Excellent argument AGAINST drafting a 1st Round RB

[JMF2006]

19 hours ago, MrSarcasm said:

This day and age I would argue that the RB postion is the least valuable postion in the NFL.

 

It could be the punter on this team

 

Remember when Moorman was our MVP  

 

Great 8

[mjt328]

This was an excellent article.  For anyone making their argument without taking the time to read it, I definitely think you should go back and reconsider.

There are multiple reasons why modern NFL teams are foolish to draft Running Backs in the first round, and this touches on quite a few.

 

Looking around the NFL, there are plenty of good RBs.  But outside of Derrick Henry (who was a 2nd Round Pick himself), I can't think of any who are truly difference makers.  As the article mentioned, teams see virtually no change in Win-Loss record with their star RB playing or with him out of the lineup.  A great example is Christian McCaffrey.  The Panthers went 5-11 with him playing 16 games.  They went 5-11 with him playing 3 games.  

 

 

RB is also one of the easiest positions to find solid starters in the mid/late rounds:

• Just for comparison... as of this moment, 60% of the current starting Quarterbacks were drafted in the 1st Round.  That number will almost certainly jump to over 70-75% following this year's draft, and depending on whether Jameis Winston or Taysom Hill win the starting job in New Orleans. 
• The stat is almost identical for Left Tackles drafted in the 1st Round (around 60%). 
• Positions like Edge Rusher, Cornerback and Wide Receiver are around 35-45% drafted in the 1st Round.

For RBs, that number is currently less than 20%.  It could rise or drop, depending on what happens next Thursday.

Smart GMs know the sweet spot for RBs is the 2nd-3rd Round.  I think Brandon Beane understands this, and will continue looking to upgrade the position with Day 2 picks or by addressing the O-Line first.

 

[Negan]

Sign me up for BPA with our first round pick, if that happens to be a RB then so be it.

 

This pick is not going to make or break the Bills winning the SB this year 

[mjt328]

47 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

I'll ask again, why do OC's run such a huge chunk of the Offense through the least important position on the roster?  Is a rushing 1st down less important than a passing 1st down?  What about TDs? Buffalo got 31% of it's 1st downs rushing last year.  KC got 29%. The SB champs got 25% of theirs rushing.   But the position RB is of minimal importance on the roster?  Why do they use it so much?  Simple question.

 

The Browns use a committee of Chubb (1067 yards) and Hunt (841 yards)---but to them RB is the least important position on the roster?  Go back in time:  late 80's Raiders--the RB committee of Bo Jackson and Marcus Allen.  Both not important because they shared the job?  Together they were not important ( "least important") for that Offense?  You like "1960"?  How about the committee of Jim Taylor and Paul Hornung?  Least important Packers HOFers ever? How about Czonka/Mercury Morris/Jim Kiick?  RB was the most  minimally important position to those "perfect" SB Dolphins, because they needed 3 of them?

 

 

As a whole, the "rushing attack" does play an important role in the offense.

Even on teams that pass most of the time, it helps keep the defense honest when deciding how to stack the line of scrimmage.

The argument is more about how much value we should place in the individual "star" running back.

 

Using your Cleveland example... do the Browns really lose much when Nick Chubb is out?  If he was traded away, and they just rolled with Kareem Hunt and a new 3rd Round draft pick, would there be a significant change in the Win-Loss record?  Of course there is no way to know for sure.  But based on statistics compiled over the last decade, the suggestion is probably no.

 

Recent history shows that even when you draft a superstar RB (Christian McCaffrey, Ezekiel Elliott, Saquon Barkley, Josh Jacobs for example) those players make almost no difference in the Win/Loss record when they are in the lineup.  Recent history shows that superstar RBs generally usually threaten a holdout after Season 3, get a big contract and then see an almost immediate big drop in production (Todd Gurley, Melvin Gordon, Elliott).  Recent history suggests that superstar RBs can be easily found in later rounds (Derrick Henry, Nick Chubb, Alvin Kamara, Dalvin Cook, Johnathan Taylor). 

