Rookie Rbs taking longer to develop now? (1 Viewer)

[Biabreakable]

I was thinking about this when looking at the historical success of rookie Rbs.

It used to be that when playing FF you could get value from making a later round Rb selection of a rookie who would end up vastly outperforming thier ADP. This has not been the case now for several years in a row though and it is starting to look like there will not be one again this year. I mean a rookie Rb who becomes a must start in thier rookie season. Last year we did have Caddy in the early going before he got injured. He was useful but not a solid Rb 1. This year we have many Rbs who are playing and look good but here we are almost to the FF playoffs and still none of them have broken out and become solid starters yet. Has this become a thing of the past?

1993 1 in the top 10 Jerome Bettis 2nd overall

1994 1 in the top 10 Marshall Faulk 4th overall (Erict Rhett was 14th)

1995 1 in the top 10 Curtis Martin 2nd overall (Terrell Davis was 12th)

1996 2 in the top 10 Eddie George 8th overall Karim-Abdul Jabar 9th overall

1997 1 in the top 10 Corey Dillon 8th overall (Dunn was 13th)

1998 2 in the top 10 Fred Taylor 4th overall Robert Edwards 8th overall

1999 Edge as a rookie was the number 1 Rb

2000 1 in the top 10 Mike Anderson 4th overall (Jamal Lewis was 16th)

2001 1 in the top 10 LT 7th overall (Domanic Rhodes 11th Anthony Thomas 13th)

2002 1 in the top 10 Clinton Portis 4th overall

There hasn't been a top 10 rookie Rb since Portis.

The closest were Domanic Davis in 2003 who finished 13th and Carnell Williams in 2005 who finished 19th.

What has happened to this consistent trend of rookie Rb plug and play success?

Has the game gotten too complex for a team to be able to extensivly use a rookie Rb now?

Or is this just a result of a glut of talent at the Rb position at this time causing rookie Rbs to wait longer before they become full time starters?

I think this has an impact on dynasty leagues and how owners choose to use thier rookie picks. It used to be that you could get instant production from your rb picks causing the early picks in drafts to be dominated by Rb picks. But if this is a new trend as it appears to be owners may want to rethink thier strategy if they are going to have to wait for these Rbs to develop just like they would a Wr or Qb.

Will 2007 break this current dry spell of rookie Rb performance?

 

[weisguy0831]

I honestly think there's a depth at RB that is making it harder for rookies to come in and get the starting job right away. I mean, look at Reggie Bush. He was taken 2nd overall and is getting a lot of PT, but he hasn't displaced Deuce yet, has he?

 

[Liquid Tension]

I was thinking about this when looking at the historical success of rookie Rbs.It used to be that when playing FF you could get value from making a later round Rb selection of a rookie who would end up vastly outperforming thier ADP. This has not been the case now for several years in a row though and it is starting to look like there will not be one again this year. I mean a rookie Rb who becomes a must start in thier rookie season. Last year we did have Caddy in the early going before he got injured. He was useful but not a solid Rb 1. This year we have many Rbs who are playing and look good but here we are almost to the FF playoffs and still none of them have broken out and become solid starters yet. Has this become a thing of the past?1993 1 in the top 10 Jerome Bettis 2nd overall1994 1 in the top 10 Marshall Faulk 4th overall (Erict Rhett was 14th)1995 1 in the top 10 Curtis Martin 2nd overall (Terrell Davis was 12th)1996 2 in the top 10 Eddie George 8th overall Karim-Abdul Jabar 9th overall1997 1 in the top 10 Corey Dillon 8th overall (Dunn was 13th)1998 2 in the top 10 Fred Taylor 4th overall Robert Edwards 8th overall1999 Edge as a rookie was the number 1 Rb2000 1 in the top 10 Mike Anderson 4th overall (Jamal Lewis was 16th)2001 1 in the top 10 LT 7th overall (Domanic Rhodes 11th Anthony Thomas 13th)2002 1 in the top 10 Clinton Portis 4th overallThere hasn't been a top 10 rookie Rb since Portis.The closest were Domanic Davis in 2003 who finished 13th and Carnell Williams in 2005 who finished 19th.What has happened to this consistent trend of rookie Rb plug and play success?Has the game gotten too complex for a team to be able to extensivly use a rookie Rb now?Or is this just a result of a glut of talent at the Rb position at this time causing rookie Rbs to wait longer before they become full time starters?I think this has an impact on dynasty leagues and how owners choose to use thier rookie picks. It used to be that you could get instant production from your rb picks causing the early picks in drafts to be dominated by Rb picks. But if this is a new trend as it appears to be owners may want to rethink thier strategy if they are going to have to wait for these Rbs to develop just like they would a Wr or Qb.Will 2007 break this current dry spell of rookie Rb performance?

