Effectiveness of 1Rd RBs since 1982 in their rookie year

[famousb 11]

I collected the data for all RBs selected in the first round since 1982, and summarized it below. I used pro-football-reference.com for the data.

There were a total of 87 first round RBs taken since 1982. However, I eliminated Willis McGahee from the list due to the fact he was drafted knowing that he would not be playing in his rookie year due to the knee injury.

So the data set is for 86 players.

Two more important notes is that this is only regular season data, and i only looked at games played, not games started, since for fantasy football, it doesn't really make a difference if they start a game, or just play in it...

 

Now, onto the stats:

 

First, here is the total avgs for all 85 players included in the analysis.

 

Total ADP G Att Yards YPC TD Rec Rec Yds Y/R TD

86 15.6 12.9 140.5 564.6 3.9 3.8 18.4 156.3 7.7 0.6

 

 

Next, i broke down the stats into two 'sub-categories', RBs drafter with picks 1-16, and then RBs drafted with picks 17+

 

Picks 1-16

# ADP G Att Yards YPC TD Rec Rec Yds Y/R TD

41 7.9 13.0 178.4 715.0 3.8 5.2 22.4 188.3 7.7 0.6

 

Picks 17+

# ADP G Att Yards YPC TD Rec Rec Yds Y/R TD

45 22.7 12.9 106.0 427.5 4.0 2.5 14.8 127.0 7.7 0.5

 

 

These numbers show a little bit more than just the total numbers if you are concerned with where in the first round a rb was taken. The obvious observation would be that the RBs taken earlier in RD 1 performed better in their rookie year on average when it comes to Attempts and Total yards, however their average games played and YPC were almost identical. This would lead me to believe, as far running the ball goes, that the early picks were not more effective at running the ball, they were just given more opportunities (about 80 carries more per).

 

However, the real telling factor is the receiving numbers. Rookie RBs taken early in round one had over 50% more receptions on average than did later picks. But once again, their Y/R were almost identical. I believe this more translates into the type of RB being drafted early in the first - the Marshall Faulk, Edge, Sanders, Dickerson, etc... type back - an RB who is more versatile and more agile coming out of the backfield.

 

So finally, i broke out the guys that went top 5 vs. the guys that went 6+.

 

Picks 1-5

# ADP G Att Yards YPC TD Rec Rec Yds Y/R TD

17 3.4 13.3 217.0 907.5 4.0 6.8 26.9 220.4 7.5 0.7

 

Picks 6+

# ADP G Att Yards YPC TD Rec Rec Yds Y/R TD

69 18.6 12.8 121.7 480.1 3.9 3.0 16.3 140.4 7.8 0.5

 

 

Obviously, this is where the greatest disparity should appear. But what is really the point here is if you take out RBs that were drafted 1-5 from the dataset, there really is not that much difference in the numbers from the guys that were drafted with picks 17+. Now, none of this is all that of a shock, since we all should know that top 5 rbs are usually taken to play that year, and to contribute right away, but looking at the statistics really paints a much clearer picture in it's really the amount of attempts that a top 5 rb is given as compared to the later first round picks that creates such a difference in their total numbers - not that they are generally averaging more per carry or reception. It's also pretty telling in the fact after the first 5 picks, it doesn't really make that big of a difference where the RB is drafted in the first round when it comes to attempts and performance.

 

with all this said, I believe this is really only one half of the picture with rookie RBs. The other half of the picture would be how they effect OTHER RBs on the team in which they were drafted. Did the other players numbers from the previous year go up or down? Did they lose a significant amount of carries? Or, like Marshall Faulk, were they moved to another team entirely?

I hope to be able to provide this analysis sometime in the near future...

 

note: i have all of the complete data in "raw" format in both Excel and a .pdf file if anyone cares to look at it themselves... just let me know. Or if you want some other data broken out, i will try to accomodate that request as well...

