Which Top 10 RB from 2006 does not make the Top 10 in 2007? (1 Viewer)

[Banger]

On another note, do you all believe that LT's past year is a "career peak?" If so, how far would his drop be in 2007?

I do think it was probably a career year but I wouldn't be surprised at all if it wasn't. I'd expect a 15%-20% drop (my actual #'s were 17%). I'd guess a stat line of 1700-22 and 500-2 for 364 pts. I don't have his #'s dropping dramatically because there's nothing with his situation that will get worse IMO. A big reason for the increase in production this year was him staying healthy, the O-line play and Rivers. Both Rivers and the line are young and still developing. The O-line (for the most part) is signed long term and McNeill should only get better from his incredible debut and LT scored 3/4 of his td's to his side. VJax is becoming a threat, they still have Gates and may look to add a WR. Their offense could even be better next year which is a scary thought.On the other side of the ball, the defense is also young, improving and the key components are locked in long term (for the most part). So while I'd expect him to regress from his incredible year it won't be as much as people may think.

 

[Spiderman]

History has shown us that typically there is about 50% turnover each year in the Top 10 RBs. I thought that it would be beneficial to look at the 2006 Top 10 and start identifying the fallouts.Here's the 2006 Top 10 (FBG scoring)1 RB Tomlinson,Ladainian - 427.42 RB Johnson,Larry - 333.93 RB Jackson,Steven - 329.44 RB Gore,Frank - 272.05 RB Parker,Willie - 267.66 RB Westbrook,Brian - 257.67 RB Barber,Tiki - 242.78 RB Jones-Drew,Maurice - 227.79 RB Johnson,Rudi - 215.210 RB McAllister,Deuce - 191.9My list to not make the top 10 in 2007Barber - RetiredJones-Drew - I feel like his TDs will go down. McAllister - Bush will take more carries away as he continues to get better.Gore - Not sure if his bod can take the pounding, 2 knee and 2 shoulder surgeries scare me.Other thoughts?

Obviously Barber if he retires, but I think the darkhorse candidate has to Larry Johnson - the guy has been run into the ground this season. It will be interesting to see how durable he is next season.

 

[Warpig]

The Chiefs have so many holes it's mind boggling.

And yet they're in the playoffs.I look forward to 2007 when some of those holes will have been filled. With a solid offseason they should be in the Super Bowl given how they can make postseason play with so many holes.

With that said, I see LJ taking a rather significant dive next year. If they try to pound him into the ground again I also see an injury in his future.

Then why didn't it happen this season? He carried the ball a ton at the end of 2005 and all throughout 2006.Not once has it looked like he's even remotely slowing down -- not even after illegally getting his HEAD RIPPED OFF. You guys are funny. LJ will be in the top-10 again next year. I'd bet a good amount of money he'll be in the top-5 again.

They backed into the playoffs...I don't care what Herm says. What were the chances that the Bengals kicker would shank a kick under 40 yards? And then give up a big play to lose in overtime? And what were the odds that the 49er's would beat Denver? Seriously? The Chiefs should never have been in the position to where they needed that kind of help...even though they got it.Realistically, do you really expect them to fill all their holes? Like I said, Shields will retire, TG will probably be gone unless they have a spectacular offseason...and when have the Chiefs done that? Green will be a dinosaur and they will probably let Huard go. Law will be another year older as well.LJ could be a top 10 back next year...no doubt since he has the ability. But with all these things I've stated I choose to believe it is highly unlikely. If he does, then I was wrong. It's all speculation and anything can happen. If he is another top 10 back next year then you can toot your horn.

 

[corpcow]

On another note, do you all believe that LT's past year is a "career peak?" If so, how far would his drop be in 2007?

