invest in guys you will notice that the majority of players are ones that were high picks.

Fantasy football has somewhat skewed our ideology that you can find guys off the street who can produce, but that really is not the case.

Adrian Peterson...1st round pick

Marshawn Lynch...1st round pick

Darren McFadden...1st round pick

Chris Johnson...1st round pick

Willis McGahee...1st round pick

Trent Richardson..1st round pick

Doug Martin....1st round pick

CJ Spiller...1st round pick

Ryan Matthews...1st round pick

Jonathon Stewart...1st round pick

Rashard Mendenhall...1st round pick

Donald Brown...1st round pick

Beanie Wells...1st round pick

Stevan Jackson...1st round pick

Reggie Bush....1st round pick

Cedric Benson...1st round pick

Matt Forte... 2nd round pick

LeSean McCoy...2nd round pick

Ray Rice...2nd round pick

MJD...2nd round

Mikel Leshoure...2nd round

Frank Gore..3rd round (although first pick in 3rd round only fell due to injuries in college)

Jamaal Charles...3rd round pick

Stevan Ridley....3rd round

Shonne Green...3rd round

Demarco Murray...3rd round

Michael Turner...5th round

Alfred Morris...6th round

Ahmad Bradshaw 7th round pick

Arian Foster UDFA

Pierre Thomas UDFA

Benjarvis Green-Ellis UDFA

 
These look cherry picked to me. There are lots and have been lots of RBs that have performed well in lower draft slots.

 
These look cherry picked to me. There are lots and have been lots of RBs that have performed well in lower draft slots.
He was looking at each teams starting running back, if they were healthy.
Well, then he screwed up Buffalo's since Fred Jackson is the starter and was an UDFA.
does this really change the message of the thread?
Well, yeah, kind of. Especially since I think a number of the guys that were first round picks that are listed as starters were probably going to lose their jobs anyway when they got hurt.
 
This is true for every position. The guys drafted in the early rounds, in general, have a higher chance of being the teams starter than the guy drafted late in the draft.

 
These look cherry picked to me. There are lots and have been lots of RBs that have performed well in lower draft slots.
He was looking at each teams starting running back, if they were healthy.
Well, then he screwed up Buffalo's since Fred Jackson is the starter and was an UDFA.
does this really change the message of the thread?
Well, yeah, kind of. Especially since I think a number of the guys that were first round picks that are listed as starters were probably going to lose their jobs anyway when they got hurt.
Which ones? Mendenhall? Wells?
 
I think the new CBA will move the league further to a plug and play with regards to RBs. Not that they won't plug with a first rounder, but we will see fewer lucrative second contracts with added year and short shelf life of RBs.

 
I don't know if plug and play is the right term for RBs. But there is definately value later in the draft. Some quick notes:

1. There is a big difference between a RB taken in the top 10 picks of the first round vs. later in the 1st round. Since RBs have been devalued, few go really high in the draft.

2. Quite a few of the 1st round RBs are not starting for the team that drafted them.

3. Some of the best RBs were not drafted in the 1st round, including Rice, McCoy, and Foster.

That is not to say that drafting a RB in the 1st round or high in the 1st round is wrong. But there can be value later in the draft.

 
These look cherry picked to me. There are lots and have been lots of RBs that have performed well in lower draft slots.
He was looking at each teams starting running back, if they were healthy.
Well, then he screwed up Buffalo's since Fred Jackson is the starter and was an UDFA.
does this really change the message of the thread?
Well, yeah, kind of. Especially since I think a number of the guys that were first round picks that are listed as starters were probably going to lose their jobs anyway when they got hurt.
Which ones? Mendenhall? Wells?
Yeah, seems like he is reaching. The list seems pretty objective to me, and fairly informative. Of course there are always hidden gems, but by and large, the best RB talent ends up going at the top of the draft, just like with every other position.By the by, I don't think Mendenhall would have been displaced, and if Wells was going to be displaced prior to injury, it would have been by a guy drafted within a couple of slots of his draft position.
 
These look cherry picked to me. There are lots and have been lots of RBs that have performed well in lower draft slots.
He was looking at each teams starting running back, if they were healthy.
Exactly.I tried to make the list as objective as possible. I am not trying to mislead anyone at all. One correction would be that Fred Jackson is listed as the starter. So that was just an error and not intentional.The reason I posted the list was I was looking at the Packers situation and was wondering what they are going to do for the future. They have scrubs on their roster right now and had acquired Benson (a first round pick many years ago) to fill the void there for the time being.My take is I don't think teams neccessarily need to draft RB's early in the first round, but I think your percentages obviously increase by a larger margin if you invest in a guy in the first 2 rounds of the NFL draft.The list obviously speaks for itslef. It is not to say that a team can't find a guy outside the top 2 rounds of the draft, but it is more of an anamoly. I did not realize until I put the list together that it was so apparent.
 