This also has impacted the veteran starters as well because they share some time with a good/great prospect. Not to hijack but this is the reason why I recommended drafting Manning this year in the 1st round; there are and were too many question marks for your pure starting RB's after the 1st 4 guys this year (at the time CP and SA were the clear starters)

 

[Doug B]

Defensive complexity is a factor at some level. The influence of the zone blitz in the NFL has meant that teams often have to concede that their 5-man offensive lines are going to be outnumbered on passing downs. Accordingly, most coaches really try to avoid playing RBs that can't pass block. The ability to pick up these pass-blocking assignments often influences just how many snaps a rookie RB is going to get.

You didn't hear much about the pass-blocking prowess of RB draft hopefuls as recently as a decade ago ... now, it's almost as important a part of a prospect's grade as raw rushing ability. And then, even the good college blockers at RB can struggle with learning to "read" NFL defenses and figure out where the extra pass rusher is coming from. In a nutshell ... there's a lot more to learn for rookie RBs than there was even 10 years ago.

 

[kevthegrad]

I think of Frank Gore as a rookie. He'll make that list if so.

But I know he's not REALLY a rook.

 

[coolnerd]

 

[Banger]

Defensive complexity is a factor at some level. The influence of the zone blitz in the NFL has meant that teams often have to concede that their 5-man offensive lines are going to be outnumbered on passing downs. Accordingly, most coaches really try to avoid playing RBs that can't pass block. The ability to pick up these pass-blocking assignments often influences just how many snaps a rookie RB is going to get.You didn't hear much about the pass-blocking prowess of RB draft hopefuls as recently as a decade ago ... now, it's almost as important a part of a prospect's grade as raw rushing ability. And then, even the good college blockers at RB can struggle with learning to "read" NFL defenses and figure out where the extra pass rusher is coming from. In a nutshell ... there's a lot more to learn for rookie RBs than there was even 10 years ago.

Bingo. We have a winner. Being able to run the ball is only part of the equation. Teams invest big time money in qb's and if you can't block, teams will go right at you and make your team/QB pay.

 

[fsufan]

i think NFL teams are going to RBBC or a change of pace RB more and more every year.

 

[Tick]

Excellent topic. I agree that blitz pickup and a willingness to plan on a RBBC seem to be the culprits.

I drafted only two legit starting RBs in a Zealots startup last year, knowing I had the #2 pick and would be able to pick up a stud rookie. If I had it to do over again, I wouldn't have gone that route - I would have taken another starter in the initial draft. I lucked out by getting Maroney, who's been usable, but it just as easily could have been DeAngelo, who hasn't been useful for FF.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Defensive complexity is a factor at some level. The influence of the zone blitz in the NFL has meant that teams often have to concede that their 5-man offensive lines are going to be outnumbered on passing downs. Accordingly, most coaches really try to avoid playing RBs that can't pass block. The ability to pick up these pass-blocking assignments often influences just how many snaps a rookie RB is going to get.You didn't hear much about the pass-blocking prowess of RB draft hopefuls as recently as a decade ago ... now, it's almost as important a part of a prospect's grade as raw rushing ability. And then, even the good college blockers at RB can struggle with learning to "read" NFL defenses and figure out where the extra pass rusher is coming from. In a nutshell ... there's a lot more to learn for rookie RBs than there was even 10 years ago.

Bingo. We have a winner. Being able to run the ball is only part of the equation. Teams invest big time money in qb's and if you can't block, teams will go right at you and make your team/QB pay.

There was thread before the year where MLBrandow was touting how much better Caddy was than Ronnie Brown and why would Saban have drafted Ronnie Brown instead of Caddy. There were many points, but the bottom line was that Ronnie Brown was the far better all around back and that RB was awesome at picking up blitzers. In looking at how poor the talent level on the Dolphin line is, RB has been incredibly valuable for the Dolphins as he is an awesome blocker. It will be interesting to see how the Dolphins cover without the better threat to run and without a back who can consistently stone a blitzer.

 

[Doug B]

i think NFL teams are going to RBBC or a change of pace RB more and more every year.

