rookie rb's - interesting stat (1 Viewer)

[SoopaCee]

since 1993 there has been atleast 1 1,000 yd rookie RB every year

now i know nowadays 1,000 isnt a big deal.....but i just found it interesting for the point of the playing time they got

this year i guess the best bet would be Ryan Mathews....perfect situation for him

what other rookie rb's do you see following trend?

p.s....im also trying to break down rookie rb's with 250+ carries and double digit td's

 

[Brothers Mayhem]

I believe we'll see Mathews and Best topple the 1k yard mark this year. Me personally, I also like Dwyer to be huge.

 

[HoleFiller]

Id like to see a list of how many times its not the guy who everyone thinks it is going to be. I just wonder when some people rank Mathews in their top 10 backs when the guy has yet to put on NFL pads. Opportunity only means so much but i just feel like you are going to have to overpay for an unproven commodity in Mathews and you would be better of looking elsewhere.

 

[SoopaCee]

Id like to see a list of how many times its not the guy who everyone thinks it is going to be. I just wonder when some people rank Mathews in their top 10 backs when the guy has yet to put on NFL pads. Opportunity only means so much but i just feel like you are going to have to overpay for an unproven commodity in Mathews and you would be better of looking elsewhere.

true.....because if you look at the lists of 1,000 yd rookie rushers over the past years....alot of shocking names on the lists haha

 

[David Yudkin]

Where player was drafted . . .

Matt Forte 6th RB selected

Chris Johnson 5th

Steve Slaton 10th

Marshawn Lynch 2nd

Adrian Peterson 1st

Joseph Addai 4th

Cadillac Williams 3rd

Kevin Jones 3rd

Willis McGahee 1st

Domanick Williams 6th

Clinton Portis 4th

Dominic Rhodes Undrafted

Anthony Thomas 4th

LaDainian Tomlinson 1st

Mike Anderson 17th

Jamal Lewis 1st

Olandis Gary 12th

Edgerrin James 1st

Robert Edwards 2nd

Fred Taylor 1st

Corey Dillon 5th

Karim Abdul-Jabbar 9th

Eddie George 3rd

Terrell Davis 18th

Curtis Martin 9th

Rashaan Salaam 5th

Marshall Faulk 1st

Errict Rhett 3rd

Jerome Bettis 2nd

Reggie Brooks 6th

Ronald Moore 10th

Ricky Watters 5th

 

[FantasyMan]

since 1993 there has been atleast 1 1,000 yd rookie RB every year

now i know nowadays 1,000 isnt a big deal.....but i just found it interesting for the point of the playing time they got

this year i guess the best bet would be Ryan Mathews....perfect situation for him

what other rookie rb's do you see following trend?

p.s....im also trying to break down rookie rb's with 250+ carries and double digit td's

It's actually from 1992-2008. There wasn't one last season.and here's your list of Rookie RBs with 250+ carries and 10+ TDs (from profootballreference):

Rookie RBs with 250+ carries and 10+ TDs

 

[jmo87usc]

Then you get a year like last year and the streak is broken. Knowshon was close, and Beanie probably would have hit 1,000 had he started from the beginning of the season.

Looking at that list, you can see that most of the time it's the top 5 RB in the rookie class, which makes the case that RB is the safest top rookie pick. I'd love to see these stats for WR's and QB's.

It also shows you how some systems/situations help RB's flourish like Denver. TD was truly talented, but O. Gary, Mike Anderson...nothing special.

Which means a guy like Ryan Matthews is a good bet for 1,000 yards based on where he was drafted and his team's plan to use him. If he doesn't break 1,000, it would probably be due to injury. Detroit sounds like they want to use Best alot, so he could be a good candidate. I think Ben Tate will end up getting the bulk of carries for Houston and have a good shot at 1,000 yards as well. Maybe Hardesty if he is the starter in cleveland from day 1. The rest is pretty much a crap shoot. Injuries and unforseen opportunities will have to decide the fate of the remaining guys.

 

[Shutout]

Then you get a year like last year and the streak is broken. Knowshon was close, and Beanie probably would have hit 1,000 had he started from the beginning of the season. Looking at that list, you can see that most of the time it's the top 5 RB in the rookie class, which makes the case that RB is the safest top rookie pick. I'd love to see these stats for WR's and QB's.It also shows you how some systems/situations help RB's flourish like Denver. TD was truly talented, but O. Gary, Mike Anderson...nothing special. Which means a guy like Ryan Matthews is a good bet for 1,000 yards based on where he was drafted and his team's plan to use him. If he doesn't break 1,000, it would probably be due to injury. Detroit sounds like they want to use Best alot, so he could be a good candidate. I think Ben Tate will end up getting the bulk of carries for Houston and have a good shot at 1,000 yards as well. Maybe Hardesty if he is the starter in cleveland from day 1. The rest is pretty much a crap shoot. Injuries and unforseen opportunities will have to decide the fate of the remaining guys.

