1st Round RBs vs. 2nd and 3rd Round RBs The Past 10 or so Years

[TheRumGone]

3 minutes ago, Promethean Forerunner said:

And I'll just laugh at your miserable posts about him in 3-4 years.

I don't really care either way tbh. I'm not on the Henry train or anything but I'm not gonna sit here and act like I'm some sort of draft wizard and question a guy with the drafting pedigree of DG. If we take him it's because he feels he's the best prospect at the pick. 

[Bartin]

3 minutes ago, Promethean Forerunner said:

I mean, look at Luke, Davis and Shaq as examples. All three were safeties who got converted to linebackers

Luke literally never played a game at safety. Shaq played safety for all of one game in college due to an injury. TD was a box SS.

[csx]

"Luke played FS in high school before being converted to OLB and ILB in Boston."

 

You are really reaching. Nothing about Luke is a Tweener.  

[Zaximus]

People are acting like we're picking top 15.  We're pick #30.  It's basically a second round pick.   Would I spend a top-15, or top 20 picks on a RB?  Probably not.  However, at #30, which is basically a second round pick, why not?

[motocross_cat]

16 minutes ago, Promethean Forerunner said:

Isn't the NFL going the way of athletic tweeners anyways?

I mean, look at Luke, Davis and Shaq as examples. All three were safeties who got converted to linebackers. All three are considered undersized for their position. Yet, with the passing game now being center stage, the league needs faster defenders at all three phases of the game.

A guy like Henry who can't change direction, has a slow first step and isn't valuable in the passing game. So why is he so coveted? Because big and had a fantastic workout at the combine? I don't see it. DTs like Aktins, Short, McCoy, etc would eat him up inside with ease. Hell, he wouldn't even make it to the LOS when going up against a Top Tier DL.

A bruiser isn't worth a first round selection anymore.

Well to be fair those DL you named eat up all running backs every week.  

I think with a good line he can be a very productive running back and a real bitch once he reaches the second level with all those tweeners trying to stop him.

Top 10? 15? Meh but at thirty i dont think its a horrible decision.   Personally i would rather nab me some defensive linemen this year but henry wouldnt break my heart.  

 

[top dawg]

It's BPA, people, irrespective of position. Drafting inferior players based upon need will bankrupt your probability of success in the long run. 

If Henry is the BPA as judged by Gettleman, then he will be the pick. It's that simple. The same is true for any player not named Henry. But do you really expect Getty to take an inferior player at any position when there is a superior player at another position when we make our first pick?

All of the rationalizing, comparing, and all manners of over-thinking the pick isn't going to change what happens on draft day when Gettleman stays true to his philosophy, and true to his board.

[Bartin]

23 minutes ago, Promethean Forerunner said:

Guess again.

Despite being 6'3", 235 lbs, several scouts called Luke undersized for the position. His frame isn't on par with LBs like D.Johnson and Bowman apparently. In fact that was categorized as one of his negatives during the draft process -- because he wouldn't be able to handle blockers. 

I'll bet you $50 right now that I can find several draft articles that referenced Luke as a 'hybrid' player along with the word 'tweener' thrown around.

I seriously doubt you can. At least not from reputable media outlets.

 

[motocross_cat]

22 minutes ago, top dawg said:

It's BPA, people, irrespective of position. Drafting inferior players based upon need will bankrupt your probability of success in the long run. 

If Henry is the BPA as judged by Gettleman, then he will be the pick. It's that simple. The same is true for any player not named Henry. But do you really expect Getty to take an inferior player at any position when there is a superior player at another position when we make our first pick?

All of the rationalizing, comparing, and all manners of over-thinking the pick isn't going to change what happens on draft day when Gettleman stays true to his philosophy, and true to his board.

I think everyone know this.  Just fun to read and react.

Especially during work hours.

[csx]

39 minutes ago, Promethean Forerunner said:

Guess again.

Despite being 6'3", 235 lbs, several scouts called Luke undersized for the position. His frame isn't on par with LBs like D.Johnson and Bowman apparently. In fact that was categorized as one of his negatives during the draft process -- because he wouldn't be able to handle blockers. 

I'll bet you $50 right now that I can find several draft articles that referenced Luke as a 'hybrid' player along with the word 'tweener' thrown around.

You are likely getting college recruiting process mixed up with draft process. He was 6'3 242 at the combine. That's not close to Tweener 

[KillerKat]

RBs aren't nearly worth enough these days to be drafting in the first. You can get a good one anywhere.

[Captain Morgan]

here are the backs we know we've met with

 

RB
Josh Ferguson, Illinois (Shrine) Proj Round: 3rd-5th

Kenyan Drake, Alabama (Senior Bowl) Proj Round: 3rd-4th

Derrick Henry, Alabama (Workout) Proj Round:1st-2nd

Tyler Ervin, San Jose State (Private) Proj Round: 3rd-5th

[Ricky Spanish]

1 hour ago, beastson said:

The odds of being worth in the later rounds (which is what exactly?) in comparison to the 1st round (just one round) is much higher. Not really a fair comparison

You didn't read what I wrote then. I compared them by individual rounds, not all rounds compared to the first. There are more hits at RB in the second round as compared to the first, and the number of "hits" in round 3 is equivalent to round one even if you use the same lofty expectations to judge a third rounder as you did a first rounder. That means you have just as much of a chance drafting a pro bowler/good RB in the third as you do in the first, and a better probability of doing so in the second compared to any other round. 

