RB's taken in 1st RD with 1000yd rushers already on team (1 Viewer)

[comfortably numb]

Was wondering if someone had a fast way to determine some info.

5 RB's where taken in the 1st RD this year.

4 of them went to teams where they will have a 1000+yd rusher on the team

Mcfadden/Fargas 1008

Mendenhall/FWP 1316

Johnson/White 1108

Jones/MBIII 975 (im gonna call him a 1k rusher- he finished RB7!)

Stewart/DWill only had 700+ in part time role, but was expected to be the main RB

So 4 guys drafted in 1st RD to teams with a 1K rusher already.

Questions

Has this been done before, or close to it?

How has it worked out in year 1.

We all know how ADP turned out.

But yet there is the case when Benson was taken at 1.4 to "replace" Tjones coming off a 978/7TD year.

Tjones went on to have 2 more 1200+ seasons with CHI and Benson.....exactly

I will start trying to do the research sometime tomorrow, but was wondering if you guys may have a more efficient way off getting the info.

 

[Chase Stuart]

73 RBs were drafted between 1987 and 2007. Here's a list of them with the year, the RB, the rushing yards by his team's leading rusher the year before he was drafted, the running back that led the team in rushing yards that year, and then the RB that led the team in rushing when the player was a rookie.

2003	Larry Johnson	   1615	Priest Holmes	   Priest Holmes2001	Michael Bennett	 1521	Robert Smith		Michael Bennett2006	Joseph Addai		1506	Edgerrin James	  Joseph Addai2003	Willis McGahee	  1438	Travis Henry		Travis Henry2000	Trung Canidate	  1381	Marshall Faulk	  Marshall Faulk1988	Gaston Green		1374	Charles White	   Greg Bell1999	Edgerrin James	  1319	Marshall Faulk	  Edgerrin James2007	Adrian Peterson	 1216	Chestor Taylor	  Adrian Peterson1989	Cleveland Gary	  1212	Greg Bell		   Greg Bell2000	Shaun Alexander	 1210	Ricky Watters	   Ricky Watters1993	Robert Smith		1201	Terry Allen		 Scottie Graham1998	Robert Edwards	  1160	Curtis Martin	   Robert Edwards1993	Jerome Bettis	   1125	Cleveland Gary	  Jerome Bettis1995	Tyrone Wheatley	 1075	Rodney Hampton	  Rodney Hampton1990	Dexter Carter	   1054	Roger Craig		 Dexter Carter1998	Curtis Enis		 1033	Raymont Harris	  Edgar Bennett1997	Antowain Smith	  1033	Thurman Thomas	  Antowain Smith1990	Rodney Hampton	  1023	Ottis Anderson	  Ottis Anderson1991	Harvey Williams	 1015	Barry Word		  Christian Okoye2001	Deuce McAllister	1000	Ricky Williams	  Ricky Williams2007	Marshawn Lynch	   990	Willis McGahee	  Marshawn Lynch1995	Napoleon Kaufman	 983	Harvey Williams	 Harvey Williams2004	Chris Perry		  957	Rudi Johnson		Rudi Johnson1988	Lorenzo White		957	Mike Rozier		 Mike Rozier2005	Cedric Benson		948	Thomas Jones		Thomas Jones1996	Eddie George		 947	Rodney Thomas	   Eddie George2005	Cadillac Williams	926	Michael Pittman	 Cadillac Williams1988	Craig Heyward		917	Rueben Mayes		Dalton Hilliard1995	Rashaan Salaam	   899	Lewis Tillman	   Rashaan Salaam1998	John Avery		   892	Karim Abdul-Jabbar  Karim Abdul-Jabbar2006	DeAngelo Williams	879	DeShaun Foster	  DeShaun Foster1987	Roger Vick		   856	Freeman McNeil	  Freeman McNeil2000	Jamal Lewis		  852	Errict Rhett		Jamal Lewis1987	Terrence Flagler	 830	Roger Craig		 Roger Craig1998	Fred Taylor		  823	Natrone Means	   Fred Taylor1990	Darrell Thompson	 821	Brent Fullwood	  Michael Haddix2004	Steven Jackson	   818	Marshall Faulk	  Marshall Faulk1991	Leonard Russell	  808	John Stephens	   Leonard Russell1987	D.J. Dozier		  793	Darrin Nelson	   Darrin Nelson1994	Greg Hill			764	Marcus Allen		Marcus Allen2002	T.J. Duckett		 760	Maurice Smith	   Warrick Dunn1996	Tim Biakabutuka	  740	Derrick Moore	   Anthony Johnson1993	Garrison Hearst	  734	Johnny Johnson	  Ronald Moore2006	Laurence Maroney	 733	Corey Dillon		Corey Dillon1992	Tommy Vardell		726	Kevin Mack		  Kevin Mack1994	Marshall Faulk	   711	Roosevelt Potts	 Marshall Faulk1989	Tim Worley		   705	Merril Hoge		 Tim Worley1990	Blair Thomas		 702	Johnny Hector	   Blair Thomas1990	Steve Broussard	  689	John Settle		 Mike Rozier1987	Alonzo Highsmith	 662	Mike Rozier		 Mike Rozier2006	Reggie Bush		  659	Antowain Smith	  Deuce McAllister1996	Lawrence Phillips	637	Jerome Bettis	   Lawrence Phillips2004	Kevin Jones		  606	Shawn Bryson		Kevin Jones1988	Brad Muster		  586	Neal Anderson	   Neal Anderson1989	Eric Metcalf		 576	Earnest Byner	   Eric Metcalf2002	William Green		554	James Jackson	   William Green2000	Thomas Jones		 553	Adrian Murrell	  Michael Pittman1989	Barry Sanders		552	Garry James		 Barry Sanders1997	Warrick Dunn		 539	Errict Rhett		Warrick Dunn2005	Ronnie Brown		 523	Sammy Morris		Ronnie Brown1987	Brent Fullwood	   519	Kenneth Davis	   Kenneth Davis1992	Vaughn Dunbar		494	Fred McAfee		 Vaughn Dunbar1988	John Stephens		474	Tony Collins		John Stephens1995	Ki-Jana Carter	   468	Derrick Fenner	  Harold Green1999	Ricky Williams	   457	Lamar Smith		 Ricky Williams1992	Tony Smith		   449	Steve Broussard	 Steve Broussard1987	Paul Palmer		  448	Mike Pruitt		 Christian Okoye1990	Emmitt Smith		 446	Paul Palmer		 Emmitt Smith1987	Rod Bernstine		442	Gary W. Anderson	Curtis Adams1989	Sammie Smith		 414	Lorenzo Hampton	 Sammie Smith2001	LaDainian Tomlinson  384	Terrell Fletcher	LaDainian Tomlinson2000	Ron Dayne			348	Joe Montgomery	  Tiki Barber1995	James Stewart		  0	#N/A				James Stewart

 

[comfortably numb]

That was too quick

Thanks,

This gives me a start.

As in some cases the RB was not on the team when the rookie played year 1.

ie

Addai,

Thanks again

 

[loose circuits]

That was too quickThanks, This gives me a start.As in some cases the RB was not on the team when the rookie played year 1.ieAddai, Thanks again

one of the posters from another site crunched the numbers a few years ago (when Deangelo was a rookie) in a Foster v Deangelo debate. The numbers were not good for backs drafted out of the bottom 5. He analyzed them in top 5, top half, 1st round. Needless to say since 1983 usually the established running back ended up starting. There were some exceptions, but for the most part the rookie takes a back seat. Now the numbers may have changed a little since 2006, but they would still favor the veterans (assuming they have at least a 900 yard season under their belt). Even in Addai's situation, Rhodes was still the starter. Same thing happened to Antowain Smith (I believe) with Thurman Thomas. I think it was Antowain who carried the rock a lot during Thomas' last season in Buffalo.I don't have a link, and have no idea how long it took him to gather the data. One thing is certain I am too lazy

 

[Bri]

retired players or "too old" are skewing that list

nice work though chase

 

[Chase Stuart]

Going down the list, for RBs drafted in the past ten years...