I can't answer for someone else, but IMO looking at LT's career there is one year that doesn't fit with the others. If I had to pick over or under in 2007 vs his 2006 numbers, I clearly would pick UNDER.For those wondering why no one brought up LT's workload vs LJ's workload, I did earlier in this thread. IMO, neither back is more or less likely to get hurt from overuse. HOWEVER, there still is a chance that either or both will. Should one of them get banged up, detractors will certain point to the workload as the causation when they may or may not be a true effect.As I outlined earlier, it is very rare that a RB will get 400 carries on a season, so there is a very high likelihood that Johnson will get fewer carries. But to suggest that he will get hurt BECAUSE of the workload is a step that I am unwilling to take. There have been RBs that have had many years with a lot of carries and were still productive AND had lengthy careers (Emmitt, Martin, etc.). One would think that they will have shorter careers because of it, but it's not like there are 1,000 similar RBs to compare at this point. There's too small a sample size.If you ignored the number of carries that any of these players had and looked solely as how they ranked the following year, historically the balance of power will show that there is a much greater chance that they will do worse in year X + 1. Call it regression to the mean or whatever else the latest catch phrase is.

You don't have to be hurt to be less effective.

 

[lord_helmet]

Why is season rushes the only interesting stat ? Nobody cares about career rushes ?LJ has less than half the carries than LT, yet nobody talks about him slowing down, maybe I'm missing something but I don't get it.

lord_helmet, do you think that folks are not as convinced that LJ is as "established" as a guy like LT? Therefore, maybe they are willing to attribute a fall off due to his high carry load?LT has shown he can take the workload he had this past year without any drop in productivity. In fact, LT's touches are remarkably consistent year to year and he was more productive this year than in any previous year.LJ has just had an incredible 24 game workload. But, he is young enough and has not had enough early career carries that this should not be tremendous factor in your 2007 rankings. A concern? Maybe. A reason to think LJ will fall off? Probably not. There are ample examples of high carry backs who are successful in year N+1.On another note, do you all believe that LT's past year is a "career peak?" If so, how far would his drop be in 2007?

Hard to say what others think, all I know is that alot of 'em said the KC running game would be toast this year with the loss of Roaf and Richardson and yet everytime I have seen LJ carry the football I have come away impressed. lso have been a very satisfied owner in a couple of FF leagues.He looks like a stud back to me, O-linemen can be replaced in the middle/late rounds of the draft if you know what you're doing.

 

[Banger]

Why is season rushes the only interesting stat ? Nobody cares about career rushes ?LJ has less than half the carries than LT, yet nobody talks about him slowing down, maybe I'm missing something but I don't get it.

lord_helmet, do you think that folks are not as convinced that LJ is as "established" as a guy like LT? Therefore, maybe they are willing to attribute a fall off due to his high carry load?LT has shown he can take the workload he had this past year without any drop in productivity. In fact, LT's touches are remarkably consistent year to year and he was more productive this year than in any previous year.LJ has just had an incredible 24 game workload. But, he is young enough and has not had enough early career carries that this should not be tremendous factor in your 2007 rankings. A concern? Maybe. A reason to think LJ will fall off? Probably not. There are ample examples of high carry backs who are successful in year N+1.On another note, do you all believe that LT's past year is a "career peak?" If so, how far would his drop be in 2007?

Hard to say what others think, all I know is that alot of 'em said the KC running game would be toast this year with the loss of Roaf and Richardson and yet everytime I have seen LJ carry the football I have come away impressed. lso have been a very satisfied owner in a couple of FF leagues.He looks like a stud back to me, O-linemen can be replaced in the middle/late rounds of the draft if you know what you're doing.

I was one of the doubters. Well, in a sense I was. I doubted that he would reach the predictions that many had for him, I didn't believe he was the #1 back due to the various offseason changes. There were some insane predictions going around the shark pool last summer and some seemed to think that LJ was a starter for 9 games and put X stats so multiply x 2 and you get 2000 yards and 25 tds. I didn't think that would be the case due to the line, coaching changes, ridiculous workload over that 9 game stretch, etc. His ypc was down nearly a whole yard (4.3) this year but he still got a monstrous work load kept his yardage totals very high and his td total was very good. I thought he'd get about 1500-1600 yards and about 15-16 tds. I do think you're minimizing lineman though, yes you can draft one in the mid rounds but the Chiefs had one of if not the best line in the league (I could be wrong but I believe one or two more guys may retire this year). Putting a body on the field is one thing but replacing pro-bowl guards/tackles or guys with 10+ years experience is another.

