Lol probably true. But that's not what I was talking about specifically. I'm interested in something you were talking about in another thread, talking about the success rate of first round running backs vs fourth and fifth round running backs. And it's really strong data. Yet the counterpoint is that of fhe top 50 guys in zwk's list, I think 8 were first round picks, including two from this year, yeldon, and some good but not really earth shattering guys like Doug Martin and Mark Ingram. So you're really looking at Gurley, Elliott and Melvin Gordon as your first round pick success stories. Yet 5 of his top 10 are first round picks, with Ingram (25th), Martin (30th)and yeldon (50th) bringing up the rear. Which means 19 of the top 24 guys were drafted outside the first round, and some mainstays like David Johnson, devonta Freeman, Lamar miller and Demarco Murray, as well as some new faces like Howard and Ajayi, have made the leap.
I don't have a link to the specific post, but you pretty much dismissed the late round backs as nice lottery tickets but the odds are too stacked against you to draft them early. And that makes sense to me because you had good data. But the results show that a lot of those top guys aren't first round picks.
I think the discussion recently you might be referring to was in the Kareem Hunt
thread. Your interpretation of.what was being discussed isn't what I was trying to communicate at all though. Do you not recall the many discussions in years past where I have argued against the very thing? How many times did people dismiss Zac Stacy because he was a 5th round pick? Was I one of those people? Absolutely not. In fact it was such arguments that led towards discussion of how to quantify player production in terms of Vbd to be worth a specific draft pick. At the time people argued that Zac Stacy (mostly because he was a 5th round pick) should only be a mid second round or later pick. I argued that he would be worth a late 1st round pick. These discussions stemmed off into what you see ZWK doing with his generic rookie rankings based on expected VBD. ZWK has a different method of doing this that what workdog did. But they are very similar in what they try to do, which is to look at the historical performance of players drafted by round, or overall pick or in workdogs study by the positional draft order. All 3 methods have somewhat different results just because of where the cut offs are set, or how the player order is partitioned.
What developed out of these discussions was an agreement that 40 VBD would be enough for the player to give your team an advantage on a per game basis, 32 VBD is 2 VBD/game advantage over the baseline, 40 gives a bit more cushion than this. If the player is performing below the baseline, they still give you some fantasy points, but not points that are helping you win, aside from perhaps a game or two (that you may or may not have started them).
Here is workdogs overall expectted VBD by rookie draft pick Pick 1.12 has an estimated career VBD of 169.
What I was talking about is the fact that rookie players bust. A lot. They bust even more for fantasy purposes because being a starter in the NFL does not mean the player is performing well enough to be worth starting in fantasy. The starting requirements of each leagues rules dictates what players actually have value for fantasy or not.
My rookie rankings are all about upside. This type of evaluation shows the risk, or downside of rookie players that my rankings do not.
These odds are derived from the historical performance of the players based on positional order. Not all drafts are equal, some are stronger at a position than average, some are weaker than average. So depending on the strength of the players any given year could be better or worse than these odds.
The history of the NFL draft shows that RB were selected much higher and more often in the first round than they have been the past decade or so. This has also been discussed a lot. The NFL devaluing of the RB position is very evident in the draft capital invested in them recently compared to past (a couple years with zero 1st round RB) and that picks used at the position trending down (later 1st round picks each year) leading up to that.
I know I mentioned at some point a year or so ago that this data was going to change by default, simply because there have not been enough 1st round RB drafted. There are always a top 12 at any position, regardless of how well they perform and that many of those slots would necessarily be filled by later round picks at the RB position. It is pretty easy to see that this is now becoming the case.
Now the last couple of drafts have had some 1st round RB in them and some really good ones, so this will likely start shifting back towards the norm again, we will see. But no it would not be fair to charecterize my opinion about this being that RB selected after round one have no chance of being successful. Quite the opposite.
That said, the odds are lower the later the player is selected. You really need to pick the right ones, because most of the later picks will not pan out. Just like a good percentage of the rookies no matter how high they are taken also will not pan out.
Part of that can be easily explained away. There haven't been 50 running backs selected in the first and second rounds of the nfl draft in the last 10 years, so of course the top 50 will include later round picks. Simple as that, no further explanation needed. But that doesn't address the bigger question of how do you identify the late round guys who will make the top 50 (or top 10, or top 25, whatever cutoff you want to use).
Correct. Your straw man is now down and cannot get up.
And that's where I think the monty hall problem becomes useful. We all kind of empirically like perine because he's probably going to be the starter. We all also kind of think slow fourth round picks tend to suck. How do you reconcile that into a proper study?
You could look at all guys drafted in the 4th round and say it's extremely unlikely to pick the right one, good luck guessing right. But that's not good analysis. I liked Dixon, Howard, the guy I talk too much about, and Booker better than drake last year and I think you did too, because we all kind of saw drake as a change of pace at best, while the other guys had a chance to start. Empirically we knew that a chance to start was good, but the data said fourth and fifth round picks are bad.