Also a major factor. Good post.

 

[djcolts]

Defensive complexity is a factor at some level. The influence of the zone blitz in the NFL has meant that teams often have to concede that their 5-man offensive lines are going to be outnumbered on passing downs. Accordingly, most coaches really try to avoid playing RBs that can't pass block. The ability to pick up these pass-blocking assignments often influences just how many snaps a rookie RB is going to get.You didn't hear much about the pass-blocking prowess of RB draft hopefuls as recently as a decade ago ... now, it's almost as important a part of a prospect's grade as raw rushing ability. And then, even the good college blockers at RB can struggle with learning to "read" NFL defenses and figure out where the extra pass rusher is coming from. In a nutshell ... there's a lot more to learn for rookie RBs than there was even 10 years ago.

I also think coaches are more concerned about the "rookie wall" than ever before, too.

 

[corpcow]

I also think coaches are more concerned about the "rookie wall" than ever before, too.

I agree. From the News Blogger:

RB Addai Trying To Avoid Rookie Wall

Mike Chappell, Indianapolis Star - [Full Article]

Because Colts HC Tony Dungy has maintained a split backfield, RB Joseph Addai has yet to hit the "Rookie Wall" that many players run into in their first year. Saving Addai's strength for the long haul has been Dungy's priority from day one. "We wanted him to be good in December and January, so I think the fact he's not playing all the time and not taking every rep in practice, that helps us," Dungy said. Addai is averaging 13 carries a game while splitting time with starting RB Dominic Rhodes.

Consider that some of the best backs go to mid- or late-round first rounders - teams which are presumably already competitive like the Colts and Pats. These are teams that are going to be competivie in Dec and Jan. Do you want to invest so much in a RB that you essentially know will break down? (And in the world of NFL parity, even a team with the #2 pick can be competitive in Dec/Jan, and that's when they need the superstar the most).Just my

 

[ExtraPoint]

I dont think so. You have to look at opportunity. When its there, rookies are performing. I dont think it has much to do with development.

Maroney came out of college early (supposably unpolished) and looks like he could have started from day 1 had Dillon not been in the way. What if Maroney or Williams had gone to Indianapolis instead of Addai. Remember that Addai was more of a second round prospect. Speaking of Williams, remember that Foster was given big money and declared the starter even after the draft. Simuliar to how Thomas Jones who had a big contract already was declared the starter last year in Chicago. McCallister, Fred Taylor, and Dillon are also earning their big contracts by starting. Bush and Drew werent considered every down backs before they were even drafted... they were expected to share their carries. If anything, Maroney has taken more carries from Dillon than he was expected to this year. Drew maybe has played the best of any rookie RB and gotten more action than expected as a result. Bush is one of the top players in all the NFL in receptions which is very fast development. Bush simply has never been a workhorse RB and may never be.

Indianapolis and Tennessee had more opportunity to see an every down emerger as the veterans had more team friendly contracts. White's injury is what really held him back and slowed his development. Henry is simply better as well as more developed right now. So the biggest opportunity for fantasy was in Indianapolis. While Addai is better than Rhodes, he's still that second round prospect. He might not ever be an every down guy in Indy as they could bring in another back again as early as next year. Addai has actually picked up Indy's complex system and developed quickly. If he really had the talent that a player like Maroney (who Indy had hoped would fall to their pick) or Williams does, I think he could have started week 1.

Lundy has developed rapidly. He's just not that good. Washington has developed normally as an RBBC type.

So which rookies have taken longer than expected to develop? Only really White who had a serious injury leading into the camps.

I think when you look at the last few years case by case, you see the same thing. I dont think Caddy has been slow to develop. I think Tampa's blocking sucks. I dont think Ronnie Brown has been slow to develop. I think Ricky Williams is simply better. Benson is probably developing slowly but he's been slowed by injury and missing his rookie camp. Benson, even in comparison to RB intelligence, is slow in the head. I also think Benson would be starting already on a lot of other teams despite that slow mental progress. Arrington was drafted higher than his talent warrented due to need simuliar to Addai.

I think Priest Holmes may have had something to do with Larry Johnson's progression. Dont you? I dont rookies are developing slower. I think veterans are playing longer due to improvements in health training and medicine.

 

[ExtraPoint]

One more thing. Teams with high picks are usually bad teams. Bad teams usually have poor offensive lines. That's another reason why the best talents tend not to have the best stats. Put Ronnie Brown in Indianapolis. Now you have a fantasy force from day 1.