Yeah, deffinitely appears that if you have a top 5 RB taken, your chances are very solid.A lot fo the rookies ended up in good spots this year as well...lots of opportunity. If there was one I thought will NOT hit 1,000, its Tate. I think people have been wanting to connect dots and assume this and all that, but I believe what I hear from Houston right now. I really DO think that the Texans will go through a process using Slaton as he is available, giving Foster an opportunity (he played well at the end of the year last year), and they even still have Chris Brown who will take some short yardage opportunities, etc. At the end of the day, I think Tate won't get enough consistent playing time to be one of the top rooks this year. I really don't see him having more than 700 yards this season.

 

[SSOG]

To copy/paste some data from the Moreno discussions last season...

Here's a list of rookie RBs who finished in the top 24, along with their finish, from 1999-2008:

2008- Forte (4th), Slaton (6th), CJ (11th), Kevin Smith (18th)

2007- Adrian Peterson (3rd), Marshawn Lynch (12th)

2006- MJD (8th), Addai (11th), Bush (17th)

2005- Caddy (19th), Brown (23rd)

2004- Willis McGahee (9th), Kevin Jones (21st)

2003- Dom Williams (nee Davis) (14th)

2002- Clinton Portis (4th), Marcel Shipp (21st)

2001- Tomlinson (7th), Rhodes (11th), A-Train (13th)

2000- Mike Anderson (4th), Jamal Lewis (16th)

1999- Edgerrin James (1st), Olandis Gary (14th)

That's 23 backs in 10 years, or an average of 2.3 a season.

From 1999-2008, here's the number of 150+ point RBs broken down by years of experience:

Rookies- 22

2nd year- 30

3rd year- 31

4th year- 28

5th year- 28

6th year- 29

7th year- 19

Here's the same list, except just RBs that scored 200+ fantasy points:

Rookies- 11

2nd year- 10

3rd year- 16

4th year- 14

5th year- 16

6th year- 18

7th year- 10

Edit: last year saw one rookie (Knowshon Moreno) post a top-24 finish (RB17). He also broke the 150-point barrier, scoring 170 for the season.

 

[David Yudkin]

To copy/paste some data from the Moreno discussions last season...Here's a list of rookie RBs who finished in the top 24, along with their finish, from 1999-2008:2008- Forte (4th), Slaton (6th), CJ (11th), Kevin Smith (18th)2007- Adrian Peterson (3rd), Marshawn Lynch (12th)2006- MJD (8th), Addai (11th), Bush (17th)2005- Caddy (19th), Brown (23rd)2004- Willis McGahee (9th), Kevin Jones (21st)2003- Dom Williams (nee Davis) (14th)2002- Clinton Portis (4th), Marcel Shipp (21st)2001- Tomlinson (7th), Rhodes (11th), A-Train (13th)2000- Mike Anderson (4th), Jamal Lewis (16th)1999- Edgerrin James (1st), Olandis Gary (14th)That's 23 backs in 10 years, or an average of 2.3 a season.From 1999-2008, here's the number of 150+ point RBs broken down by years of experience:Rookies- 222nd year- 30 3rd year- 314th year- 285th year- 286th year- 297th year- 19Here's the same list, except just RBs that scored 200+ fantasy points:Rookies- 112nd year- 103rd year- 164th year- 145th year- 166th year- 187th year- 10Edit: last year saw one rookie (Knowshon Moreno) post a top-24 finish (RB17). He also broke the 150-point barrier, scoring 170 for the season.