Considering one data point would not be analysis. There are many different data that when considered together form an analysis of the information known and available.
I tier the players based on upside. That analysis is driven by a lot of different things. Too many things for me to describe them all succinctly in a blurb about the player.
As far as the 2016 draft class goes and the way I rank the players is based on upside. I tier them into 3 categories. The value of each tier is the same, but the order that I rank the players within the tier is my opinion about the players odds to reach this upside, so a player at the end of tier two is close to being tier three and vice versa. I also try to factor opportunity into this. As we have discussed before, it can be valuable to select a player who gets opportunity earlier in their career because if it isn't terrible, that becomes an opportunity to sell the player, while they are still somewhat unknown. Offering the monty hall mystery box and the risk it has to someone else, in exchange for a different set of risks, but ones you may have more confidence in (established player). So opportunity, and early opportunity will move a player up in the tier for me.
May 1st 2016 rookie rankings
Tier 11
4 RB Ezekiel Elliot Cowboys
Tier 1
15 WR Corey Coleman Browns
22 WR Josh Doctson Redskins
23 WR Laquon Treadwell Vikings
Tier 2
45 RB Derrick Henry Titans
136 RB Devontae Booker Broncos
40 WR Sterling Shephard Giants
47 WR Michael Thomas Saints
134 RB Kenneth Dixon Ravens
2 QB Carson Wentz Eagles
1 QB Jared Goff Rams
21 WR Will Fuller Texans
55 WR Tyler Boyd Bengals
86 WR Leonte Carroo Dolphins
35 TE Henry Hunter Chargers
81 TE Austin Hooper Falcons
26 QB Paxton Lynch Broncos
51 QB Christian Hackenberg Jets
Tier 3
206 WR Mike Thomas Rams
117 WR Pharoh Cooper Rams
85 WR Braxton Miller Texans
171 RB Alex Collins Seahawks
90 RB CJ Prosise Seahawks
107 WR Chris Moore Ravens
150 RB Jordan Howard Bears
112 WR Malcolm Mitchell Patriots
172 WR Rashard Higgins Browns
143 RB DeAndre Washington Raiders
149 RB Paul Perkins Giants
140 WR Tajae Sharpe Titans
139 QB Cardale Jones Bills
91 QB Jacoby Brissett Patriots
93 QB Cody Kessler Browns
114 WR Louis Ricardo Browns
216 RB Darius Jackson Cowboys
135 QB Dak Prescott Cowboys
100 QB Connor Cook Raiders
Watch list
110 TE Tyler Higbee Rams
119 RB Tyler Ervin Texans
126 WR Demarcus Robinson Chiefs
138 TE Seth Devalve Browns
153 RB Wendell Smallwood Eagles
154 WR Jordan Payton Browns
156 RB Johnathan Williams Bills
162 QB Kevin Hogan Chiefs
163 WR Trevor Davis Packers
165 WR Tyreek Hill Chiefs
177 TE Temarrick Hemmingway Rams
180 WR Moritz Boehringer Vikings
182 RB Keenan Reynolds Ravens
184 TE Jerell Adams Giants
186 WR Jakeem Grant Dolphins
187 QB Nate Sudfeld Reskinks
188 TE David Morgan Vikings
191 QB Jake Rudock Lions
192 WR Kolby Listenbee Bills
199 WR Cody Core Bengals
201 QB Brandon Allen Jaguars
207 QB Jeff Driskel 49ers
211 RB Kelvin Taylor 49ers
213 WR Aaron Burbridge 49ers
217 TE Rico Gathers Cowboys
223 QB Brandon Doughty Dolphins
225 WR Devin Lucien Patriots
229 WR DeMarcys Ayers Steelers
230 WR Daniel Braverman Bears
231 TE Daniel Thomas Dolphins (just in case)
236 RB Dwayne Washington Lions
237 RB Daniel Lusco Saints
238 WR Devin Fuller Falcons
241 WR Charone Peake Jets
242 RB Keith Marshall Redskins
243 WR Kenny Lawler Seahawks
247 RB Zac Brooks Seahawks
252 TE Beau Sandland Panthers
It is always fun for me to look back on these things and my first impression of my own list is what the hell was I thinking about many of these.
You have Rams ranked really high because of opportunity as no other skill players with the Rams had really established themselves.Same with the Seahawks RB. When there is a void for a team at a skill position I will rank all rookie players drafted to that team a bit higher because of the opportunity. So trying to catch lightning in a bottle is definitely influencing the order of otherwise similarly tiered players. Draft position and my evaluation of the team fit, scheme, role, competition. Team projections. Some forward thinking about if a player will be more valuable in future seasons, for example high ranking of Henry.