Also here is the NFL draft slot of the 3rd round guys

Frank Gore 3.01

Shonne Green 3.01

Demarco Murray 3.07

Stevan Ridley 3.09

Jamaal Charles 3.10

 
Also need to take into consideration that highly drafted RBs are given far more opportunities than those drafted later.

 
Also need to take into consideration that highly drafted RBs are given far more opportunities than those drafted later.
I think it is safe to assume that it is because they are more skilled and better than the guys behind him. The league is obviously a produce and play league and the coaches are always under pressure to win. Whether we like to believe it or not, coaches are going to play the guys who they think give their teams the best chance to win. Now coaches make mistakes, and there might be times that there are added pressure to play someone over someone else. But it would be foolish to think that when a coach is game planning or making the depth chart for a game and a season would say hmmmm this guy is a better player but becuase he was an UDFA he is not going to play. As Herman Ewards said..."you play to win the game." The great coaches and longest tenured coaches play the best players. Coughlin, Bellicheck etc
 
The idea that NFL teams, GMs, and coaches don't put much weight into running backs is hugely exaggerated by both the media and forums like this.

Every year people say it, and every year GMs continue to draft running backs highly and pay them big contracts. I'm not going to go searching for it now, but in the offseason we dove into this a bit and the trends actually showed that running backs are being draft earlier now than they were 10-15 years ago.

It's true that there are some situations that you can plug any running back into, but this is true of every position. Plug any QB into the Patriots system (like Matt Cassell), and they'll play well. Plug any DB into a team with a ferocious pass rush, and they'll play well. Of course, while any QB would play well in New England, not many would play as well as Tom Brady. Just like while any RB would play well in some of the recent San Diego teams, not many would have played as well as LaDainian Tomlinson. Likewise, if you plug an average running back into Minnesota for the last 5 years we'd all be talking about how even Walter Payton couldn't have run there.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Many GM's still invest highly in a single RB (high picks or money). I don't know if anyone disputes that.

The only dispute is whether or not that's smart, which, imo, it's clearly not.

Of those first round picks, only 3* are on a team with a real shot of winning a SB. In all 3 cases, the presence of a future HOF QB is the only reason.

*Even that's highly misleading though. 2 of the 3 weren't drafted by the current team (McGahee, Benson). That only leaves Mendenhall (and I'm fairly certain PIT would like to have that one back).

If you live in a world where you can imagine Christian Ponder or rookie Russell Wilson winning a Super Bowl, then I guess you can throw AP and Lynch in the mix (though, again, SEA didn't spend a #1 on Lynch).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Or we could make this real, real simple. There are 16 RBs drafted in the 1st round there. The Buffalo Bills pulled the trigger on 3 of them.

 
Many GM's still invest highly in a single RB (high picks or money). I don't know if anyone disputes that.The only dispute is whether or not that's smart, which, imo, it's clearly not.
That's an entirely different question than the one proposed here though.I can buy the argument that a good running game isn't a huge boon in today's NFL. I can't buy the argument that, as a whole, the running back plays very little role in how good that running game actually is.
 
Ahmad Bradshaw 7th round pickPierre Thomas UDFABenjarvis Green-Ellis UDFA
Teams winning or making a Super Bowl seem to be well represented here.
Not for nothing, but two of those teams recently spent 1st round picks on RBs. The other one spent a 2nd and 3rd in the same year.So if your point is that those teams "know what's up" as opposed to the others, you aren't helping your case.
 
Ahmad Bradshaw 7th round pickPierre Thomas UDFABenjarvis Green-Ellis UDFA
Teams winning or making a Super Bowl seem to be well represented here.
Not for nothing, but two of those teams recently spent 1st round picks on RBs. The other one spent a 2nd and 3rd in the same year.So if your point is that those teams "know what's up" as opposed to the others, you aren't helping your case.
First, good job on this thread! I think getting into what is the best strategy (in this case for an NFL team) in regards to RB's is an interesting one. I know the Giants were last in the league in rushing and GB and NO were very close to the bottom if not at the bottom as well with their victories. I also think NE was 2nd worst last year. This is the trend I am interested in because it is showing that the league is clearly a passing league and it also shows me that the rules need to be modified so that the running attack is more important than it has been. IMO, the main culprit is the illegal chuck after 5 yards and possibly the holding that turn drive enders into auto first downs. It is too easy to get a first down with those combined with PI. I think the defense should be allowed to chuck within 10 yards; they need to be able to play a little more D against the pass and this willmake running a little more important. Getting back to the OP, I think the skew of starting players at every position would probably be heavily front loaded and RB isn't any different.
 