Drafted by a team with a 1,000 yard RB

Bennett, Addai, Edge, Robert Edwards and Enis were drafted by teams that had already lost their 1,000 yard RB. That's almost half the sample right there, and applies to none of the current situations.

Alexander was specifically drafted to be groomed as Watters' replacement. McAllister arguably was, too, as it seems like the Saints planned on trading Ricky after a year all along. Larry Johnson and Trung Canidate were drafted when their team had STUD RBs. McGahee and Peterson were drafted when their team had good RBs.

Comparing it to this year's crop...

McFadden/Fargas doesn't resemble any of these as Fargas wasn't even as good as Chestor Taylor. He's the worst of the six RBs.

Mendenhal/FWP resembles Johnson/Holmes very closely, I think. FWP and Holmes had huge statistical years, but the young RB was more of a bruiser. Now Holmes was 1000X the TD scorer than FWP was, but I think the comparison is close. And obviously Holmes kept his job until he got injured.

Jones/Barber is similar to the situations in Buffalo and Minnesota, although I think Barber is probably better than either of those incumbents, and Jones is probably less versatile than either of the rookies. It's worth noting though, that the young buck took over right away: Peterson in his rookie year, and McGahee in his first healthy year. But it took a few games for each to get that job (i.e., the incumbent was still the week one starter).

Johnson/White and Stewart/DWill should probably be saved for the under-1000 group, although I wouldn't fight you if you wanted to compare Johnson/White to the Jones/Barber comps.

Under-1000 but over-600

Thirteen RB situations here.

Lynch and Jamal Lewis were drafted by teams that got rid of its RB after the season. Fred Taylor was drafted by a team that got rid of its starting RB, but it gave a new RB the job, who promptly was lost for the season after three games. Of the other ten...

Kevin Jones and Cadillac Williams were expected to start from day 1. Both led their team in rushing as rookies.*

Jackson and Maroney were drafted to eventually replace some great, but old, RBs. Neither of them led their team in rushing as rookies.

Benson was sort of in between the Jones/Williams, Jackson/Maroney situation. He did not lead his team in rushing as a rookie.

Duckett and Bush both went to teams that added two good RBs in the off-season (Dunn and a healthy McAllister). Neither led their team in rushing as rookies.

Chris Perry, John Avery and DeAngelo Williams were drafted to complement pretty decent, and young, RBs. Rudi had just finished his first year as a starter, Jabbar had finished his second year in the league, and Foster had only ten starts to his name.

Stewart/DWilliams is probably most similar to what Jones and Cadillac entered into. It probably falls somewhere in between there (where the rookie took the job in both cases) and the bottom four (where none of the rookies took the job). Not much help there.

Johnson/White doesn't relate to the first three situations. They don't relate to Jones/CWilliams, or Duckett/Bush, either. But they seem to fit the other four very well.

Benson/Jones, Perry/Johnson, Avery/Jabbar, Williams/Foster were all situations where the incumbent was "pretty good". Not great, and not versatile. Foster had injury issues, Jabbar was only a good short-yardage runner, RJohnson had no hands, and Jones lacked any elite trait. I think White fits this group really, really well. He's probably most similar to Jabbar. None of the four rookies took the incumbent's job as rookies. That's a pretty bad sign for Chris Johnson. And while White most resembles Jabbar, I think Johnson most resembles John Avery. Both were very small, very fast, and had really good hands. Of course, just because Avery was a bust doesn't have anything to do with how Johnson will play. I just see the situation as very comparable.

*This is probably the best set of comparables for McFadden, and not the over-1000 yard group.

 

[JKL]

Going down the list, for RBs drafted in the past ten years...

Drafted by a team with a 1,000 yard RB

. . .

Mendenhal/FWP resembles Johnson/Holmes very closely, I think. FWP and Holmes had huge statistical years, but the young RB was more of a bruiser. Now Holmes was 1000X the TD scorer than FWP was, but I think the comparison is close. And obviously Holmes kept his job until he got injured.

Jones/Barber is similar to the situations in Buffalo and Minnesota, although I think Barber is probably better than either of those incumbents, and Jones is probably less versatile than either of the rookies. It's worth noting though, that the young buck took over right away: Peterson in his rookie year, and McGahee in his first healthy year. But it took a few games for each to get that job (i.e., the incumbent was still the week one starter).

Blasphemy. FWP is a 28 year old good but not great back who is imminently replaceable, and will in fact be replaced in fairly short order. Parker was RB5 at age 26 and RB16 at age 27. Holmes was RB2 and RB1 the previous two seasons before Johnson was drafted, and was turning 30. He was coming back off the hip injury that caused him to miss the final two games, and there were already grumblings of a holdout by Holmes before the season to get more money as one of the top backs in the game. Ultimately, Holmes did get the new contract before the start of the season. I dont see a huge signing bonus in FWP's future. I see Mendenhall as the starter . . . soon.I also don't see the Dallas situation as comparable. In each of the other two, you had the consensus best back available going to a team with a decent but not great starter. McGahee would have been top 10 but for his knee injury in the bowl game, and the Bills pounced late in the first even knowing he would not be ready til 2004. Peterson was drafted in the top 10. Jones is not anywhere close to being considered the sure thing best back in the draft.

The Dallas situation reflects two potential things: 1) an organizational philosophy on RB usage and two backs getting some carries, and 2) the fact that Barber is a restricted FA this year, and if they can't reach agreement, will be an unrestricted free agent in 2009, and Jones is a contingency plan so Dallas doesn't have to give in and pay more on a contract to an RB than they want to.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Going down the list, for RBs drafted in the past ten years...

Drafted by a team with a 1,000 yard RB

. . .

Mendenhal/FWP resembles Johnson/Holmes very closely, I think. FWP and Holmes had huge statistical years, but the young RB was more of a bruiser. Now Holmes was 1000X the TD scorer than FWP was, but I think the comparison is close. And obviously Holmes kept his job until he got injured.

Jones/Barber is similar to the situations in Buffalo and Minnesota, although I think Barber is probably better than either of those incumbents, and Jones is probably less versatile than either of the rookies. It's worth noting though, that the young buck took over right away: Peterson in his rookie year, and McGahee in his first healthy year. But it took a few games for each to get that job (i.e., the incumbent was still the week one starter).

Blasphemy. FWP is a 28 year old good but not great back who is imminently replaceable, and will in fact be replaced in fairly short order. Parker was RB5 at age 26 and RB16 at age 27. Holmes was RB2 and RB1 the previous two seasons before Johnson was drafted, and was turning 30. He was coming back off the hip injury that caused him to miss the final two games, and there were already grumblings of a holdout by Holmes before the season to get more money as one of the top backs in the game. Ultimately, Holmes did get the new contract before the start of the season. I dont see a huge signing bonus in FWP's future. I see Mendenhall as the starter . . . soon.I also don't see the Dallas situation as comparable. In each of the other two, you had the consensus best back available going to a team with a decent but not great starter. McGahee would have been top 10 but for his knee injury in the bowl game, and the Bills pounced late in the first even knowing he would not be ready til 2004. Peterson was drafted in the top 10. Jones is not anywhere close to being considered the sure thing best back in the draft.

The Dallas situation reflects two potential things: 1) an organizational philosophy on RB usage and two backs getting some carries, and 2) the fact that Barber is a restricted FA this year, and if they can't reach agreement, will be an unrestricted free agent in 2009, and Jones is a contingency plan so Dallas doesn't have to give in and pay more on a contract to an RB than they want to.

I agree about Dallas. That's why I said Jones < McGahee/Peterson, and Barber >Henry/Taylor. But I think the situations are close, or more specifically, closer than some of the other situations.That's a good point about Holmes' injury/contract status. I had forgotten about that. But Parker has rushed for over 2800 yards the past two seasons. While Holmes' numbers were better (especially his non-rushing yards stats), he played behind what was acknowledged as an excellent line. Parker played behind a bad line last year. All in all, while Holmes was better than Parker, I think this one's pretty close (especially since I think LJ>Mendenhall). Maybe it's closer to Henry/McGahee than Holmes/Johnson, but I think Parker was probably better than Henry. In other words, Parker's probably the best RB a team's ever had in the past 20 years, that spent its first round pick on a RB, outside of Holmes. I don't think it's a crazy stretch to compare the two situations. Parker has been over 1200 yards for three straight years, while Henry had only had one good year when the Bills took McGahee. And Holmes had only two good years. FWIW, I think your use of Parker's fantasy ranks is pretty misleading: he averaged just six fewer rushing yards per game last season, despite playing behind a worse line. RBs that average 1350 yards and 4.4 ypc for three straight years aren't just pretty good and imminently replaceable, IMO. Parker, LJ and LT are the only three RBs in the league that have been even close to that over the past three seasons.