 

All of this tells me that drafting a 1st Round RB is just not smart business.

 

Edited April 21, 2021 by mjt328

[Sherlock Holmes]

You draft McCaffrey every time...

[dave mcbride]

7 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

While it's true that the value of the 5th year option has been diminished...........it's still important with key positions..........which is of course where you should be using your first round picks on anyway.

 

The most obvious example is Josh Allen.    That option definitely should be picked up.   Even if it were the same value as a franchise tag........it's not the franchise tag so you could in theory pay Josh his option and then pay almost the same money in 2023 on the first year you used the franchise tag on him instead of having that value escalate quickly the way it did for Dallas with Dak because they only had him under contract for 4 seasons because he wasn't a 1st round pick.

 

I get your point about THAT type of player being one you extend though............to which I would counter with a guy like Dion Dawkins.    Suppose he were a first round pick...........played as he has.......admirably at LT but wasn't a Pro Bowler or top of the league guy........having that fifth year option at LESS than the tag amount provides leverage to negotiate a more team friendly deal.   

 

 It's kind of the opposite of like what is happening with Tremaine Edmunds........he plays a lesser value position in the NFL.......collected a couple Pro Bowls despite not really being a top 8-10 MLB because all the stud MLB's are in the NFC........and now his option is worth more than he probably is to the team.  

 

 

Teams actually still do care about the fifth year option, which only makes sense assuming you trust your judgment about whom you’re drafting. If they draft the next Stefon Gilmore, you can bet they’ll use that option. From Beane himself yesterday:

 

‘1. The Bills’ spot at No. 30 in the first round is a good one to attract offers. Teams may want to grab another first-round pick due to a run at a position and because first-round picks can be kept under contract for an extra year, via the fifth-year option that teams are allowed to apply to the contracts of first round picks.

 

“I would be surprised if we don’t get some calls for 30,” Beane said. “We just have to make a judgement about how we see the board and if we’re willing to give it up.

“I would definitely take this pick if there's a guy that we're excited about and we've got a good solid first round grade on,” Beane said of No. 30. “We're very comfortable staying at 30 and getting that fifth-year option. But again we'll just kind of listen to the board and see what happens.”’

https://buffalonews.com/sports/bills/draft-deals-scouting-problems-and-more-from-brandon-beanes-pre-draft-news-briefing/article_f627bb96-a219-11eb-93f7-e77fce545469.html

[DaggersEOD]

13 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

The RB position accounts for 30-60% of an NFL team's Offensive plays.  So every team leans heavily on the position, by design.  I feel dumb pointing out how dumb it was to claim it's the least important position on the roster.

 

The other poster is intermittently conflating "the position of RB" with individual RBs.  This is why he embarrasses himself with his post.

30 - 60% offensive plays running the ball, but the other 70 - 40% they are still an integral part of the O. 
 

If they aren’t running the ball, they are blocking for the QB, running a route or, if they’re effective enough, freezing LBs/Safeties with play action. 
 

If they are good enough, he also affects how the D approaches the O. A good RB forces D’s into heavier sets, making the passing O more effective.

 

He would also affect the O’s blocking effectiveness. A good RB forces the D to respect the run. Meaning they can’t solely pass rush. This uncertainty gives an O-line a moment’s advantage as the D-line has to react to the play before making their move. 
 

IMO, we can’t just use “toting the rock” as the only metric we use when evaluating the value a RB brings to an O. 
 

The article is compelling and I don’t think people are wrong by holding an opinion on either side of this debate. But, I personally think a RB on this specific team is a force multiplier and having the chance to pick the one you want vs the one that falls to you is not a bad play. 

[Don Otreply]

11 hours ago, Augie said:

 

I was hoping to run unopposed........   🤷‍♂️

No way man, I’m in it to win it... 😁

[Don Otreply]

11 hours ago, In Summary said:

Morse is a hit away from Feliciano moving to center and some assembly of Lamp, Ford, Boettger, etc. manning the guard positions.  

And that is an example of my point, 👍

[Mr. WEO]

9 minutes ago, mjt328 said:

 

As a whole, the "rushing attack" does play an important role in the offense.