 

[The Jacket]

They backed into the playoffs...I don't care what Herm says. What were the chances that the Bengals kicker would shank a kick under 40 yards? And then give up a big play to lose in overtime? And what were the odds that the 49er's would beat Denver? Seriously? The Chiefs should never have been in the position to where they needed that kind of help...even though they got it.

Every team in the wildcard chase, at SOME point in the second half of the season, was in the exact same position. At 7-4 KC was an early driving seat. When they stumbled teams like Cincy and Jacksonville took advantage. And then when those teams stumbled, KC took advantage -- ironically enough by actually beating one of the said chokers.You could argue that KC didn't deserve it. But by doing so you're automatically conceding that neither team below them did either, IMO.

Realistically, do you really expect them to fill all their holes? Like I said, Shields will retire, TG will probably be gone unless they have a spectacular offseason...and when have the Chiefs done that? Green will be a dinosaur and they will probably let Huard go. Law will be another year older as well.

You're having a laugh, to be honest. And I don't know where to start.First of all, Gonzalez is going to be a Chief in 2007. Write it down, paint it on the wall, send it to him. I don't care; he'll be a Chief. If you're going to contest that get ready for a bumpity-bump when he resigns in a few months.Shields has been a mediocre player this season. And he's a guard. He won't be insanely missed. Willie Roaf... now that's an offensive lineman you miss.There's absolutely no chance that, if they do indeed let Huard go (again unlikely; your speculation is hilarious), the Chiefs go into the season with just Green, Printers and Croyle. No chance of that whatsoever.Good for Law. I'm sure there's no other team in football with a veteran "who will be another year older".

 

[David Yudkin]

On another note, do you all believe that LT's past year is a "career peak?" If so, how far would his drop be in 2007?

I can't answer for someone else, but IMO looking at LT's career there is one year that doesn't fit with the others. If I had to pick over or under in 2007 vs his 2006 numbers, I clearly would pick UNDER.For those wondering why no one brought up LT's workload vs LJ's workload, I did earlier in this thread. IMO, neither back is more or less likely to get hurt from overuse. HOWEVER, there still is a chance that either or both will. Should one of them get banged up, detractors will certain point to the workload as the causation when they may or may not be a true effect.As I outlined earlier, it is very rare that a RB will get 400 carries on a season, so there is a very high likelihood that Johnson will get fewer carries. But to suggest that he will get hurt BECAUSE of the workload is a step that I am unwilling to take. There have been RBs that have had many years with a lot of carries and were still productive AND had lengthy careers (Emmitt, Martin, etc.). One would think that they will have shorter careers because of it, but it's not like there are 1,000 similar RBs to compare at this point. There's too small a sample size.If you ignored the number of carries that any of these players had and looked solely as how they ranked the following year, historically the balance of power will show that there is a much greater chance that they will do worse in year X + 1. Call it regression to the mean or whatever else the latest catch phrase is.

You don't have to be hurt to be less effective.

But if you get the same workload, most times it doesn't matter if you are effective--you STILL will be a Top 10 RB.As I've harped upon many, many times, the more touches a RB will get, the higher he will rank REGARDLESS OF HIS PRODUCTION LEVEL. So if a top tier RB retains the workload he got from one year to the next, he will not drop very far in the rankings. INJURIES are the main reason RB fall in the rankings.Since 1970, there have been 154 times when a RB has had 350 or more touches. - 96 ranked in the Top 5 (62%)- 137 ranked in the Top 10 (89%)- 149 ranked in the Top 15 (97%)- 154 ranked in the Top 20 (100%)That's REGARDLESS of where they ranked the year before or what their # of touches was. So IMO it would take a lot for someone like Tomlinson or Johnson to fall out of the Top 10 UNLESS THEY GOT HURT.

 

[Warpig]

They backed into the playoffs...I don't care what Herm says. What were the chances that the Bengals kicker would shank a kick under 40 yards? And then give up a big play to lose in overtime? And what were the odds that the 49er's would beat Denver? Seriously? The Chiefs should never have been in the position to where they needed that kind of help...even though they got it.

Every team in the wildcard chase, at SOME point in the second half of the season, was in the exact same position. At 7-4 KC was an early driving seat. When they stumbled teams like Cincy and Jacksonville took advantage. And then when those teams stumbled, KC took advantage -- ironically enough by actually beating one of the said chokers.You could argue that KC didn't deserve it. But by doing so you're automatically conceding that neither team below them did either, IMO.