You could include the Faulk pick, but the pick made no sense at the time, Canidate wasn't a first round talent, and it was such a stupid decision, that I think all level-headed analysis of the NFL would be better off if we just pretended that it didn't happen.

 

[cstu]

Under-1000 but over-600

I think White fits this group really, really well. He's probably most similar to Jabbar. None of the four rookies took the incumbent's job as rookies. That's a pretty bad sign for Chris Johnson. And while White most resembles Jabbar, I think Johnson most resembles John Avery. Both were very small, very fast, and had really good hands. Of course, just because Avery was a bust doesn't have anything to do with how Johnson will play. I just see the situation as very comparable.

Reggie Bush didn't take over the starting job either his first year and was 50/50 in carries the first two games last year when Deuce was healthy. I fully expect Chris Johnson to get less carries, but he should put up more fantasy points in PPR leagues.

 

[comfortably numb]

Good info!

 

[switz]

Jones/Barber is similar to the situations in Buffalo and Minnesota, although I think Barber is probably better than either of those incumbents, and Jones is probably less versatile than either of the rookies. It's worth noting though, that the young buck took over right away: Peterson in his rookie year, and McGahee in his first healthy year. But it took a few games for each to get that job (i.e., the incumbent was still the week one starter).

I also don't see the Dallas situation as comparable. In each of the other two, you had the consensus best back available going to a team with a decent but not great starter. McGahee would have been top 10 but for his knee injury in the bowl game, and the Bills pounced late in the first even knowing he would not be ready til 2004. Peterson was drafted in the top 10. Jones is not anywhere close to being considered the sure thing best back in the draft.

Agree the comparison is way off. In Buffalo, McGahee wasn't going to play his rookie year no matter what.

In Minnesota, Peterson wasn't just the best back in the draft, but viewed as the best back to come out in a decade.

Also, I think the Barber hype is off the charts if anyone says he is > Travis Henry. Henry has at least carried the load for a team in his career, and 3 times a 1200 yard rusher. His problem has always been a health issue, he's only played 16 games once in his career.

Henry was a 2nd round pick, Barber a 4th. Henry was ALL-SEC by TSN and AP, Barber split time his entire college career.

But the guy (Henry) had a 1750 yard, 4.4YPC, 14 TD season, Barbers seen nothing near that, and Barber has had the benefit of getting a lot of work in his career after another back has worn down the defense. Barber also ha run behind a far better OL than Henry ever had.

When McGahee was drafted, Henry had just come off his ProBowl season (not as an alternate either). It wasn't a matter of production with Henry, the Bills just drafted McGahee as the BPA, in fact that drafting was very similar to MIN's drafting Peterson.

Also to say Jones is not as versatile as Peterson and McGahee is perhaps not the best word choice. Jones versatility is the reason the Cowboys drafted him. Is he probably not the grinder that Peterson and McGahee could be, I'd agree. But he is a better receiver than both, and is faster than both.

Bottom line of this thread though - none of the guys drafted are guaranteed to start. I'd say McFadden and Stewart have the best chance of any to start.

The rest of the RBs though, will probably not start.

 

[Tau837]

Parker's probably the best RB a team's ever had in the past 20 years, that spent its first round pick on a RB, outside of Holmes. I don't think it's a crazy stretch to compare the two situations. Parker has been over 1200 yards for three straight years, while Henry had only had one good year when the Bills took McGahee. And Holmes had only two good years. FWIW, I think your use of Parker's fantasy ranks is pretty misleading: he averaged just six fewer rushing yards per game last season, despite playing behind a worse line. RBs that average 1350 yards and 4.4 ypc for three straight years aren't just pretty good and imminently replaceable, IMO. Parker, LJ and LT are the only three RBs in the league that have been even close to that over the past three seasons.

That all sounds good, but I think it is misleading to focus on a 3 year period rather than focusing on last year. Last year's 4.1 ypc (lowest of his career), 7.1 ypr (lowest of his career other than his 3 catch rookie season), limited involvement in the passing game (only 23/164/0 receiving in 15 games), 2 TDs, and 4 fumbles are extremely uncompelling. The only thing that was positive was his 1316 rushing yards in 15 games... but it took 321 carries to get them. Does anyone still expect him to be close to that number this year?He is coming off an injury, faces much tougher competition at RB (both overall and for situational roles), and the passing game could easily be better with Sweed replacing Wilson and better health from Ward and Holmes.Also, we have the benefit of seeing what happened with Holmes and Johnson. Holmes maintained his workload and production in Johnson's rookie season, but Johnson had only 20 carries. Does anyone really expect Mendenhall to be limited like that?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Parker's probably the best RB a team's ever had in the past 20 years, that spent its first round pick on a RB, outside of Holmes. I don't think it's a crazy stretch to compare the two situations. Parker has been over 1200 yards for three straight years, while Henry had only had one good year when the Bills took McGahee. And Holmes had only two good years. FWIW, I think your use of Parker's fantasy ranks is pretty misleading: he averaged just six fewer rushing yards per game last season, despite playing behind a worse line. RBs that average 1350 yards and 4.4 ypc for three straight years aren't just pretty good and imminently replaceable, IMO. Parker, LJ and LT are the only three RBs in the league that have been even close to that over the past three seasons.

That all sounds good, but I think it is misleading to focus on a 3 year period rather than focusing on last year. Last year's 4.1 ypc (lowest of his career), 7.1 ypr (lowest of his career other than his 3 catch rookie season), limited involvement in the passing game (only 23/164/0 receiving in 15 games), 2 TDs, and 4 fumbles are extremely uncompelling. The only thing that was positive was his 1316 rushing yards in 15 games... but it took 321 carries to get them. Does anyone still expect him to be close to that number this year?He is coming off an injury, faces much tougher competition at RB (both overall and for situational roles), and the passing game could easily be better with Sweed replacing Wilson and better health from Ward and Holmes.

Also, we have the benefit of seeing what happened with Holmes and Johnson. Holmes maintained his workload and production in Johnson's rookie season, but Johnson had only 20 carries. Does anyone really expect Mendenhall to be limited like that?

Deuce McAllister had 16 carries his rookie year behind Ricky Williams.Shaun Alexander had 64 carries his rookie year behind Ricky Watters

Larry Johnson had 20 carries his rookie year behind Priest Holmes

All three were within five picks of where Mendenhall was selected. So it certainly wouldn't be unprecedented if Mendenhall was very limited. And if Mendenhall ends up being a bust, he could have 3 carries his rookie year like Trung Canidate behind Faulk.

Parker isn't Faulk, and he wasn't as good as Holmes, but is he worse than Watters/Williams? Watters was 30 and had a worse season than Parker did, the year before Alexander was drafted. So Alexander came in behind an older, worse back, and was drafted higher than Mendenhall, and he still was really limited his rookie year. He had 64 carries, when Ahman Green (the prior year's RB2) had 26 the year before. Ricky Williams was coming off a season that was similar to Parker's -- he played fewer games, but was slightly more productive per game. But he didn't cede anything to Deuce.

In fourteen games, Parker had 320 carries and Najeh had 71 carries. Now the Steelers still have Davenport and signed Moore, but both seem unlikely to have any value this year. Mendenhall could get 71 carries through 14 games, and that would be more than what McAllister/Alexander/LJ all had rookies, three RBs who Mendenhall would be lucky to end up being.

The question is whether you see this situation more like:

Chestor Taylor/Adrian Peterson, Travis Henry/Willis McGahee

or

Holmes/Johnson, McAllister/Williams, Alexander/Watters, Canidate/Faulk

If you were to rank those RBs in terms of ability the season before the rookie was drafted, I'd go:

Faulk

Holmes

Williams

Watters

Henry

Taylor

So where does Parker fall on that list? I'd probably say right where the Rickys are, but that's just me. It's definitely close.