 

Note: i last edited this data on 6/4/2006 at 2:00 pm EST. I added Gary Cleveland into the dataset

[What is the deal? 1]

Can't believe you took the time to look this up.

 

Too bad your source didn't have games started as an analysis. Obvioulsy, you have concluded that the people drafted in the top 5 got more oppportunities, so they probably started more games.

 

I would say an average of 107.6 carries per player for players drafted after pick 6 means, on average, they started less than 1/3 or at the most 1/2 of the games played. If we were going to use this statistical analysis, then we would have to conclude that the people that assume "he was drafted in the 1st round to play" is an inaccurate assessment. Curious, did you come to this conclusion while compiling this data?

 

FYI, I am assuming you meant Cleveland Gary who played for the St. Louis Rams?

His career stats were:

1989 ram | 10 | 37 163 4.4 1 | 2 13 6.5 0 |

| 1990 ram | 15 | 204 808 4.0 14 | 30 150 5.0 1 |

| 1991 ram | 10 | 68 245 3.6 1 | 13 110 8.5 0 |

| 1992 ram | 16 | 279 1125 4.0 7 | 52 293 5.6 3 |

| 1993 ram | 15 | 79 293 3.7 1 | 36 289 8.0 1 |

| 1994 mia | 2 | 7 11 1.6 0 | 2 19 9.5 0

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/GaryCl00.htm

 

Obviously, if you take his statistics into account the numbers decrease even more.

[famousb 11]

Can't believe you took the time to look this up.

 

Too bad your source didn't have games started as an analysis. Obvioulsy, you have concluded that the people drafted in the top 5 got more oppportunities, so they probably started more games.

 

I would say an average of 107.6 carries per player for players drafted after pick 6 means, on average, they started less than 1/3 or at the most 1/2 of the games played. If we were going to use this statistical analysis, then we would have to conclude that the people that assume "he was drafted in the 1st round to play" is an inaccurate assessment. Curious, did you come to this conclusion while compiling this data?

I actually don't consider "starts" as a necessary factor when looking at their numbers from a fantasy perspective, as most formats don't award points for this (i actually have never seen any format that did).

I was merely trying to accumulate data on how their overall performance was in their rookie year, which was obviously better for the top 5s in the most part...

I think "starts" will show to be more important when comparing to the incumbent (or highest/next highest RB for the year). i'm going to put in games started in the next analysis when comparing against the incumbent RB (starts, atts, yds, etc...). I think this will actually prove to be even more telling, since a good RB can go to a bad team, and have bad stats. But if you compare him to what the guy did in the previous year, it should provide a better analysis of how that RB actually performed given the situation...

 

 

 

FYI, I am assuming you meant Cleveland Gary who played for the St. Louis Rams?

His career stats were:

1989 ram | 10 | 37 163 4.4 1 | 2 13 6.5 0 |

| 1990 ram | 15 | 204 808 4.0 14 | 30 150 5.0 1 |

| 1991 ram | 10 | 68 245 3.6 1 | 13 110 8.5 0 |

| 1992 ram | 16 | 279 1125 4.0 7 | 52 293 5.6 3 |

| 1993 ram | 15 | 79 293 3.7 1 | 36 289 8.0 1 |

| 1994 mia | 2 | 7 11 1.6 0 | 2 19 9.5 0

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/GaryCl00.htm

 

Obviously, if you take his statistics into account the numbers decrease even more.

 

 

huh, that's funny. he's not in the alphabetical listings under "C" at all on pro-football-reference...

i'll add in the numbers and readjust the stats in the above post...

[What is the deal? 1]

I actually don't consider "starts" as a necessary factor when looking at their numbers from a fantasy perspective, as most formats don't award points for this (i actually have never seen any format that did).

I was merely trying to accumulate data on how their overall performance was in their rookie year, which was obviously better for the top 5s in the most part...