Realistically, do you really expect them to fill all their holes? Like I said, Shields will retire, TG will probably be gone unless they have a spectacular offseason...and when have the Chiefs done that? Green will be a dinosaur and they will probably let Huard go. Law will be another year older as well.

You're having a laugh, to be honest. And I don't know where to start.First of all, Gonzalez is going to be a Chief in 2007. Write it down, paint it on the wall, send it to him. I don't care; he'll be a Chief. If you're going to contest that get ready for a bumpity-bump when he resigns in a few months.Shields has been a mediocre player this season. And he's a guard. He won't be insanely missed. Willie Roaf... now that's an offensive lineman you miss.There's absolutely no chance that, if they do indeed let Huard go (again unlikely; your speculation is hilarious), the Chiefs go into the season with just Green, Printers and Croyle. No chance of that whatsoever.Good for Law. I'm sure there's no other team in football with a veteran "who will be another year older".

DOH! I don't wanna turn this into an argument about the chiefs so I'm just gonna make this quick:You're right...all the teams needed help. There are always teams that back into playoffs due to crappy divisions. Chiefs have been inconsistent at best and are making a mistake by keeping Green in there. Think of what their record would have been had they left Huard in there. Green came back and lost 3 out of 5 was it? Stinking it up. There are several teams that don't deserve to be in the playoffs.THere's a 50/50 chance TG returns as with any FA. Like I said, if they do enough in the offseason to improve then I think he'll sign. If not...he'll leave for a contender. Don't forget his heart is in California.Shields did have a down year this year...yet he still made it to the Pro-Bowl. That says alot for his level of play. He's been to what...12 of them? Yeah...he's pretty shabby. IF you think guards aren't all that important, go talk to Minnesota and Seattle (Shaun Alexander). They are less valuable than a tackle in most cases but Shields probably could have played tackle for many teams.Yes, I think the Chiefs may be stupid enough to let Huard go and keep Green. They are over loyal to their players once they've passed their prime. I think they should resign Huard as the starter going into next year, sign Green to a lower paying contract to stay with the team or get cut. Bring Croyle along to get in the mix. Printers is a goner...dumb as a box of rocks. Bring in a veteran FA to also compete for the job.As far as Law...do you know what teams do with CB's that get to old and slow to play on the island? They turn them into safeties. The Chiefs already have two older safeties with two studs in Pollard and Page waiting in the wings. Law already suffered a serious decline in production this year...what will next year hold in store?Due to LJ's stellar stats the last two years...with the gradual deterioration of his supporting cast, I'm just saying I see him as possibly being the biggest disappointment next year. UNLESS the Chiefs address the majority of their issues in the offseason. Now I'm hearing there are grumblings that Roaf MAY return next year after taking '06 off. IF that happens...all bets are off.

 

[Marc Levin]

As I've harped upon many, many times, the more touches a RB will get, the higher he will rank REGARDLESS OF HIS PRODUCTION LEVEL. So if a top tier RB retains the workload he got from one year to the next, he will not drop very far in the rankings. INJURIES are the main reason RB fall in the rankings.

This may explain why Rudi Johnson is always inthe top-10, but never in the top-5.

 

[Mudcrab]

McAllister - Bush will take more carries away as he continues to get better.Other thoughts?

While Bush will most likely get more touches, I don't know that Deuce's production will drop off all that much. The Saints are in a position to keep the majority of their offence (including O-line) intact for next season, and if they can make a few significant improvements on D via FA and the draft, they should find themselves in a postion to run the ball more next season. While it's fair to speculate that Deuce will be one of those to drop out of the top 10, I think the fall in production won't be that great - I think Brees is the one whose production will decrease significantly as the Saints find themselves more and more in a position to run the ball and control the clock. I see Deuce as possibly being one of the value picks in the 2nd round next season.

 

[Marc Levin]

Mudcrab, even though McAllister finished in the top-10 this year, over the last 10 weeks of the season, he was #16 under FBG scoring and Bush was #12.

Do you think that McAllister's falling out of the top-10 is more or less likely based on that information?