 

[switz]

Parker isn't Faulk, and he wasn't as good as Holmes, but is he worse than Watters/Williams? Watters was 30 and had a worse season than Parker did, the year before Alexander was drafted. So Alexander came in behind an older, worse back, and was drafted higher than Mendenhall, and he still was really limited his rookie year. He had 64 carries, when Ahman Green (the prior year's RB2) had 26 the year before. Ricky Williams was coming off a season that was similar to Parker's -- he played fewer games, but was slightly more productive per game. But he didn't cede anything to Deuce.

One thing to keep in mind regarding RBs who sit for the first year, most of them are bad blockers, and that's why they sit. Watters may have been older, but he knew all of his assignments very well, whereas Alexander was not a good blocker.Larry Johnson couldn't beat out Holmes because he wasn't a hard worker, and Holmes was at the top of the NFL.Deuce McAllister was still recuperating from his knee injury the first season, not a valid comparison at all.

 

[Chase Stuart]

But Parker has rushed for over 2800 yards the past two seasons. While Holmes' numbers were better (especially his non-rushing yards stats), he played behind what was acknowledged as an excellent line. Parker played behind a bad line last year.

I forgot that Parker really only played 14 games last year: he was injured on his first carry in game 15.Parker had 1317 yards through 14 games. He averaged more rushing yards per game last year than he did in 2006. It's easy to focus on TDs, but Willie Parker was leading the league in rushing before he was injured. So I don't think it's really fair to say he was anything short of "very, very good." And TDs fluctuate a ton. Parker had 321 carries for 1316 yards and 2 TDs. Some HOF RB had 323 carries for 1308 yards and 2 TDs, once, too. He rushed for 12 TDs and led the league in rushing the next year.

 

[The Dude]

The point is - and has been touched on - it's impossible to analyze these situations because of the multitude of intangibles.

 

[Franknbeans]

But Parker has rushed for over 2800 yards the past two seasons. While Holmes' numbers were better (especially his non-rushing yards stats), he played behind what was acknowledged as an excellent line. Parker played behind a bad line last year.

I forgot that Parker really only played 14 games last year: he was injured on his first carry in game 15.Parker had 1317 yards through 14 games. He averaged more rushing yards per game last year than he did in 2006. It's easy to focus on TDs, but Willie Parker was leading the league in rushing before he was injured. So I don't think it's really fair to say he was anything short of "very, very good." And TDs fluctuate a ton. Parker had 321 carries for 1316 yards and 2 TDs. Some HOF RB had 323 carries for 1308 yards and 2 TDs, once, too. He rushed for 12 TDs and led the league in rushing the next year.

People who underestimate FWP will be sorely mistaken, at least in 2008. The lack of TD's are the only knock on him.

 

[One]

McFadden/Fargas doesn't resemble any of these as Fargas wasn't even as good as Chestor Taylor. He's the worst of the six RBs.

Fargas is a product of the system. Plug in a guy who's actually talented and we've got some big things ahead. While me may not be a big 25+ carry guy, McFadden's in for a good season.

 

[Tau837]

People who underestimate FWP will be sorely mistaken, at least in 2008. The lack of TD's are the only knock on him.

How do you see the PIT rushing game breaking down then? Please post your expected number of carries for each RB. I don't care as much about the yards and TDs; I think how carries are split is the key issue.And, by the way, why are these things not valid knocks on him, in addition to TD production?Lack of involvement in the passing gameypc has dropped for two years running15 fumbles in 46 games since his rookie yearIncreased competition

 

[Tau837]

The point is - and has been touched on - it's impossible to analyze these situations because of the multitude of intangibles.

 

[Tau837]

Parker's probably the best RB a team's ever had in the past 20 years, that spent its first round pick on a RB, outside of Holmes. I don't think it's a crazy stretch to compare the two situations. Parker has been over 1200 yards for three straight years, while Henry had only had one good year when the Bills took McGahee. And Holmes had only two good years. FWIW, I think your use of Parker's fantasy ranks is pretty misleading: he averaged just six fewer rushing yards per game last season, despite playing behind a worse line. RBs that average 1350 yards and 4.4 ypc for three straight years aren't just pretty good and imminently replaceable, IMO. Parker, LJ and LT are the only three RBs in the league that have been even close to that over the past three seasons.

That all sounds good, but I think it is misleading to focus on a 3 year period rather than focusing on last year. Last year's 4.1 ypc (lowest of his career), 7.1 ypr (lowest of his career other than his 3 catch rookie season), limited involvement in the passing game (only 23/164/0 receiving in 15 games), 2 TDs, and 4 fumbles are extremely uncompelling. The only thing that was positive was his 1316 rushing yards in 15 games... but it took 321 carries to get them. Does anyone still expect him to be close to that number this year?He is coming off an injury, faces much tougher competition at RB (both overall and for situational roles), and the passing game could easily be better with Sweed replacing Wilson and better health from Ward and Holmes.

Also, we have the benefit of seeing what happened with Holmes and Johnson. Holmes maintained his workload and production in Johnson's rookie season, but Johnson had only 20 carries. Does anyone really expect Mendenhall to be limited like that?

Deuce McAllister had 16 carries his rookie year behind Ricky Williams.Shaun Alexander had 64 carries his rookie year behind Ricky Watters

Larry Johnson had 20 carries his rookie year behind Priest Holmes

All three were within five picks of where Mendenhall was selected. So it certainly wouldn't be unprecedented if Mendenhall was very limited. And if Mendenhall ends up being a bust, he could have 3 carries his rookie year like Trung Canidate behind Faulk.

Parker isn't Faulk, and he wasn't as good as Holmes, but is he worse than Watters/Williams? Watters was 30 and had a worse season than Parker did, the year before Alexander was drafted. So Alexander came in behind an older, worse back, and was drafted higher than Mendenhall, and he still was really limited his rookie year. He had 64 carries, when Ahman Green (the prior year's RB2) had 26 the year before. Ricky Williams was coming off a season that was similar to Parker's -- he played fewer games, but was slightly more productive per game. But he didn't cede anything to Deuce.

In fourteen games, Parker had 320 carries and Najeh had 71 carries. Now the Steelers still have Davenport and signed Moore, but both seem unlikely to have any value this year. Mendenhall could get 71 carries through 14 games, and that would be more than what McAllister/Alexander/LJ all had rookies, three RBs who Mendenhall would be lucky to end up being.

The question is whether you see this situation more like:

Chestor Taylor/Adrian Peterson, Travis Henry/Willis McGahee

or

Holmes/Johnson, McAllister/Williams, Alexander/Watters, Canidate/Faulk

If you were to rank those RBs in terms of ability the season before the rookie was drafted, I'd go:

Faulk

Holmes

Williams

Watters

Henry

Taylor

So where does Parker fall on that list? I'd probably say right where the Rickys are, but that's just me. It's definitely close.

Pretty small sample size to begin with.Clearly McGahee/Henry and Taylor/Peterson are cases that in which the veteran was immediately (in McGahee's case, when he was healthy) overtaken.

Canidate and Alexander were rookies in 2000 and McAllister was a rookie in 2001. I'd argue that RB usage patterns are different now than they were several years ago - I think teams are more inclined to use multiple RBs regularly and more inclined to give large workloads to rookies than they used to be. To put it another way, I think teams are currently less inclined to draft a first round RB and park him on the bench with a minimal role.

That only leaves Holmes/Johnson. Johnson went into Vermeil's doghouse right out of the gate, and with Holmes one of the elite RBs in football, Vermeil wasn't compelled to play him. I doubt that exact scenario will play out in Pittsburgh.

Questions that may bear on Parker's workload this year:

1. Mendenhall is better than Davenport. IMO using Davenport as a predictor of Mendenhall's touches will likely cause you to underestimate them. Do you agree?