 

[MLBrandow]

I think of Frank Gore as a rookie. He'll make that list if so.But I know he's not REALLY a rook.

Except for that he took a year to develop, which is the point of this thread.

One more thing. Teams with high picks are usually bad teams. Bad teams usually have poor offensive lines. That's another reason why the best talents tend not to have the best stats. Put Ronnie Brown in Indianapolis. Now you have a fantasy force from day 1.

Yeah, I hated the NFL's draft policy before 2002, when only the best teams got top-10 picks. This explains everything, thanks for your insight!

 

[ExtraPoint]

Yeah, I hated the NFL's draft policy before 2002, when only the best teams got top-10 picks. This explains everything, thanks for your insight!

I'm sorry if you cant accept the fact that statistics are affected by many events, not just one. I'm sorry if you think that a statistical trend must continue if it cant be explained by one event.

 

[Tick]

One more thing. Teams with high picks are usually bad teams. Bad teams usually have poor offensive lines. That's another reason why the best talents tend not to have the best stats. Put Ronnie Brown in Indianapolis. Now you have a fantasy force from day 1.

This doesn't always hold - Cedric Benson was a top-level player who went to a top-level team. No fantasy force.

 

[Biabreakable]

With Joeseph Addai's performance yesterday perhaps the lull of the past few years will be broken yet in 2006.

 

[BGP]

Had Willis McGahee not blown out his knee in his last college game, he'd probably have gone very high and perhaps been top 10 as a rookie. The Bengals probably still take QB Carson Palmer at 1.01. But the Lions might have taken him at 1.02 instead of WR Charles Rogers. Or the Texans probably would have taken him at 1.03 instead of WR Andre Johnson.

 

[MLBrandow]

Yeah, I hated the NFL's draft policy before 2002, when only the best teams got top-10 picks. This explains everything, thanks for your insight!

I'm sorry if you cant accept the fact that statistics are affected by many events, not just one. I'm sorry if you think that a statistical trend must continue if it cant be explained by one event.

Your post was not only entirely irrelevant but also very obvious. And your response just confuses me. What do I have a problem accepting?Your "reason" that there hasn't been a 1k rusher since 2002 is that the bad teams pick first? It's always been that way.When am I ever supposed to accept faulty logic?"I'm sorry if you think that a statistical trend must continue if it can't be explained by one event."Call me a simpleton, but what does this have to do with anything I've said either? Are you thinking beyond your head? Is it too hard to either try and answer a question intelligibly with analysis or stats or just be quiet?Now, if you'd have said something like.... "well, this guy only goes back to 1993 because before that, the 1k rushers in the top 10 were hit or miss with no determinant predictability. The better question is 'why did these 10 years produce straight 1k rushers and the rest didn't?'" If you'd have said something like that, this debate might be progressing rather than derailing.

 

[Biabreakable]

Now, if you'd have said something like.... "well, this guy only goes back to 1993 because before that, the 1k rushers in the top 10 were hit or miss with no determinant predictability. The better question is 'why did these 10 years produce straight 1k rushers and the rest didn't?'" If you'd have said something like that, this debate might be progressing rather than derailing.

The reason I didn't go back further in time than I did is because I had conflicting information about when Ricky Watters was actualy a rookie. I am sure someone else here could clairify that and we could take the trend back further in time for a larger data sample though with a bit of digging. I didn't even get to the Emmit Smith and Barry Sanders years which were HUGE rookie success from HOF players.Rookie Rbs that could break the lapse of top 10 performance this year:Maurice Jones Drew - 7th in my league right nowJoseph Addai - 13th in my league right nowReggie Bush - 14th in my league right nowLawrence Maroney - 25th in my league right now

 

[protoslacker]

Very Interesting.... I drafted Edge as a rookie (ahead of Ricky Williams who was supposed to be the man), and he blew up as a rook. Shaun Alexander was an obviously talented rookie but was stuck behind Ricky Watters. This year I got Maroney and Bush and the situation is more like Alexander than Edge. I think there's something to your argument.

 

[Biabreakable]

Using FBGs scoring rookie Rbs in 2006

Maurice Jones Drew finished as the 8th Rb overall Joeseph Addai Rb 11 Reggie Bush Rb 17 thus breaking the lapse of Rb1 performance from rookies.