Do you think a light came on for Bush and we saw the true representation of their rankings for '07?

Do you think next year McAllister will assert himself over Bush the way he did in the first few games, or do you think next year's split will look like it did over the bulk of the season?

 

[Mudcrab]

Mudcrab, even though McAllister finished in the top-10 this year, over the last 10 weeks of the season, he was #16 under FBG scoring and Bush was #12. Do you think that McAllister's falling out of the top-10 is more or less likely based on that information?Do you think a light came on for Bush and we saw the true representation of their rankings for '07?Do you think next year McAllister will assert himself over Bush the way he did in the first few games, or do you think next year's split will look like it did over the bulk of the season?

A few of those games in the 10 week stretch were also when Brees was going nuts in the passing game. With an improved defense the Saints would be less reliant on Brees' arm.I still see Deuce as the workhorse in the ground game.The light did come on for Bush, and he will likely get a few more carries (and do more with them), but he'll also still get his touches in the passing game. I think Payton will continue to lean on Deuce for the run, allowing Bush to continue to be fresh and the all-round threat that has worked so well for them this season.

 

[nygiants56]

History has shown us that typically there is about 50% turnover each year in the Top 10 RBs. I thought that it would be beneficial to look at the 2006 Top 10 and start identifying the fallouts.

Barber - Retired

Jones-Drew - I feel like his TDs will go down.

McAllister - Bush will take more carries away as he continues to get better.

Gore - Not sure if his bod can take the pounding, 2 knee and 2 shoulder surgeries scare me.

Other thoughts?

Westbrook scares me - he scared me this year, but somehow he made it through the year missing only 1.5 games due to injury. He's not getting any younger, but on the other hand Buckhalter isn't scaring me and Moats is on his way out.Also, remove any RB (if it is a RB) that is on the cover of Madden.

?????? he just turned 27 to start the season. and he's never carried the ball more than 177 times in a season before this year. age is not a problem for him. he'll be at or near the top again next year for sure. plus, donovan seems to use him more than garcia does.i can't see LJ being healthy the whole year next year. i'd be pretty surprised if KC didn't get another decent back (draft or sign) to offset some of his workload.

gore's a beast.

i don't see ronnie brown sneaking into the top 10 if RWilliams comes back and contributes.

i can't seen MJD scoring as much next year, since greg jones has always been the short-yardage guy before this year.

guys who can "get in there" to the top 10 i think are:

maroney - all he needs is opportunity

CTaylor - if Minn can get their passing game straight, he'll have more opps at the GL and more room to run

SA - if he stays healthy, he'll certainly score plenty

Jacobs - giants may pick up another back, but if Eli can stop being a terrible QB, jacobs will get plenty of scoring chances.

why does everyone think a young LJ would get hurt next year, simply because he carried over 400 times this year? Tomlinson has consistently carried over 320+ times per year for a long time now, he's only had minor scrapes..LJ has never been hurt as far as I can tell, either in NFL or college..so its unresonable,imo, to just come out and say you think he'll get hurt in 2007, without any facts to back it up..he's had only one season at 400+ carries..he's a young whipper snapper..this isn't Curtis Martin getting 400 carries at the age of 31, for pete's sake..its a 20-something young man who's body can more than handle the workload..you don't buy a car to park it in the garage, you drive it..they should give him the ball 400 times every year..lol..they'll probably bring in a quality backup, someone healthier than Mike Bennett...

and I agree, Gore is a beast..

 

[David Yudkin]

why does everyone think a young LJ would get hurt next year, simply because he carried over 400 times this year?

Johson is actually a bit older than most people realize. He will be 28 during the season next year. He and LT were born only a few months apart.

 

[switz]

That's IF Tiki retires. I think he does, but you never know. Giants make a good run at the playoffs, maybe lose in the conference game, and Tiki might have a change of heart. Bettis sure did. That ring is very tempting.

Duece falls to top 20.

Rudi falls to top 15.

SURPRISING PREDICTION: The wear & tear catches up with LT2 in 2007 - injured for the season.

NOT SO SURPRISING PREDICTION: With the great season and LT2 injury, #1 2007 RB is:

FWP.

This is why you should never let homerism affect your rankings haha