2. Do you think Mendenhall and Davenport combined will get only 71 carries?

3. Do you think Moore will get 0 carries?

4. Do you think Pittsburgh will have more or less than the 511 carries they had last season (3rd in the NFL)?

5. Do you think Pittsburgh will have more or less than the 442 passing attempts they had last season (31st in the NFL)?

 

[Franknbeans]

People who underestimate FWP will be sorely mistaken, at least in 2008. The lack of TD's are the only knock on him.

How do you see the PIT rushing game breaking down then? Please post your expected number of carries for each RB. I don't care as much about the yards and TDs; I think how carries are split is the key issue.And, by the way, why are these things not valid knocks on him, in addition to TD production?Lack of involvement in the passing gameypc has dropped for two years running15 fumbles in 46 games since his rookie yearIncreased competition

I don't like projections but as far as workload split I would be surprised if they gave Mendenhall more than 30 percent of the workload. I think Mendy will spell Parker every once in a while to give him a breather and will be worked in as a 3rd down back and possibly more in the 4th quarter, if he holds onto the ball. As for the other points,I don't know why they don't use him more in the passing game except for the fact that the whole offensive line struggled last year and their main passing play call to a running back is the screen play. They had a lot of trouble executing that play last season. Their main goal is to get Parker in space where he can read blocks, accelerate and use his speed to make big plays. I don't think that strategy will change much this year.ypc dropping. See offensive line. Fumbles, yes he fumbles but fumbles can be corrected. Yet, it hasn't seemed to keep him from getting the ball. Perhaps it will with another back around to take the load off but that is assuming the new guy doesn't fumble either. I don't see the increased competition as a negative. For one, he has been quoted that he welcomes it and he wants guys around to help him pro-long his career. Personally, I think he will take Mendy's signing as a challenge and he has responded well when challenged in the past. I see a lot of talk suggesting Mendenhall will somehow outplay Parker but I just don't see it. I think Parker was most effective as a complement to Bettis when he got 10-15 carries a game. This situation (with Mendy) sets up nicely for that type of backfield. Let Mendy take the tough yards (as well as Davis, Russell, whoever else-no guarantee Davenport makes the final roster) and let Parker break the long ones. I think from a fantasy standpoint (assuming his leg is fully healed), Parker will be fresher and at his most dangerous this season. Unless of course the line sucks donkey balls then all bets are off.

 

[Chase Stuart]

ypc has dropped for two years running

Does that really mean anything? Or is it just a statistical anomaly?There have been thirteen instances of RBs drafted since the merger that met the following criteria:1) Received 225+ carries for the same team for four straight years2) Weren't very old by their fourth season (I used 31 or younger as the cutoff)3) Saw their YPC average drop the second year and the third yearHow did those RBs do the fourth year?Three of them had their highest YPC average the fourth season out of any of the four yearsFour of them had their second highest YPC average the fourth season out of any of the four yearsThree of them had their third highest YPC average the fourth season out of any of the four yearsThree of them had their lowest YPC average the fourth season out of any of the four yearsThe group average went from 4.60 to 4.20 to 3.77 to 4.03.I wouldn't be concerned with this negative trend for Parker. I don't think it's a sign of him being a worse RB; it's likely a combination of an inferior line and a bit of bad luck.

 

[Chase Stuart]

1. Mendenhall is better than Davenport. IMO using Davenport as a predictor of Mendenhall's touches will likely cause you to underestimate them. Do you agree?2. Do you think Mendenhall and Davenport combined will get only 71 carries?3. Do you think Moore will get 0 carries?4. Do you think Pittsburgh will have more or less than the 511 carries they had last season (3rd in the NFL)?5. Do you think Pittsburgh will have more or less than the 442 passing attempts they had last season (31st in the NFL)?

1. It's pretty difficult to tell right now if Mendenall is going to be better than Davenport. If he's Cedric Benson, no. If he's Shaun Alexander, yes.2. They'll probably get a bit more.3. No.4. Probably about the same; maybe a little more. Pittsburgh RBs led the NFL last year with 452 carries. But over the last five years, Pittsburgh RBs have averaged 458 carries. And spending their first pick on a RB probably doesn't mean they'll rush less.5. Probably more. Pit allowed 47 sacks last year; they'll probably allow fewer this season.

 

[switz]

Clearly McGahee/Henry and Taylor/Peterson are cases that in which the veteran was immediately (in McGahee's case, when he was healthy) overtaken.

Not true, McGahee was healthy, but didn't get to start until Travis Henry got injured.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

a lot of these stats are nice, but I will not be basing my decision on when and where to draft these rookies and the veterans based on what has happened on other teams in the past.....it's the current situation of the team right now that is important, not how did things work out for Ricky Williams and Deuce McAllister back in the day.........when I see stats like this that start out sayng "no RB drafted in such and such round going to a team with such and such returning starter has ever whatever" I tune out....I don't think it matters IMO.....

 

[Chase Stuart]

a lot of these stats are nice, but I will not be basing my decision on when and where to draft these rookies and the veterans based on what has happened on other teams in the past.....it's the current situation of the team right now that is important, not how did things work out for Ricky Williams and Deuce McAllister back in the day.........when I see stats like this that start out sayng "no RB drafted in such and such round going to a team with such and such returning starter has ever whatever" I tune out....I don't think it matters IMO.....

Some historical context helps.If the Vikings drafted a RB in the 7th round, would you worry that Peterson would lose touches to him? Probably not. Why not? Because Peterson's awesome and 7th round RBs usually aren't.If the Lions drafted McFadden, would you worry that Tatum Bell would lose touches to him? Probably. Why? Because Bell stinks and top 10 RBs usually don't.There's a strong correlation between the talent of the veteran, the talent of the rookie, and the number of touches for each. Rushing yardage for the veteran and draft status for the rookie are pretty good -- but obviously not perfect -- proxies for the talents of each player.No one's saying you shouldn't downgrade Parker if you think Mendenhall's more talented than Parker. But if you want an objective measure of how talented each player is, and how similiar situations have unfolded with similar talent distributions in the past, looking at historical data can be very helpful.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

a lot of these stats are nice, but I will not be basing my decision on when and where to draft these rookies and the veterans based on what has happened on other teams in the past.....it's the current situation of the team right now that is important, not how did things work out for Ricky Williams and Deuce McAllister back in the day.........when I see stats like this that start out sayng "no RB drafted in such and such round going to a team with such and such returning starter has ever whatever" I tune out....I don't think it matters IMO.....

Some historical context helps.If the Vikings drafted a RB in the 7th round, would you worry that Peterson would lose touches to him? Probably not. Why not? Because Peterson's awesome and 7th round RBs usually aren't.

If the Lions drafted McFadden, would you worry that Tatum Bell would lose touches to him? Probably. Why? Because Bell stinks and top 10 RBs usually don't.

There's a strong correlation between the talent of the veteran, the talent of the rookie, and the number of touches for each. Rushing yardage for the veteran and draft status for the rookie are pretty good -- but obviously not perfect -- proxies for the talents of each player.

No one's saying you shouldn't downgrade Parker if you think Mendenhall's more talented than Parker. But if you want an objective measure of how talented each player is, and how similiar situations have unfolded with similar talent distributions in the past, looking at historical data can be very helpful.

sorry Chase, but the first part of your post is no brainer avg joe can see that type stuff....the highlighted portion is what we base our assessments on...in addition to other factors....but those other factors, IMO, do not include how things shook out for Ricky and Deuce......as much as we want to compare RB styles etc.....what happened with Ricky and Deuce will have nothing to do with our assessment of say Parker and Mendenhall....I think if you allow things like that to enter in your assessment and use as a factor of when to draft someone that could be a mistake.....don't get me wrong it may be nice to have some of that data and it may be interesting but from a fantasy perspective IMO I feel it has very little value.....

eta: just because so and so had a 70-30 split in carries back in 2001 or whatever, it really means nothing for future situations......we need to assess what is currently going on to get try and come up with those percentages, etc

 

[Chase Stuart]

a lot of these stats are nice, but I will not be basing my decision on when and where to draft these rookies and the veterans based on what has happened on other teams in the past.....it's the current situation of the team right now that is important, not how did things work out for Ricky Williams and Deuce McAllister back in the day.........when I see stats like this that start out sayng "no RB drafted in such and such round going to a team with such and such returning starter has ever whatever" I tune out....I don't think it matters IMO.....