Also, please don't take this as gospel and that I'll hate Derrick Henry if we draft him. I'll be pissed we took a RB but I'll cheer like hell for him to succeed. Besides, it's not like I've never been wrong about this kind of crap before.

Ultimately, I respect Dave Gettleman's opinion far above my own. If he thinks Henry is a stud and takes him, then by god I will bet he will be. 

[miko dawg]

2 hours ago, Cracka McNasty said:

Alright so I know a lot of you are very much in favor of drafting one Derrick Henry in the first round. And that's good for you. Some of you aren't as sold on him in the first. Good for you too. I'm on the fence leaning no, because much like the tanned man that is Todd McShay, I'm not a fan of running backs in the first unless they are truly an elite talent. But why is that? For a number of reasons. One of which is that the position has become expendable and interchangeable in the past decade. The other being because they take too much of a beating to be counted on consistently to be healthy year in and year out. The third reason is because over the past decade, First round Running Backs tend to not be worth a first round pick. 

But what makes a running back worth a first round pick? Durability, Consistency, and Production. I would want that from any position, let alone running back, but a few of those attributes are harder to come by than others. The biggest one being durability. As you'll see in the list below, plenty of careers and seasons were cut short due to injury because RBs get injured quite often due to the nature of the position. Consistency is directly effected (affected? I never know) by durability. If you're always hurt then you can't be consistent. Lastly, Production. You can still be healthy and not produce worth a crap. 

With all those factors combined, what would you consider a desired resume for a First round Running back? I personally, would want them to reach a second contract with their original team, because that shows that their original team wanted them around. I would also like a 1st round RB to have at least 3 seasons of 1,000 yards rushing. Even though it's a completely arbitrary number, that's not asking a lot I don't think. That would mean that through their prime years as a RB in the league, from when they are 22-29 years old, they would have had to have spent less than half that time rushing for 1,000 yards. That's roughly 63 yards per game for those who want it broken down more. That's all I want. 63 yards per game. Again, I don't think that's asking for too much from a first round pick. Most importantly above all else, I would want the guy to be healthy and on the damn field. Him being on the field would likely directly contribute to whether or not he produces enough to be considered worthy of a 1st round pick. So without further ado, here is every first round RB from 2005 to 2014*

*No RBs were chosen in the first round in 2013 and 2014, and I have removed the 2015 class because it's too early to tell how they will turn out long term after one year.

Take your time and look it over. I'll wait.

 

Done? Good stuff. Now I'm sure half of you will be calling for my head after claiming that Deangelo and Stewart aren't worthy of a first round pick, but let's be real and take off the homer glasses for one second here people. They weren't/aren't. Williams was a flash in the pan that coasted on two good years, and Stewart is too oft-injured to be considered worth the pick (in my opinion at least). He is a beast when he's on the field, but that's the biggest issue isn't it? When he's on the field. We said the same thing about Dan Morgan, but it just wasn't worth the investment. 

With that in mind, take another look at the players listed. The same could be said for a NUMBER of them. "If only they were healthy" or "When they were healthy they were a beast!" but more often than not when it comes to RB, they are too hurt too often to be considered good enough. Of the 24 first round RBs taken in the past 10+ years, only 3 have been Worth a first round pick by my completely admittedly arbitrary and hackneyed metrics and reasoning, and one the jury is still out on in Doug Martin. Even saying that, Marshawn didn't do anything worth a damn until he went out to Seattle, and CJ2K fell off a cliff after his 2000 yard season. The only RB where there is absolutely NO debate/Caveat/Asterisks about worthiness is Adrian "Child Beater" Peterson. 

So how does that compare to Rounds 2 and 3? Well how do you compare expectations of a first rounder against a 2nd or 3rd rounder? Are you more lenient with your rules about what would make them "worthy" of a second round pick compared to a 3rd round pick? Would you consider these picks more depth or project picks compared to their first round counter parts? One would assume this. However a funny thing happens if we put the exact same expectations on a 2nd and 3rd round pick RB as we do on a 1st rounder:

 

*Not pictured J.J. Arrington and Eric Shelton, both sucked.

 

 

Even given the same lofty expectations one would give to a 1st round RB, there are far more hits on second rounders, and just as many on 3rd rounders as there are on 1st rounders... 4/29 2nd rounders are worth the time, and 5 more are debatable considering their carriers are so young. For those counting at home that's 1/3 of the picks being worthy in the 2nd round, as opposed to 1/6 in the first. 5/26 are debatable in worthiness in round 3, and that's with the same strict expectations as a round 1 prospect. Tons of those guys are still on teams as backups, something you want out of a 3rd round pick more than a first round pick. 

So I argue, Why waste a 1st rounder on a RB who will more than likely get hurt and not contribute, when you can spend it on another position that would contribute far more, and with better results?

I would also like to say that I didn't notice the typo of "Debatable" until after the screenshots had been taken, so they're staying in there even though I've fixed the typo in the spreadsheet itself. 

I appreciate the analysis, but, and I may be off base, the same can be said about most positions in professional football.  Its just speculation.  I have nothing to back it up.

[TheRed]

Deangelo may behave like a man child, but he is still our all time leading rusher.

Stewart is a damn beast, if you don't think he was worth a first rounder, you should probably just take a break. Also, anyone here who remembers when Double Trouble was literally stampeding defenses, like that game against Tampa Bay that eventually got Gruden fired, should be able to understand the importance of their contributions.

Seems to be alot of selective memory being applied around here just for people to convince themselves.

Besides, Gettleman is not going to throw a huge contract at a running back, and we have the rookie wage scale now. So please, just spare us the sky is falling scenarios already. Kthxbye.