Since the issue of successful franchises (i.e. superbowl appearances) was raised - I looked up another data point:

The draft rounds of the starting RBs for teams that made it to the superbowl over the last 10 years:

1 - 11

2 - 2

3 - 1

4 - 2

6 - 1

7 - 1

UDFA - 2

Also, just as a note, those aren't front or back loaded. There were 6 1st rounders in the last 5 years, and 5 in the 5 years prior to that.

I think the result is obvious:

NEVER NEVER NEVER draft a RB in the 5th round. You will not make it to the superbowl.

 
Since the issue of successful franchises (i.e. superbowl appearances) was raised - I looked up another data point:The draft rounds of the starting RBs for teams that made it to the superbowl over the last 10 years:1 - 112 - 23 - 14 - 26 - 17 - 1UDFA - 2Also, just as a note, those aren't front or back loaded. There were 6 1st rounders in the last 5 years, and 5 in the 5 years prior to that.I think the result is obvious:NEVER NEVER NEVER draft a RB in the 5th round. You will not make it to the superbowl.
Atlanta Falcon's starting RB. Michael Turner 5th round. :)
 
'FreeBaGeL said:
'pollardsvision said:
Many GM's still invest highly in a single RB (high picks or money). I don't know if anyone disputes that.

The only dispute is whether or not that's smart, which, imo, it's clearly not.
That's an entirely different question than the one proposed here though.I can buy the argument that a good running game isn't a huge boon in today's NFL. I can't buy the argument that, as a whole, the running back plays very little role in how good that running game actually is.
The running back obviously plays an important role. I'm just saying it doesn't make much sense to allocate scarce resources (pick or money) to get/keep a single RB.

But there are a ton of capable NFL RBs, compared to other positions

There are number of reasons to think a bellcow doesn't make sense, and they are often the ones that take up scarce resources (unless you play for CAR).

A great RB is obviously a very good thing to have. 2 very good ones even better. With the available supply, there's no reason to spend a lot of money or a high pick on one though.

 
'Holy Schneikes said:
Since the issue of successful franchises (i.e. superbowl appearances) was raised - I looked up another data point:

The draft rounds of the starting RBs for teams that made it to the superbowl over the last 10 years:

1 - 11

2 - 2

3 - 1

4 - 2

6 - 1

7 - 1

UDFA - 2

Also, just as a note, those aren't front or back loaded. There were 6 1st rounders in the last 5 years, and 5 in the 5 years prior to that.

I think the result is obvious:

NEVER NEVER NEVER draft a RB in the 5th round. You will not make it to the superbowl.
Now, even though it doesn't make much sense to get a RB high the first, they do tend to be the better RBs. They get more opportunity and they often stick longer. It makes since that they show up in SBs.Of course, it's rarely with team that was dumb enough to draft them.

So, the 1st rounders include:

Antwain Smith: Yet another great Buffalo 1st round pick......that went on to have playoff success for another team.

Corey Dillon was only a 2nd rounder, but again, NE getting a former high pick from a bad franchise for cheap.

I assume you count Jerome Bettis, not playing for the team that drafted him and clearly not the best RB on that team (UDFA was)

Shaun Alexander

Addai: We all know the deal on this, right?

Thomas Jones: Same old story. Bad franchise takes RB high. Does them no good. He eventually ends up on a smarter team late in his career and has some playoff success.

Laurence Maroney: Shocking. Maybe that's when Belichick lost his edge.

Edge: Old. Nobody really thinks Edge mattered on that SB trip, do they?

Reggie Bush: Actually, you could make the case that this is the best example of, in the last 10 years, of a 1st RD RB helping a team win a SB. And that was a horrible draft pick.

Donald Brown: Dear god, how did Peyton win so many games with this franchise.

Mendenhall: Like is becoming the norm, PIT won that title in spite of their terrible running game. Bad draft pick.

So the tally of teams drafting RBs in the 1st round that eventually play a part in helping them reach the SB (last 10 years): Alexander and Bush

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So the tally of teams drafting RBs in the 1st round that eventually play a part in helping them reach the SB (last 10 years): Alexander and Bush
:goodposting:I did a quick skim of all the teams the last few years and came to this same conclusion. Just didn't want to post the entire thing. Some of us know what's up inherently, and some don't. :shrug:
 
So the tally of teams drafting RBs in the 1st round that eventually play a part in helping them reach the SB (last 10 years): Alexander and Bush
:goodposting:I did a quick skim of all the teams the last few years and came to this same conclusion. Just didn't want to post the entire thing. Some of us know what's up inherently, and some don't. :shrug:
Since 2000, there have been three Super Bowls in which neither team had a first-round pick lead its team in rushing for the season.
 