Some historical context helps.If the Vikings drafted a RB in the 7th round, would you worry that Peterson would lose touches to him? Probably not. Why not? Because Peterson's awesome and 7th round RBs usually aren't.

If the Lions drafted McFadden, would you worry that Tatum Bell would lose touches to him? Probably. Why? Because Bell stinks and top 10 RBs usually don't.

There's a strong correlation between the talent of the veteran, the talent of the rookie, and the number of touches for each. Rushing yardage for the veteran and draft status for the rookie are pretty good -- but obviously not perfect -- proxies for the talents of each player.

No one's saying you shouldn't downgrade Parker if you think Mendenhall's more talented than Parker. But if you want an objective measure of how talented each player is, and how similiar situations have unfolded with similar talent distributions in the past, looking at historical data can be very helpful.

sorry Chase, but the first part of your post is no brainer avg joe can see that type stuff....the highlighted portion is what we base our assessments on...in addition to other factors....but those other factors, IMO, do not include how things shook out for Ricky and Deuce......as much as we want to compare RB styles etc.....what happened with Ricky and Deuce will have nothing to do with our assessment of say Parker and Mendenhall....I think if you allow things like that to enter in your assessment and use as a factor of when to draft someone that could be a mistake.....don't get me wrong it may be nice to have some of that data and it may be interesting but from a fantasy perspective IMO I feel it has very little value.....

eta: just because so and so had a 70-30 split in carries back in 2001 or whatever, it really means nothing for future situations......we need to assess what is currently going on to get try and come up with those percentages, etc

You say the first part is no brainer stuff, and you're right -- but you're skipping the important step because the conclusion is so easy. When the conclusion is harder, the important step is actually worth doing. Let's say someone was adamant that Michael Robinson was going to take Frank Gore's job this year. How would you argue against him, assuming you actually had to come up with a logical argument? At some point, you'd get frustrated and say look, almost no RB of Gore's ability has ever lost his job to a RB with Robinson's ability.Historical evidence is most important when trying to reject a claim, not to prove a claim. No, saying Williams/McAllister had X/Y split, so Parker/Mendenhall will have X/Y split, is silly. No one's going to argue that. But if someone was to say "hey look, the Steelers spent a first round pick on Mendenhall. There's no way they're not going to give him a ton of carries." Then, you'd point to the situations NO, Sea, KC and Stl faced in the past few years. You wouldn't say they're going to certainly have that split; just that it's not impossible that they will have that split.

And if you're analyzing Parker's situation, it's certainly noteworthy that when most stud RBs are on teams that spend a first rounder on a RB, they don't lose the job to the RB. It's up to you, of course, to decide if Parker's a stud.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

"Benson/Jones, Perry/Johnson, Avery/Jabbar, Williams/Foster were all situations where the incumbent was "pretty good". Not great, and not versatile. Foster had injury issues, Jabbar was only a good short-yardage runner, RJohnson had no hands, and Jones lacked any elite trait. I think White fits this group really, really well. He's probably most similar to Jabbar. None of the four rookies took the incumbent's job as rookies. That's a pretty bad sign for Chris Johnson. And while White most resembles Jabbar, I think Johnson most resembles John Avery. Both were very small, very fast, and had really good hands. Of course, just because Avery was a bust doesn't have anything to do with how Johnson will play. I just see the situation as very comparable."

These are the types of things I am talking about. I understand you are trying to compare RB styles and that is fine, but I think making such a statement (especially the highlighted part) is taking it a little too far. I realize it is your opinion that things don't look good for Chris Johnson, I just do not think it has much value if it is based on what happened to Avery and Jabbar. You make a pretty powerful statement including highlighting it, but then back peddal at the end.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

not wanting to pound chests or anything and I have always appreciated your insight, I am just simply implying that my assessment of the Parker and Mendenhall situation and others like it will be done by what I know, have seen, have read about them, what they do in camp and preseason, what the coaches do with them and say about them.....etc...

not what happened on other teams in the past.....if that puts me behind the 8 ball in some way, fine, but I just won't be allowing it to come into play when I draft.....I would feel like a fool if I made a bad pick, and then tried to defend it by saying part of my justification for making the pick was based on Avery/Jabbar situation in Miami several years ago....

 

[Chase Stuart]

"Benson/Jones, Perry/Johnson, Avery/Jabbar, Williams/Foster were all situations where the incumbent was "pretty good". Not great, and not versatile. Foster had injury issues, Jabbar was only a good short-yardage runner, RJohnson had no hands, and Jones lacked any elite trait. I think White fits this group really, really well. He's probably most similar to Jabbar. None of the four rookies took the incumbent's job as rookies. That's a pretty bad sign for Chris Johnson. And while White most resembles Jabbar, I think Johnson most resembles John Avery. Both were very small, very fast, and had really good hands. Of course, just because Avery was a bust doesn't have anything to do with how Johnson will play. I just see the situation as very comparable."

These are the types of things I am talking about. I understand you are trying to compare RB styles and that is fine, but I think making such a statement (especially the highlighted part) is taking it a little too far. I realize it is your opinion that things don't look good for Chris Johnson, I just do not think it has much value if it is based on what happened to Avery and Jabbar. You make a pretty powerful statement including highlighting it, but then back peddal at the end.

That's a fair point, SR. But all I'm saying is it's very easy to get caught up in the hype of a young rookie, especially when everyone thinks the veteran stinks. There will be tons of threads out there soon that say "White doesn't have half the talent of Johnson, blah blah blah." And they'll say stuff like "White wasn't great last year, he was just meh; obviously the Titans weren't happy with him, that's why they spent their first pick on a RB even when they had more pressing needs."And I'd simply counter that many thought Perry would eat into Johnson's carries, and it didn't happen. People thought DeA would steal DeS's job very soon; it didn't happen. People expected Benson to lead the Bears in rushing; didn't happen. People thought Avery would replace, or at the least, cut into Jabbar's value. And again, it didn't happen.

The point is when a team has a decent RB that has had some success, don't be so quick to write off the veteran the next year. It's easy to conclude that if you spend a 1st rounder on a guy he's going to play a lot, but history shows that just isn't true.

I don't really understand your comment about back peddling, so I didn't respond to that. Basically, I see Johnson and Avery as similar types of players, just like I see White/Jabbar as similar. But that's just an interesting fact, not something to base your conclusions on. Brian Westbrook and Warrick Dunn were similar types of players, too.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

"Benson/Jones, Perry/Johnson, Avery/Jabbar, Williams/Foster were all situations where the incumbent was "pretty good". Not great, and not versatile. Foster had injury issues, Jabbar was only a good short-yardage runner, RJohnson had no hands, and Jones lacked any elite trait. I think White fits this group really, really well. He's probably most similar to Jabbar. None of the four rookies took the incumbent's job as rookies. That's a pretty bad sign for Chris Johnson. And while White most resembles Jabbar, I think Johnson most resembles John Avery. Both were very small, very fast, and had really good hands. Of course, just because Avery was a bust doesn't have anything to do with how Johnson will play. I just see the situation as very comparable."

These are the types of things I am talking about. I understand you are trying to compare RB styles and that is fine, but I think making such a statement (especially the highlighted part) is taking it a little too far. I realize it is your opinion that things don't look good for Chris Johnson, I just do not think it has much value if it is based on what happened to Avery and Jabbar. You make a pretty powerful statement including highlighting it, but then back peddal at the end.

That's a fair point, SR. But all I'm saying is it's very easy to get caught up in the hype of a young rookie, especially when everyone thinks the veteran stinks. There will be tons of threads out there soon that say "White doesn't have half the talent of Johnson, blah blah blah." And they'll say stuff like "White wasn't great last year, he was just meh; obviously the Titans weren't happy with him, that's why they spent their first pick on a RB even when they had more pressing needs."And I'd simply counter that many thought Perry would eat into Johnson's carries, and it didn't happen. People thought DeA would steal DeS's job very soon; it didn't happen. People expected Benson to lead the Bears in rushing; didn't happen. People thought Avery would replace, or at the least, cut into Jabbar's value. And again, it didn't happen.