I'm not really sure what the point of this thread was overall. Yes, there are usually rookie RBs that fare pretty well. RBs turn over a lot more than other positions and the life expectency is shorter, so this should be somewhat expected.What is harder to project and many times not expected is which rookies will do well and which ones won't, but much of that is predicated on opportunities that may or may not develop.For example, of the list of guys cited here, in most redraft leagues I would suggest that the following guys would have been a shot in the dark, a reach, or otherwise dumb luck based on their lack of hype prior to the season and how they ended up performing: Forte, Slaton, Dom Davis, Marcel Shipp, Rhodes, A-Train, Mike Anderson, and Olandis Gary.These guys did well because they fell into a starting job . . . so I am not sure if the real value is finding guys with a chance to become starters due to injuries or if the value is in finding rookies. Starting RBs of any age or number of years of experience carry a lot of value.There have been several threads over the years on backup RBs and handcuffing and the like, and short of injuries to guys higher on the depth chart, many times there will be more rookie RBs that languish than get a chance to excel on the field. IIRC, guys like Slaton, Shipp, and Anderson were at best waiver wire pickups. I doubt anyone drafted them in a redraft league on the basis that they were a rookie and therefore had a higher chance of succeeding.Overall, though, I suspect that there are more relevant rookie RB than at rookies at QB, WR, or TE, so I guess it makes sense to look at rookie RB as potential gold mines if they happen to get a chance to play.

 

[SSOG]

I'm not really sure what the point of this thread was overall. Yes, there are usually rookie RBs that fare pretty well. RBs turn over a lot more than other positions and the life expectency is shorter, so this should be somewhat expected.What is harder to project and many times not expected is which rookies will do well and which ones won't, but much of that is predicated on opportunities that may or may not develop.For example, of the list of guys cited here, in most redraft leagues I would suggest that the following guys would have been a shot in the dark, a reach, or otherwise dumb luck based on their lack of hype prior to the season and how they ended up performing: Forte, Slaton, Dom Davis, Marcel Shipp, Rhodes, A-Train, Mike Anderson, and Olandis Gary.These guys did well because they fell into a starting job . . . so I am not sure if the real value is finding guys with a chance to become starters due to injuries or if the value is in finding rookies. Starting RBs of any age or number of years of experience carry a lot of value.There have been several threads over the years on backup RBs and handcuffing and the like, and short of injuries to guys higher on the depth chart, many times there will be more rookie RBs that languish than get a chance to excel on the field. IIRC, guys like Slaton, Shipp, and Anderson were at best waiver wire pickups. I doubt anyone drafted them in a redraft league on the basis that they were a rookie and therefore had a higher chance of succeeding.Overall, though, I suspect that there are more relevant rookie RB than at rookies at QB, WR, or TE, so I guess it makes sense to look at rookie RB as potential gold mines if they happen to get a chance to play.

Another quote from the Moreno thread:"According to Yudkin's post, in the past 5 years there have been 19 backs drafted outside the top 25 who finished the season inside the top 15. 7 of those 19 (37%) were Rookies- by far the highest percentage of any experience group. In short... if you're swinging for a home run with every pick, historically you've been *FAR* more likely to hit it with a rookie RB than with any other experience level of back."I agree that rookies are riskier picks than vets, but at the same time, that's already reflected in the ADP. If you're looking to get a quality starter late in the draft though, there are worse strategies than shotgunning rookies.

 

[sholditch]

I believe we'll see Mathews and Best topple the 1k yard mark this year. Me personally, I also like Dwyer to be huge.

Why dwyer?

 

[bigmurd]

I believe we'll see Mathews and Best topple the 1k yard mark this year. Me personally, I also like Dwyer to be huge.

Why dwyer?

Once he sees the buffet @ training camp he'll be huge in no time.

 

[loose circuits]

It's figuring out which one that is the problem. If you were to take the number of rookie RB's that hit 1000 yards and divde it by the number in the league each year, I don't think probability would be in your favor. I think over hyped rookies tend to disappoint. Hard to say whether Mathews is the real deal and I'm definitely not sold on Jahvid Best. I'll be selective in the leagues I target them and they will have to come at decent value for the risk

 

[Pip's Invitation]

and they even still have Chris Brown who will take some short yardage opportunities, etc.

No they don't, he's not on their roster. http://www.nfl.com/teams/houstontexans/roster?team=HOU

Tate was a good inside runner at Auburn. Given the Texans' failures at that last year, you gotta think Tate is a good bet for goal-line carries. Yardage is trickier, as Foster and Slaton will also get their carries.

 

[SSOG]

It's figuring out which one that is the problem. If you were to take the number of rookie RB's that hit 1000 yards and divde it by the number in the league each year, I don't think probability would be in your favor. I think over hyped rookies tend to disappoint. Hard to say whether Mathews is the real deal and I'm definitely not sold on Jahvid Best. I'll be selective in the leagues I target them and they will have to come at decent value for the risk

That's true of every player of every age, though. For instance, from 1999-2008 there were 11 rookies who scored 200 fantasy points. That might represent a very small percentage of the entire rookie population... but no smaller than the percentage of 2nd year backs who went on to score 200 points (all 10 of them) represent of the sophomore population.Rookies are already devalued because of their lack of experience. In most seasons, you won't get any rookie RBs going in the top 20. In fact, you'll rarely get any rookie RBs going in the top 16 or so, and you'll almost NEVER get any rookie RBs going in the top 12. Personally, I think they're taking a bit TOO MUCH of a value hit. I think they're slightly undervalued. I'm not saying that they should be valued in line with the veterans, because the risk inherent with a rookie RB is very real... but I do think they should be valued closer to the veterans. I think their production history (and, especially, their production history vs. their ADP) warrants a bump.