I think "starts" will show to be more important when comparing to the incumbent (or highest/next highest RB for the year). i'm going to put in games started in the next analysis when comparing against the incumbent RB (starts, atts, yds, etc...). I think this will actually prove to be even more telling, since a good RB can go to a bad team, and have bad stats. But if you compare him to what the guy did in the previous year, it should provide a better analysis of how that RB actually performed given the situation...

however you want to do your analysis.

 

I just think that games started gives an idea of how many opportunities that rookie would have had. For example, if a RB went to bad team that often got behind early they may have had to pass a lot thus the rookies carries would have been increased had the team had more success, played better D, etc...

[What is the deal? 1]

I just noticed that http://www.pro-football-reference.com/ has the fantasy ranks of players from the past.

 

FamousB, do you have a list of all the RB's taken in the 1st round since 1982? Can you post it? I would be interested in compiling data about where rookie RB's rate historically from a fantasy perspective. This would save me some time.

[famousb 11]

I just noticed that http://www.pro-football-reference.com/ has the fantasy ranks of players from the past.

 

FamousB, do you have a list of all the RB's taken in the 1st round since 1982? Can you post it? I would be interested in compiling data about where rookie RB's rate historically from a fantasy perspective. This would save me some time.

 

 

easy enough...

the number before them is obviously where they were drafted...

 

1982

7 Darrin Nelson

9 Gerald Riggs

10 Marcus Allen

12 Walter Abercrombie

14 Barry Redden

18 Butch Woolfolk

21 Gerald Willhite

 

1983

2 Eric Dickerson

3 Curt Warner

8 Michael Haddix

13 James Jones

20 Gary Anderson

 

1984

26 Greg Bell

 

1985

19 George Adams

26 Steve Sewell

27 Lorenzo Hampton

 

1986

10 Keith Byars

15 John L. Williams

16 Ronnie Harmon

26 Reggie Dupard

27 Neal Anderson

 

1987

3 Alonzo Highsmith

4 Brent Fullwood

14 D.J. Dozier

19 Paul Palmer

21 Roger Vick

24 Rod Bernstine

25 Terrence Flagler

 

1988

14 Gaston Green

17 John Stephens

22 Lorenzo White

23 Brad Muster

24 Craig Heyward

 

1989

3 Barry Sanders

7 Tim Worley

9 Sammie Smith

26 Cleveland Gary

 

1990

2 Blair Thomas

17 Emmitt Smith

19 Darrell Thompson

20 Steve Broussard

24 Rodney Hampton

25 Dexter Carter

 

1991

14 Leonard Russell

21 Harvey Williams

27 Jarrod Bunch

 

1992

19 Tony Smith

21 Vaughn Dunbar

 

1993

3 Garrison Hearst

10 Jerome Bettis

21 Robert Smith

 

1994

2 Marshall Faulk

25 Greg Hill

 

1995

1 Ki-Jana Carter

17 Tyrone Wheatley

18 Napoleon Kaufman

19 James Stewart

21 Rashaan Salaam

 

1996

6 Lawrence Phillips

8 Tim Biakabutuka

14 Eddie George

 

1997

12 Warrick Dunn

23 Antowain Smith

 

1998

5 Curtis Enis

9 Fred Taylor

18 Robert Edwards

29 John Avery

 

1999

4 Edgerrin James

5 Ricky Williams

 

2000

5 Jamal Lewis

7 Thomas Jones

11 Ron Dayne

19 Shaun Alexander

31 Trung Canidate

 

2001

5 LaDainian Tomlinson

23 Deuce McAllister

27 Michael Bennett

 

2002

16 William Green

18 T.J. Duckett

 

2003

x23 Willis McGahee

27 Larry Johnson

 

2004

24 Steven Jackson

26 Chris Perry

30 Kevin Jones

 

2005

2 Ronnie Brown

4 Cedric Benson

5 Carnell Williams

 

 

 

and if you want to go past the 1st round...

http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/drafts

 

you can sort by position, year, team, etc....

 

 

i think we're going to have a good analysis when this is all said and done!!