After the seasons the 3 tier one WR had I somewhat regret having them this high, I think this has caused me to be overly critical of WR this year somewhat.
I had 3 tier two RB. Where you see the QB in tier two is kind of what separates the players I thought had good chances to become tier two from the players I felt less confident about that happening for them. A lot of these players I didn't really like that much but ranked them there because of draft position and opportunity. In a sense you could consider these players borderline tier 3 upside. The tier two above the QB are the boxes i want to pick.
Jordan Howard a player I regret having so low. I even saw that Howard was a perfect John Fox RB who could win the job. I mostly doubted his ability as a receiver which was wrong. I thought it would be more of a timeshare with Langford being the receiving back and thus limiting Howards upside, even though I thought he was the RB Fox would prefer. I had and have some doubts about Fox being the Bears HC as well, so if it was RBBC then a change in coaches in years to follow, the new coach might be looking for a different kind of RB than what Fox likes. I also shy away from run to contact RB like Howard as I think they are more likely to become injured due to their running style, but I do not feel strongly about that at all. Just another thing that deserves more investigation.
At this time I thought Washington had a slightly easier path to playing time than Perkins and considered them very close in relative talent, although from that perspective perhaps like Perkins a bit more in a vacuum, mostly because of pad level. The Raiders a better offensive line than the Giants as well.
As much as I use data and research, a lot of this is driven by intuition for me as well. Some times my analysis is wrong. Jordan Howard for example. Hurts even more because I had the situation right but the talent level of the player wrong. This is where I have the most trouble, as there are times I will believe something for a good reason, but it just does not apply to that particular player.
The next level is to say what about slow guys? Perine ran a 4.6 plus, that's bad, right? And again, we can look back at the numbers and say yeah, guys who run slower than 4.6 rarely succeed. But again, empirically, we see that some big slow guys have done really well, and he is going to start
In the Perine thread I point out that Jordan Howard had very similar numbers at his pro day. Howard turned out ok.
Which is why I think the monty hall problem is important. The initial data set for perine (who I like but don't own, by the way) shouldn't be fourth round picks or big slow guys. It should be big slow fourth round picks who get a chance to start.
That's really important. You need to eliminate the third down backs, goal line specialists, fullbacks, special teams guys, projects, and other noise from the data set.
The data being referenced is just what it is. I agree with you that data is not the ultimate arbiter of truth. It is just data.
We might not have enough data to do that. The league isn't that old and it's changed a lot. So cross examine the data. How many of the fourth round picks who got a chance to start in year one or two proceed to do well? How many of the big slow guys who got a chance to start in year one or two? How many of the starters who did well were big and slow? Etc.
Gianmarco has a really nice thread on this, evaluating how often a player selected by round, gets early opportunity to play does well but is replaced by another player in the following season anyways. What he found is that unless the player was a 1st round pick, they were not always really considered to be starters, and when teams had the opportunity to upgrade, they did. It was pretty compelling if someone wants to dig up that thread. I have a few times in the past, it is pretty good. Anyhow, like any average or broad generalization, there will be some that fit and some that don't. The tendency is the higher the draft pick, the more chances they get to prove they are not bad than a lower draft pick.
The
historical performance does address this question. Just a matter of how you want to look at it.
Another study that looks at the career path of the best RB over 25 years and how their careers progressed.
Stats guys like to use measurables, like 40 time, draft pick and BMI. But empirically, I like observable traits like can he run inside. Can he run outside. Does he score a lot of touchdowns. Can he catch. Can he pass block. Will he be asked to do those things by his new team based on the current roster. With first round picks, you don't need to get that granular - because guys selected in the first round are almost invariably good at most or all of those things. That's why they were selected in the first round.
I agree. The longer I do think the further I move from metrics. I think those things are most useful for predicting draft position. Not sure they have much other utility.
I liked Freeman a lot coming out, and didn't like hill relative to his draft position. The reason I liked Freeman was because he could run inside, outside, catch, pass block and score touchdowns, and he had a clear path to starting. It's what I liked about Dixon last year, and the jury's still out there. The reason I didn't like hill is that he's a lot like perine - but he also had someone really good on the team who had just started his own rookie contract, and was better at running outside and catching the ball and decent ay scoring touchdowns. Perine has Thompson to deal with, but Thompson is nowhere near the threat for touches that Gio appeared to be, and that matters.
This is something that we agreed about. I just forgot about Freeman for the most part because he didn't flash early on. Other fish were frying. Hill did have a great end of his rookie season that had me wondering about my bias against these big non elusive RBs like Howard.
Anyways, just some long and rambling thoughts on this stuff while I wait for the washer to finish. Sorry for talking about that guy again.
No worries, Sorry if I was harsh. Just one drop over the dam. Cheers.