The point is when a team has a decent RB that has had some success, don't be so quick to write off the veteran the next year. It's easy to conclude that if you spend a 1st rounder on a guy he's going to play a lot, but history shows that just isn't true.

I don't really understand your comment about back peddling, so I didn't respond to that. Basically, I see Johnson and Avery as similar types of players, just like I see White/Jabbar as similar. But that's just an interesting fact, not something to base your conclusions on. Brian Westbrook and Warrick Dunn were similar types of players, too.

no problem with most of this.....as I am not on either side of writing someone off etc.....just simply saying that the history of Avery/Jabbar or Ricky/Deuce will have nothing to do with my assessment of the Parker/Mendenhall or any other situation.....others will factor it in and that is fine, I just won't.....the "history" of such situations to me is just not a factor...the backpeddling reference was just that you laid a great deal of foundation, comparisions, etc and highlighted it stressing your point that because of this past history of other players you think it's a "pretty bad sign for Johnson"....then you finish by saying but it may not happen that way........seemed to be trying to make a point and give an opionion based on that point and then also cover all your bases at the end......in other words "this is why I say this, but it may not happen"....we could do that all day long.........

 

[TheOriginalDoubledown]

"Benson/Jones, Perry/Johnson, Avery/Jabbar, Williams/Foster were all situations where the incumbent was "pretty good". Not great, and not versatile. Foster had injury issues, Jabbar was only a good short-yardage runner, RJohnson had no hands, and Jones lacked any elite trait. I think White fits this group really, really well. He's probably most similar to Jabbar. None of the four rookies took the incumbent's job as rookies. That's a pretty bad sign for Chris Johnson. And while White most resembles Jabbar, I think Johnson most resembles John Avery. Both were very small, very fast, and had really good hands. Of course, just because Avery was a bust doesn't have anything to do with how Johnson will play. I just see the situation as very comparable."

These are the types of things I am talking about. I understand you are trying to compare RB styles and that is fine, but I think making such a statement (especially the highlighted part) is taking it a little too far. I realize it is your opinion that things don't look good for Chris Johnson, I just do not think it has much value if it is based on what happened to Avery and Jabbar. You make a pretty powerful statement including highlighting it, but then back peddal at the end.

That's a fair point, SR. But all I'm saying is it's very easy to get caught up in the hype of a young rookie, especially when everyone thinks the veteran stinks. There will be tons of threads out there soon that say "White doesn't have half the talent of Johnson, blah blah blah." And they'll say stuff like "White wasn't great last year, he was just meh; obviously the Titans weren't happy with him, that's why they spent their first pick on a RB even when they had more pressing needs."And I'd simply counter that many thought Perry would eat into Johnson's carries, and it didn't happen. People thought DeA would steal DeS's job very soon; it didn't happen. People expected Benson to lead the Bears in rushing; didn't happen. People thought Avery would replace, or at the least, cut into Jabbar's value. And again, it didn't happen.

The point is when a team has a decent RB that has had some success, don't be so quick to write off the veteran the next year. It's easy to conclude that if you spend a 1st rounder on a guy he's going to play a lot, but history shows that just isn't true.

I don't really understand your comment about back peddling, so I didn't respond to that. Basically, I see Johnson and Avery as similar types of players, just like I see White/Jabbar as similar. But that's just an interesting fact, not something to base your conclusions on. Brian Westbrook and Warrick Dunn were similar types of players, too.

no problem with most of this.....as I am not on either side of writing someone off etc.....just simply saying that the history of Avery/Jabbar or Ricky/Deuce will have nothing to do with my assessment of the Parker/Mendenhall or any other situation.....others will factor it in and that is fine, I just won't.....the "history" of such situations to me is just not a factor...the backpeddling reference was just that you laid a great deal of foundation, comparisions, etc and highlighted it stressing your point that because of this past history of other players you think it's a "pretty bad sign for Johnson"....then you finish by saying but it may not happen that way........seemed to be trying to make a point and give an opionion based on that point and then also cover all your bases at the end......in other words "this is why I say this, but it may not happen"....we could do that all day long.........

you would rather he say this "this is why i say this, and it will definitely happen"? If i could say that with certainty, I wouldn't spend my time trolling these threads, I'd be dropping Jack in Vegas. So he can't guarantee a specific outcome. That shouldn't automatically make any inferences he makes based on a data sample insignificant. Only testing can do that. You disregard "history" because it's "just not a factor...". I would guess that disregarding anything based on one's inflexible opinion would be a much bigger mistake than to say "based on what I've observed, this is what i expect to happen, although I can't say with certainty that it will. You have every right to make history a non-factor in assessing situations such as these for yourself, but what i find interesting is that you are willing to question Stuart simply because he won't make history irrelevant as you have done. I guess when you can see into the future you don't have to reference the past.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

"Benson/Jones, Perry/Johnson, Avery/Jabbar, Williams/Foster were all situations where the incumbent was "pretty good". Not great, and not versatile. Foster had injury issues, Jabbar was only a good short-yardage runner, RJohnson had no hands, and Jones lacked any elite trait. I think White fits this group really, really well. He's probably most similar to Jabbar. None of the four rookies took the incumbent's job as rookies. That's a pretty bad sign for Chris Johnson. And while White most resembles Jabbar, I think Johnson most resembles John Avery. Both were very small, very fast, and had really good hands. Of course, just because Avery was a bust doesn't have anything to do with how Johnson will play. I just see the situation as very comparable."

These are the types of things I am talking about. I understand you are trying to compare RB styles and that is fine, but I think making such a statement (especially the highlighted part) is taking it a little too far. I realize it is your opinion that things don't look good for Chris Johnson, I just do not think it has much value if it is based on what happened to Avery and Jabbar. You make a pretty powerful statement including highlighting it, but then back peddal at the end.

That's a fair point, SR. But all I'm saying is it's very easy to get caught up in the hype of a young rookie, especially when everyone thinks the veteran stinks. There will be tons of threads out there soon that say "White doesn't have half the talent of Johnson, blah blah blah." And they'll say stuff like "White wasn't great last year, he was just meh; obviously the Titans weren't happy with him, that's why they spent their first pick on a RB even when they had more pressing needs."And I'd simply counter that many thought Perry would eat into Johnson's carries, and it didn't happen. People thought DeA would steal DeS's job very soon; it didn't happen. People expected Benson to lead the Bears in rushing; didn't happen. People thought Avery would replace, or at the least, cut into Jabbar's value. And again, it didn't happen.

The point is when a team has a decent RB that has had some success, don't be so quick to write off the veteran the next year. It's easy to conclude that if you spend a 1st rounder on a guy he's going to play a lot, but history shows that just isn't true.

I don't really understand your comment about back peddling, so I didn't respond to that. Basically, I see Johnson and Avery as similar types of players, just like I see White/Jabbar as similar. But that's just an interesting fact, not something to base your conclusions on. Brian Westbrook and Warrick Dunn were similar types of players, too.

no problem with most of this.....as I am not on either side of writing someone off etc.....just simply saying that the history of Avery/Jabbar or Ricky/Deuce will have nothing to do with my assessment of the Parker/Mendenhall or any other situation.....others will factor it in and that is fine, I just won't.....the "history" of such situations to me is just not a factor...the backpeddling reference was just that you laid a great deal of foundation, comparisions, etc and highlighted it stressing your point that because of this past history of other players you think it's a "pretty bad sign for Johnson"....then you finish by saying but it may not happen that way........seemed to be trying to make a point and give an opionion based on that point and then also cover all your bases at the end......in other words "this is why I say this, but it may not happen"....we could do that all day long.........

you would rather he say this "this is why i say this, and it will definitely happen"? If i could say that with certainty, I wouldn't spend my time trolling these threads, I'd be dropping Jack in Vegas. So he can't guarantee a specific outcome. That shouldn't automatically make any inferences he makes based on a data sample insignificant. Only testing can do that. You disregard "history" because it's "just not a factor...". I would guess that disregarding anything based on one's inflexible opinion would be a much bigger mistake than to say "based on what I've observed, this is what i expect to happen, although I can't say with certainty that it will. You have every right to make history a non-factor in assessing situations such as these for yourself, but what i find interesting is that you are willing to question Stuart simply because he won't make history irrelevant as you have done. I guess when you can see into the future you don't have to reference the past.

no..as stated I have no problem with these type of statitics.....and trying to compare RB styles....I just disagree when it is taken to the next level and someone says....