 

 

(or we'll just have information overload and not be able to figure anything out... )

[What is the deal? 1]

OK, the average rank for the 86 1st round RB's since 1983 (excluding Mcgahee) is 50.87. The 51st back in the league

 

The rankings are as followed and based off Fantasy Points = (Pass Yards)/20 + (Rush Yd + Rec Yd)/10 + (Pass TDs)*4 + (Rush TDs + Rec TDs)*6

 

Darrin Nelson 77.00

Gerald Riggs 26.00

Marcus Allen 1.00

Walter Abercrombie 78.00

Barry Redden 116.00

Butch Woolfolk 18.00

Gerald Willhite 33.00

Eric Dickerson 1.00

Curt Warner 4.00

Michael Haddix 63.00

James Jones 31.00

Gary Anderson 37.00

Greg Bell 12.00

George Adams 40.00

Steve Sewell 50.00

Lorenzo Hampton 60.00

Keith Byars 57.00

John L. Williams 50.00

Ronnie Harmon 82.00

Reggie Dupard 128.00

Neal Anderson 100.00

Alonzo Highsmith 86.00

Brent Fullwood 54.00

D.J. Dozier 43.00

Paul Palmer 103.00

Roger Vick 67.00

Rod Bernstine 115.00

Terrence Flagler 151.00

Gaston Green 108.00

John Stephens 19.00

Lorenzo White 114.00

Brad Muster 76.00

Craig Heyward 74.00

Barry Sanders 4.00

Tim Worley 25.00

Sammie Smith 27.00

Cleveland Gary 94.00

Blair Thomas 39.00

Emmitt Smith 7.00

Darrell Thompson 85.00

Steve Broussard 43.00

Rodney Hampton 37.00

Dexter Carter 46.00

Leonard Russell 19.00

Harvey Williams 45.00

Jarrod Bunch 136.00

Tony Smith 68.00

Vaughn Dunbar 43.00

Garrison Hearst 79.00

Jerome Bettis 2.00

Robert Smith 56.00

Marshall Faulk 4.00

Greg Hill 46.00

Ki-Jana Carter 34.00

Tyrone Wheatley 64.00

Napoleon Kaufman 50.00

James Stewart 42.00

Rashaan Salaam 16.00

Lawrence Phillips 38.00

Tim Biakabutuka 92.00

Eddie George 8.00

Warrick Dunn 13.00

Antowain Smith 19.00

Curtis Enis 54.00

Fred Taylor 4.00

Robert Edwards 8.00

John Avery 41.00

Edgerrin James 1.00

Ricky Williams 27.00

Jamal Lewis 16.00

Thomas Jones 42.00

Ron Dayne 29.00

Shaun Alexander 54

Trung Canidate 142

LaDainian Tomlinson 7.00

Deuce McAllister 64.00

Michael Bennett 29.00

William Green 27.00

T.J. Duckett 42.00

Larry Johnson 104.00

Steven Jackson 33.00

Chris Perry 148.00

Kevin Jones 21.00

Ronnie Brown 23.00

Cedric Benson 85.00

Carnell Williams 19.00

average 50.87

 

The intersesting thing about this is 8 backs finished in the top 5, 12 finished in the top 15, and 26 finished in the top 30.

 

You have a 9.30% when drafting a 1st round draft pick that they will finish in the top 5.

You have a 13.95% when drafting a 1st round draft pick that they will finish in the top 15.

You have a 30.23% when drafting a 1st round draft pick that they will finish in the top 30.

 

On the other side, there is almost a 70% chance that just because a RB was drafted in the 1st round that they will probably not end up in top 30 for fantasy scoring RB's.

[Vikings4ever 496]

You have a 9.30% when drafting a 1st round draft pick that they will finish in the top 5.

You have a 13.95% when drafting a 1st round draft pick that they will finish in the top 15.

You have a 30.23% when drafting a 1st round draft pick that they will finish in the top 30.