This is true for every position. The guys drafted in the early rounds, in general, have a higher chance of being the teams starter than the guy drafted late in the draft.
This.And they will be given more chances to succeed than some no name 7th rounder.
 
'Holy Schneikes said:
Since the issue of successful franchises (i.e. superbowl appearances) was raised - I looked up another data point:

The draft rounds of the starting RBs for teams that made it to the superbowl over the last 10 years:

1 - 11

2 - 2

3 - 1

4 - 2

6 - 1

7 - 1

UDFA - 2

Also, just as a note, those aren't front or back loaded. There were 6 1st rounders in the last 5 years, and 5 in the 5 years prior to that.

I think the result is obvious:

NEVER NEVER NEVER draft a RB in the 5th round. You will not make it to the superbowl.
Now, even though it doesn't make much sense to get a RB high the first, they do tend to be the better RBs. They get more opportunity and they often stick longer. It makes since that they show up in SBs.Of course, it's rarely with team that was dumb enough to draft them.

So, the 1st rounders include:

Antwain Smith: Yet another great Buffalo 1st round pick......that went on to have playoff success for another team.

Corey Dillon was only a 2nd rounder, but again, NE getting a former high pick from a bad franchise for cheap.

I assume you count Jerome Bettis, not playing for the team that drafted him and clearly not the best RB on that team (UDFA was)

Shaun Alexander

Addai: We all know the deal on this, right?

Thomas Jones: Same old story. Bad franchise takes RB high. Does them no good. He eventually ends up on a smarter team late in his career and has some playoff success.

Laurence Maroney: Shocking. Maybe that's when Belichick lost his edge.

Edge: Old. Nobody really thinks Edge mattered on that SB trip, do they?

Reggie Bush: Actually, you could make the case that this is the best example of, in the last 10 years, of a 1st RD RB helping a team win a SB. And that was a horrible draft pick.

Donald Brown: Dear god, how did Peyton win so many games with this franchise.

Mendenhall: Like is becoming the norm, PIT won that title in spite of their terrible running game. Bad draft pick.

So the tally of teams drafting RBs in the 1st round that eventually play a part in helping them reach the SB (last 10 years): Alexander and Bush
Sure, you can explain away ALL of the relevant data if you want to, and there is merit to some of what you say. But I'll take cold hard facts over "yeah buts" any day of the week. You can play that same game with every position, except maybe QB. And if your argument is that QB is more important to a team's success than RB, I don't think you are going to get much of an argument - you certainly won't from me. So your best bet to helping your team win is to draft a stud QB. It's just that simple folks ;) . All you have to do is avoid the massive pitfalls looming ahead of you, and happen to have a draft pick in the right spot or be willing to give up the farm to GET to the right spot.None of the guys we are talking about were the best/most important player on their team. But that doesn't contradict ANY of the following:

That they are SOMEWHAT important to team success.

That the better players, who help their team more, tend to be higher drafted players.

That in MOST cases, you can't just plug in any old schmo into a system and have him do just as well as a more talented back.

That some backs taken in the higher rounds are actually "good picks". Some of them are, and some aren't - just like at every other position.

That very successful franchises are still investing relatively high draft picks at the position.

The OP I believe is simply saying that the prevailing opinion (in the media and on the boards anyway, not so much in actual NFL front offices) that RBs are totally interchangeable and that good RBs are a dime a dozen just doesn't seem to be backed by any facts. Most NFL teams in general start first or second round backs. And most SUCCESSFUL teams start first or second round backs. There are ALWAYS exceptions and excuses, but those are the facts.

 
So the tally of teams drafting RBs in the 1st round that eventually play a part in helping them reach the SB (last 10 years): Alexander and Bush
:goodposting: I did a quick skim of all the teams the last few years and came to this same conclusion. Just didn't want to post the entire thing. Some of us know what's up inherently, and some don't. :shrug:
And there has been one 1st round WR that has done the same in that time span (and he was picked 30th overall, no less). I guess you can just plug any old WR in. What a waste of a pick Megatron was.
This is true for every position. The guys drafted in the early rounds, in general, have a higher chance of being the teams starter than the guy drafted late in the draft.
Uh, that's kind of the point of this whole thread. You're accidentally agree'ing with the OP.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top