 

[SoopaCee]

damn thanx for all the input.....now my g/f will get pissed because i will be studying this stuff all day haha

 

[cr8f]

I care more about the end of the season and fantasy playoffs. I like Hardesty this year along with Matthews.

 

[SoopaCee]

I care more about the end of the season and fantasy playoffs. I like Hardesty this year along with Matthews.

this is true....but we need to make it there first haha

 

[loose circuits]

It's figuring out which one that is the problem. If you were to take the number of rookie RB's that hit 1000 yards and divde it by the number in the league each year, I don't think probability would be in your favor. I think over hyped rookies tend to disappoint. Hard to say whether Mathews is the real deal and I'm definitely not sold on Jahvid Best. I'll be selective in the leagues I target them and they will have to come at decent value for the risk

That's true of every player of every age, though. For instance, from 1999-2008 there were 11 rookies who scored 200 fantasy points. That might represent a very small percentage of the entire rookie population... but no smaller than the percentage of 2nd year backs who went on to score 200 points (all 10 of them) represent of the sophomore population.Rookies are already devalued because of their lack of experience. In most seasons, you won't get any rookie RBs going in the top 20. In fact, you'll rarely get any rookie RBs going in the top 16 or so, and you'll almost NEVER get any rookie RBs going in the top 12. Personally, I think they're taking a bit TOO MUCH of a value hit. I think they're slightly undervalued. I'm not saying that they should be valued in line with the veterans, because the risk inherent with a rookie RB is very real... but I do think they should be valued closer to the veterans. I think their production history (and, especially, their production history vs. their ADP) warrants a bump.

doesn't it really depend on the league you play in for where the value actually is? Some leagues may have people that are casual NFL fans but love college football and will take young guys early.also opportunity always plays a big part (since any starter for 16 games should rush for 1000).

Too many variables to accurately conclude anything from the research provided is what I'm trying to say

Myself and another guy did a study a few years ago (Deangelo Williams rookie season when he was battling Foster for PT). We looked at all the 1st round picks that had been drafted since 1983. When a decent incumbent was present, they usually held the job for at least a season and the picks outside of the top 10 did not have good odds. However, that trend was broken. It seems any time somebody tries to 'prove' a trend it backfires.

 

[SSOG]

doesn't it really depend on the league you play in for where the value actually is? Some leagues may have people that are casual NFL fans but love college football and will take young guys early.

also opportunity always plays a big part (since any starter for 16 games should rush for 1000).

Too many variables to accurately conclude anything from the research provided is what I'm trying to say

Myself and another guy did a study a few years ago (Deangelo Williams rookie season when he was battling Foster for PT). We looked at all the 1st round picks that had been drafted since 1983. When a decent incumbent was present, they usually held the job for at least a season and the picks outside of the top 10 did not have good odds. However, that trend was broken. It seems any time somebody tries to 'prove' a trend it backfires.

Of course it depends on your league. I'm basing that statement off of ADP, which stands for AVERAGE draft position. More rookies outside of the top 50 picks wind up becoming studs than backs of any other age. What that means is that in an AVERAGE league, or in a league that is typically representative of the majority of leagues, then rookies present the best chance of getting a top-10 RB at a price outside of the top 20. If your league is rookie-heavy, then obviously it's not average and ADP isn't very meaningful.

 

[Warpig]

since 1993 there has been atleast 1 1,000 yd rookie RB every year

now i know nowadays 1,000 isnt a big deal.....but i just found it interesting for the point of the playing time they got

this year i guess the best bet would be Ryan Mathews....perfect situation for him

what other rookie rb's do you see following trend?

p.s....im also trying to break down rookie rb's with 250+ carries and double digit td's

It's actually from 1992-2008. There wasn't one last season.and here's your list of Rookie RBs with 250+ carries and 10+ TDs (from profootballreference):

Rookie RBs with 250+ carries and 10+ TDs

Wow! A lot of hall of famers and/or debatable HOFers on that list.