 

On the other side, there is almost a 70% chance that just because a RB was drafted in the 1st round that they will probably not end up in top 30 for fantasy scoring RB's.

So on average, one of the top 4 RBs this year (Bush, Maroney, Williams, Addai) will finish in the top 30. Most likely Addai.

[famousb 11]

OK, the average rank for the 86 1st round RB's since 1983 (excluding Mcgahee) is 50.87. The 51st back in the league

 

The rankings are as followed and based off Fantasy Points = (Pass Yards)/20 + (Rush Yd + Rec Yd)/10 + (Pass TDs)*4 + (Rush TDs + Rec TDs)*6

 

The intersesting thing about this is 8 backs finished in the top 5, 12 finished in the top 15, and 26 finished in the top 30.

 

You have a 9.30% when drafting a 1st round draft pick that they will finish in the top 5.

You have a 13.95% when drafting a 1st round draft pick that they will finish in the top 15.

You have a 30.23% when drafting a 1st round draft pick that they will finish in the top 30.

 

On the other side, there is almost a 70% chance that just because a RB was drafted in the 1st round that they will probably not end up in top 30 for fantasy scoring RB's.

 

i just took your numbers, and plugged them into my spreadsheet w/ the other formulas, and the REALLY interesting thing about it to me is below:

 

ALL ADP FF Rank

86 15.6 50.9

 

Picks 1-5 FF Rank

17 3.4 31.6

 

Picks 6+ FF Rank

69 18.6 55.6

 

Picks 1-16 FF Rank

41 7.9 38.9

 

Picks 17+ FF Rank

45 22.7 61.8

 

if you look at guys drafted in the top 5, as a whole they really don't outrank guys drafted in the top 16 - 31.6 avg. v. 38.9 avg. So as long as a RB gets drafted in the first half of the draft, they should on avg. finish about mid 30s somewhere for the year.

And, guys drafted in the second half of the first round don't really fall that far behind statistically from guys that are NOT drafted top 5 as a whole (55.6 v. 61.8).

This tells me that the data is extremely skewed in the later half of the draft, meaning that there are several players who basically completely sh!t the bed...

 

So then i decided to take it a step farther, and by the same breakdowns and analyzed how many and what percentage actually finished top 12, 32, or 64 from a fantasy perspective...

 

1-5 (17 RBs)

<12

6 - 0.35

<32

10 - 0.59

<64

14 - 0.82

 

6+ (69 RBs)

<12

6 - 0.09

<32

21 - 0.30

<64

45 - 0.65

 

1-16 (41 RBs)

<12

10 - 0.24

<32

22 - 0.54

<64

32 - 0.78

 

17+ (45 RBs)

<12

2 - 0.04

<32

9 - 0.20

<64

27 - 0.60

 

now, i know we barely care about guys that finish #32 for RBs, and don't care at all about guys that finish #64, but it's a way of breaking the data down so we know what part of each group finished where...

 

According to these numbers, if a guy was drafted at pick 17 or later, he has a 4% chance of finishing in the top 12 RBs in his rookie year, which would mean he was first round FF draft worthy. If he was drafted in the 6th spot on, he still only has a 9% chance of finishing top 12. But of the 17 RBs drafted 1-5, there were 6 that actually did finish top 12 - meaning a 35% chance, and for RBs taken in the next 11 picks (pick 16 or before) there were 4 more who finished in the top 12 out of a total of 41 RBs, meaning only a 16.7% chance if they were drafted in picks 6-16.

 

But what really grabs me is that 40% of guys that were drafted pick 17 or later didn't even crack the top 64 rbs! Whereas if they were drafted in the first half of the first round, there was only a 22% chance they wouldn't crack the top 64.

[What is the deal? 1]

So on average, one of the top 4 RBs this year (Bush, Maroney, Williams, Addai) will finish in the top 30. Most likely Addai.

I have no idea who it is going to be. I know this, based of historical tendencies it would most likely be the top 5 pick. Although I think Reggie Bush is an overrated Eric Metcalf, who was a 1st round pick as a WR, but played some RB early on in his career.