None of the four rookies took the incumbent's job as rookies. That's a pretty bad sign for Chris Johnson.

 

[TheOriginalDoubledown]

"Benson/Jones, Perry/Johnson, Avery/Jabbar, Williams/Foster were all situations where the incumbent was "pretty good". Not great, and not versatile. Foster had injury issues, Jabbar was only a good short-yardage runner, RJohnson had no hands, and Jones lacked any elite trait. I think White fits this group really, really well. He's probably most similar to Jabbar. None of the four rookies took the incumbent's job as rookies. That's a pretty bad sign for Chris Johnson. And while White most resembles Jabbar, I think Johnson most resembles John Avery. Both were very small, very fast, and had really good hands. Of course, just because Avery was a bust doesn't have anything to do with how Johnson will play. I just see the situation as very comparable."

These are the types of things I am talking about. I understand you are trying to compare RB styles and that is fine, but I think making such a statement (especially the highlighted part) is taking it a little too far. I realize it is your opinion that things don't look good for Chris Johnson, I just do not think it has much value if it is based on what happened to Avery and Jabbar. You make a pretty powerful statement including highlighting it, but then back peddal at the end.

That's a fair point, SR. But all I'm saying is it's very easy to get caught up in the hype of a young rookie, especially when everyone thinks the veteran stinks. There will be tons of threads out there soon that say "White doesn't have half the talent of Johnson, blah blah blah." And they'll say stuff like "White wasn't great last year, he was just meh; obviously the Titans weren't happy with him, that's why they spent their first pick on a RB even when they had more pressing needs."And I'd simply counter that many thought Perry would eat into Johnson's carries, and it didn't happen. People thought DeA would steal DeS's job very soon; it didn't happen. People expected Benson to lead the Bears in rushing; didn't happen. People thought Avery would replace, or at the least, cut into Jabbar's value. And again, it didn't happen.

The point is when a team has a decent RB that has had some success, don't be so quick to write off the veteran the next year. It's easy to conclude that if you spend a 1st rounder on a guy he's going to play a lot, but history shows that just isn't true.

I don't really understand your comment about back peddling, so I didn't respond to that. Basically, I see Johnson and Avery as similar types of players, just like I see White/Jabbar as similar. But that's just an interesting fact, not something to base your conclusions on. Brian Westbrook and Warrick Dunn were similar types of players, too.

no problem with most of this.....as I am not on either side of writing someone off etc.....just simply saying that the history of Avery/Jabbar or Ricky/Deuce will have nothing to do with my assessment of the Parker/Mendenhall or any other situation.....others will factor it in and that is fine, I just won't.....the "history" of such situations to me is just not a factor...the backpeddling reference was just that you laid a great deal of foundation, comparisions, etc and highlighted it stressing your point that because of this past history of other players you think it's a "pretty bad sign for Johnson"....then you finish by saying but it may not happen that way........seemed to be trying to make a point and give an opionion based on that point and then also cover all your bases at the end......in other words "this is why I say this, but it may not happen"....we could do that all day long.........

you would rather he say this "this is why i say this, and it will definitely happen"? If i could say that with certainty, I wouldn't spend my time trolling these threads, I'd be dropping Jack in Vegas. So he can't guarantee a specific outcome. That shouldn't automatically make any inferences he makes based on a data sample insignificant. Only testing can do that. You disregard "history" because it's "just not a factor...". I would guess that disregarding anything based on one's inflexible opinion would be a much bigger mistake than to say "based on what I've observed, this is what i expect to happen, although I can't say with certainty that it will. You have every right to make history a non-factor in assessing situations such as these for yourself, but what i find interesting is that you are willing to question Stuart simply because he won't make history irrelevant as you have done. I guess when you can see into the future you don't have to reference the past.

no..as stated I have no problem with these type of statitics.....and trying to compare RB styles....I just disagree when it is taken to the next level and someone says....

None of the four rookies took the incumbent's job as rookies. That's a pretty bad sign for Chris Johnson.

Statistically speaking it may be a bad sign for Chris Johnson. Outliers skew samples all the time, meaning not everyone fits into the normal range. Maybe it doesn't say anything about Chris Johnson as a player, but rather any number of players as a whole in that situation. I wouldn't base any decision from just one test sample, but I certainly wouldn't disregard it as a non factor unless I could show there was enough evidence to to reject the null hypothesis.

 

[UnknownCoach]

We have a post looking for the statistics of the criteria. The answer that should be concluded is that the "situation" is more important than the numbers. I know I've always felt that way. That seems to be the way this disucssion turned out.

When you look for a comparable situation from the past for this year's rookies, you only come up with a couple possible examples for each. That's not enough to come to any sort of conclusion IMO. You just have to look at each situation as uniquely as it truely is and use your own imagination.

 

[Biabreakable]

a lot of these stats are nice, but I will not be basing my decision on when and where to draft these rookies and the veterans based on what has happened on other teams in the past.....it's the current situation of the team right now that is important, not how did things work out for Ricky Williams and Deuce McAllister back in the day.........when I see stats like this that start out sayng "no RB drafted in such and such round going to a team with such and such returning starter has ever whatever" I tune out....I don't think it matters IMO.....

Some historical context helps.If the Vikings drafted a RB in the 7th round, would you worry that Peterson would lose touches to him? Probably not. Why not? Because Peterson's awesome and 7th round RBs usually aren't.

If the Lions drafted McFadden, would you worry that Tatum Bell would lose touches to him? Probably. Why? Because Bell stinks and top 10 RBs usually don't.

There's a strong correlation between the talent of the veteran, the talent of the rookie, and the number of touches for each. Rushing yardage for the veteran and draft status for the rookie are pretty good -- but obviously not perfect -- proxies for the talents of each player.

No one's saying you shouldn't downgrade Parker if you think Mendenhall's more talented than Parker. But if you want an objective measure of how talented each player is, and how similiar situations have unfolded with similar talent distributions in the past, looking at historical data can be very helpful.

sorry Chase, but the first part of your post is no brainer avg joe can see that type stuff....the highlighted portion is what we base our assessments on...in addition to other factors....but those other factors, IMO, do not include how things shook out for Ricky and Deuce......as much as we want to compare RB styles etc.....what happened with Ricky and Deuce will have nothing to do with our assessment of say Parker and Mendenhall....I think if you allow things like that to enter in your assessment and use as a factor of when to draft someone that could be a mistake.....don't get me wrong it may be nice to have some of that data and it may be interesting but from a fantasy perspective IMO I feel it has very little value.....

eta: just because so and so had a 70-30 split in carries back in 2001 or whatever, it really means nothing for future situations......we need to assess what is currently going on to get try and come up with those percentages, etc

Ok so how do you suggest we assess what is currently going on with this specific situation?The OP asked about the history of 1st round RBs drafted when there is allready a good RB on the team. So that is what we are looking at here (thanks for the info btw) as one way to assess the current situation.

I think what your saying has value also. And really what this is going to come down to is if Mendenhall has more talent than FWP.

I think FWP has established himself as one of the better RBs in the league right now. Mandenhall is going to be VERY VERY good if he is actually better than FWP.

Personally I don't think he is that good despite all the hype he has been getting leading up to the rookie draft. I dont think any of these RBs are at a level of talent equal to what FWP has shown to have.

 

[UnknownCoach]

Does anyone else remember that before the draft, Parker himself said he'd like to see the Steelers bring in another back to decrease his workload in order to prolong his career? I remember. If I was makeing millions, I'd consider the length of my career important.

Parker will start this year. Mendenhall can/should supplant Davenport quickly. I also view Mendenhall as Parker's successor. In terms of Parker's skill level, I'm not as high on him as others in this thread. I wouldnt consider him anywhere close to Ricky Williams but that's nothing more than my opinion. When will the succession happen? Nobody knows. It could be an injury this season that causes it. It could be three years away after Parker's age has caught up to him. You are looking at 0-4 years which puts the over/under at about 2 years in my estimation.