So were these years where a Rb finished outside of Rb 12 a sign of a new trend or an anomoly?

How do people expect rookie Rbs to perform in 2007 and 2008? Will there be rbs from those classes that break into the top 12 or not?

 

[WampusCat43]

Really odd that these three essentially were in RBBCs and their "co-worker" played virtually all year.

 

[David Yudkin]

IMO, part of the reaon that there have been fewer Top 10 rookie RBs is they have not been getting the worload that some of the other guys did in the past.

Taking the RBs from the original post . . .

1993 Jerome Bettis 320 touches

1994 Marshall Faulk 366 touches

1995 Curtis Martin 398 touches

1996 Eddie George 358 touches

1997 Corey Dillon 260 touches

1998 Fred Taylor 308 touches

1998 Robert Edwards 326 touches

1999 Edge 431 touches

2000 Mike Anderson 320 touches

2001 LT 398 touches

2002 Clinton Portis 306 touches

All of those players except Corey Dillon had 300+ touches. Since 2002, the only RB that had over 300 touches as a rookie was Cadillac Williams (310).

Jones-Drew was the excetion to the rule, as he had monster ypc and TD numbers which generally doesn't happen very often. Jones-Drew had the highest ypc of a rookie RB with at least 150 carries in a season. He also tied for the 7th most TDs by a rookie RB.

When teams start to draft rookie RBs witht he intent of making them the featured back from Day One, they will return to the promised land of the Top 10 (or if they take over for an injured back very early in the season).

 

[Biabreakable]

I do find MJDs performance to be a huge outlier compared to how other Rbs have performed historicly.I would be very interested in what similarity scoring would show as Rb compares to MJD.Anarchy I have a question about this statement:

When teams start to draft rookie RBs witht he intent of making them the featured back from Day One, they will return to the promised land of the Top 10 (or if they take over for an injured back very early in the season).

Do you think it is a trend now in the NFL to not draft Rbs with the intention of making them thier feature Rbs from day one or has that just been the circumstances?

 

[David Yudkin]

I do find MJDs performance to be a huge outlier compared to how other Rbs have performed historicly.I would be very interested in what similarity scoring would show as Rb compares to MJD.Anarchy I have a question about this statement:

When teams start to draft rookie RBs witht he intent of making them the featured back from Day One, they will return to the promised land of the Top 10 (or if they take over for an injured back very early in the season).

Do you think it is a trend now in the NFL to not draft Rbs with the intention of making them thier feature Rbs from day one or has that just been the circumstances?

Top 10 fantasy seasons by RBs with 250 or fewer touches:1 Gale Sayers 1965 166-867-14 + 29-507-6 = 257.402 Leroy Kelly 1966 209-1141-15 + 32-366-1 = 246.70 3 Billy Cannon 1961 200-948-6 + 43-586-9 = 243.40 4 Herschel Walker 1986 151-737-12 + 76-837-2 = 241.40 5 Cookie Gilchrist 1962 214-1096-13 + 24-319-2 = 231.50 6 Maurice Jones-Drew 2006 166-941-13 + 46-436-2 = 227.70 7 Lenny Moore 1961 92-648-7 + 49-728-8 = 227.60 8 Dan Reeves 1966 175-757-8 + 41-557-8 = 227.40 9 Clem Daniels 1963 215-1099-3 + 30-685-5 = 226.40 10 James Brooks 1985 192-929-7 + 55-576-5 = 222.50 (Westbrook in 2004 was #25 on the list at 205.5.)As for whether or not teams will give the lion's share of carries to a rookie, IMO if the situation is right it will happen. Butin recent years, the teams that invested heavily in RBs early already had a somewhat palatable RB on the roster and did not need to rush along the rookie RB. Even for this upcoming year, I don't see a true clear cut team that a phenom rookie RB could waltz in and be THE GUY from opening day (unless situations change between now and September).

 

[Biabreakable]

5 Cookie Gilchrist 1962 214-1096-13 + 24-319-2 = 231.50

Jeebus!! Thanks for the list Anarchy.

 

[David Yudkin]

Bia -

Then you'll like some of these, too:

FEWEST # OF TOUCHES TO SCORE 10 TD:

QB Steve Young 1987 10 TD passes from 37 completions in 69 attempts

RB Billy Cannon 1967 0-0-0 + 32-629-10

WR Bucky Pope 1964 25-786-10

TE Keith Jackson 1996 40-505-10