 

i just took your numbers, and plugged them into my spreadsheet w/ the other formulas, and the REALLY interesting thing about it to me is below:

 

ALL ADP FF Rank

86 15.6 50.9

 

Picks 1-5 FF Rank

17 3.4 31.6

 

Picks 6+ FF Rank

69 18.6 55.6

 

Picks 1-16 FF Rank

41 7.9 38.9

 

Picks 17+ FF Rank

45 22.7 61.8

 

if you look at guys drafted in the top 5, as a whole they really don't outrank guys drafted in the top 16 - 31.6 avg. v. 38.9 avg. So as long as a RB gets drafted in the first half of the draft, they should on avg. finish about mid 30s somewhere for the year.

And, guys drafted in the second half of the first round don't really fall that far behind statistically from guys that are NOT drafted top 5 as a whole (55.6 v. 61.8).

This tells me that the data is extremely skewed in the later half of the draft, meaning that there are several players who basically completely sh!t the bed...

 

So then i decided to take it a step farther, and by the same breakdowns and analyzed how many and what percentage actually finished top 12, 32, or 64 from a fantasy perspective...

 

1-5 (17 RBs)

<12

6 - 0.35

<32

10 - 0.59

<64

14 - 0.82

 

6+ (69 RBs)

<12

6 - 0.09

<32

21 - 0.30

<64

45 - 0.65

 

1-16 (41 RBs)

<12

10 - 0.24

<32

22 - 0.54

<64

32 - 0.78

 

17+ (45 RBs)

<12

2 - 0.04

<32

9 - 0.20

<64

27 - 0.60

 

now, i know we barely care about guys that finish #32 for RBs, and don't care at all about guys that finish #64, but it's a way of breaking the data down so we know what part of each group finished where...

 

According to these numbers, if a guy was drafted at pick 17 or later, he has a 4% chance of finishing in the top 12 RBs in his rookie year, which would mean he was first round FF draft worthy. If he was drafted in the 6th spot on, he still only has a 9% chance of finishing top 12. But of the 17 RBs drafted 1-5, there were 6 that actually did finish top 12 - meaning a 35% chance, and for RBs taken in the next 11 picks (pick 16 or before) there were 4 more who finished in the top 12 out of a total of 41 RBs, meaning only a 16.7% chance if they were drafted in picks 6-16.

 

But what really grabs me is that 40% of guys that were drafted pick 17 or later didn't even crack the top 64 rbs! Whereas if they were drafted in the first half of the first round, there was only a 22% chance they wouldn't crack the top 64.

excellent work taking it a step farther. I was going to get into the details, but I had to run to a softball game and you beat me to it.

 

I think all this data concludes that if a back wasn't drafted in the top half of the draft, he doesn't have much of a shot at contributing. Maybe Deangelo has a shot if Foster goes down, but historical evidence is not on his side.

[famousb 11]

I have no idea who it is going to be. I know this, based of historical tendencies it would most likely be the top 5 pick. Although I think Reggie Bush is an overrated Eric Metcalf, who was a 1st round pick as a WR, but played some RB early on in his career.

excellent work taking it a step farther. I was going to get into the details, but I had to run to a softball game and you beat me to it.

 

I think all this data concludes that if a back wasn't drafted in the bottom half of the draft, he doesn't have much of a shot at contributing. Maybe Deangelo has a shot if Foster goes down, but historical evidence is not on his side.

 

 

so far the evidence only points to Bush having a legit chance of truly contributing ff-wise considering the other 3 were all drafted 21 or later...

but the data i really want to get at is how they effect the stats of the other RBs on the team. is there a trend of the incumbent not making the top 12,24,32, etc...

[What is the deal? 1]

so far the evidence only points to Bush having a legit chance of truly contributing ff-wise considering the other 3 were all drafted 21 or later...

but the data i really want to get at is how they effect the stats of the other RBs on the team. is there a trend of the incumbent not making the top 12,24,32, etc...

Good point. But it seems like in most situations, the backs that played a lot didn't have much competition.

 

I may have to track that down this weekend if I don't have anything else going on... Possibly only looking at the backs that rank 40 or higher...

[famousb 11]

I did an analysis of the effect of the 17 top5 RBs drafted since 1982, on how they effected the top rushing RB (disregarding the top5 RBs) on their respective teams and how their stats changed from the year prior to the top5 RB being drafted (PY), to the rookie year of the top5 RB (RY).

I also broke it down for if the other RB stayed the same (of which there were 7), or if the other RB changed (10).

 

(i tried to format the data to make it a little easier to read. i wish we could paste tables easily...)

 

 

TOTAL________G_____Att______Yards___Y/A______TD______Rec_____Rec Yds__Y/R_____TD

________PY__235___3080_____11749___3.8______74______575_____4817____8.4____22

________RY__247___2179______8953___4.1______45______292_____2247____7.7_____5

__________105%__71%____76%__108%___61%____51%____47%__92%____23%

 

 

 

Changed RB__G_____Att______Yards___Y/A______TD______Rec_____Rec Yds__Y/R_____TD

________PY_134___1875_____7142____3.8______52_____335______2884____8.6_____15

________RY_153___1291_____5164____4.0______28_____120_______916____7.6______2

_________114%__69%____72%__105%___54%___36%_____32%__89%___13%

 

 

Same RB_____G_____Att______Yards___Y/A______TD______Rec_____Rec Yds__Y/R_____TD

________PY_101___1205______4607___3.8______22______240_____1933____8.1_____7

________RY__94____888______3789___4.3______17______172_____1331____7.7_____3

__________93%__74%_____82%_112%___77%____72%____69%__96%___43%

 

 

doesn't really make any huge statements to me yet, other than what we already know - you draft an RB top5, and it's going to make the other RBs stats go down... What might be a little surprising is that when the RB stayed the same from PY to RY, on average this was a little higher than if they changed... but when i looked at the raw data it is mostly due to 3 of the 7 actually staying the same or increasing their numbers while the other 4 all dropped below 50% of what they had done the prior year...

 

I guess the biggest thing i pulled out of this so far is the fact that on average, the actual drops for the other RBs is only about 30% for attempts and yds rushing, while about 50% for attempts and yards receiving... which goes back to the fact that guys that seem to get drafted top 5 seem to be the guys like the Faulks, Edges, and Dickersons (and now Bush) who can run very well and catch the ball out of the backfield extremely well too.

 

I'm going to start working on 6+ now... as it is the RBs that are drafted later in RD1 that we are really concerned with...

[Force of Two 0]

Im so confused by all of this.....Can I just take the guy I think is and or will be in the best situation or has the most talent by my estimation...

 

[famousb 11]

Im so confused by all of this.....Can I just take the guy I think is and or will be in the best situation or has the most talent by my estimation...

 

 

 

actually, i think the end point of all of this is going to be what is the probability the late 1st Round rbs actually effect the other rbs stats this year...

e.g. will DWilliams make a significant impact on Foster's numbers, regardless of if DWilliams is slated as the starter or not... or will Addai actually have a statistical chance of being a legit #1 RB, or do numbers point to it going to the incumbent...

 

but i was doing top 5s first in order to establish a 'baseline' for 1st round RBs... (plus it's a good deal of work to accumulate all the data...)

[What is the deal? 1]

(plus it's a good deal of work to accumulate all the data...)

I appreciate it and think it sheds some light. The next findings will be very interesting IMO.

 

Maybe they will let you put your results and final commentary on the main page once you get it all together. It provides solid foundation of the impact of 1st round RB's.

 

I would help do some of that data crunching, but I have too much work to do

[What is the deal? 1]

bump for the people that are still spewing- "they didn't draft him in the 1st round to sit on the bench"