Even on teams that pass most of the time, it helps keep the defense honest when deciding how to stack the line of scrimmage.

The argument is more about how much value we should place in the individual "star" running back.

 

Using your Cleveland example... do the Browns really lose much when Nick Chubb is out?  If he was traded away, and they just rolled with Kareem Hunt and a new 3rd Round draft pick, would there be a significant change in the Win-Loss record?  Of course there is no way to know for sure.  But based on statistics compiled over the last decade, the suggestion is probably no.

 

Recent history shows that even when you draft a superstar RB (Christian McCaffrey, Ezekiel Elliott, Saquon Barkley, Josh Jacobs for example) those players make almost no difference in the Win/Loss record when they are in the lineup.  Recent history shows that superstar RBs generally usually threaten a holdout after Season 3, get a big contract and then see an almost immediate big drop in production (Todd Gurley, Melvin Gordon, Elliott).  Recent history suggests that superstar RBs can be easily found in later rounds (Derrick Henry, Nick Chubb, Alvin Kamara, Dalvin Cook, Johnathan Taylor). 

 

All of this tells me that drafting a 1st Round RB is just not smart business.

 

 

You can make the same argument for nearly every individual position on defense, or O-line for that matter.

 

I'm not arguing that the pick should be RB in the first round (or whether should re-sign them to big contracts).  I'm ridiculing the concept that the position of RB is the least important on the team. Whether single or in tandem the RB(s) play a huge role in the Offense.  Even a single mediocre RB is important to his  Offense.     

 

As for McCaffery and Barkley--they were drafted high to crappy teams that needed playmakers.  Both of them are.  Mccaffery has been the Panthers best player since they drafted him. In 2019, he had almost 1400 yards rushing with 15 TDs and 57 1st downs (of the team's 69 total rushing 1st downs), 1000 yards receiving and another  4 TDs and 58 more 1st downs.  In total, he accounted for 2400 yards, 19 TDs, 115 1st downs, and a whopping 403 touches (40% of the total number of Offensive snaps)---all in "the least important position on the roster".

 

With Barkley, the Giants went from 3 wins to 5 his rookie year, he ran for 1300 yards, 50 1st downs 11 TDs (plus 4 receiving and 721 yards)--that's over 2000 yards of offense from "the least important position on the roster".... in his rookie year. 

[HappyDays]

1 hour ago, mjt328 said:

As the article mentioned, teams see virtually no change in Win-Loss record with their star RB playing or with him out of the lineup.

 

This is true with any position other than QB. I remember reading once that if JJ Watt in his prime missed a game, Vegas would only knock half a point off of Houston's spread. Does that mean elite pass rushers aren't important? Football is still a team game so one player missing a game is never going to make a huge difference.

 

Same goes for the argument that elite RBs haven't gotten their teams to a championship. Again, this is already true of most elite non-QBs in the league. The simple counterargument is that if the Bills had a Derrick Henry or Christian McCaffrey last year we would have been a better team with a better chance of beating the Chiefs. If you try to argue otherwise you aren't being realistic.

 

As for the argument that late 1st round RBs recently haven't been very good players, that is again true of every other position. Look at pass rushers drafted in the range of #30. The only hit is TJ Watt. It's hard to find good players at that spot. If Henry and Chubb had been taken at the bottom of the 1st instead of in the 2nd they would have been good picks. You can't discount them just because teams misvalued them.

 

In 2016 (Derrick Henry's draft year) teams at the bottom of the 1st round picked superstars like Artie Burns, Paxton Lynch, Joshua Garnett, Robert Nkemdiche, and Vernon Butler. Any one of those teams would be better off with Henry right now.

 

The article uses Michel and Penney as examples of late 1st round RBs that didn't work out. Well Chubb was drafted that same year at pick 35. The problem wasn't taking a RB at the end of the 1st, it was taking the wrong one.

 

So overall I feel like you could replace the RB portion of the article with any other non-QB position and come away with the same conclusions.

Edited April 21, 2021 by HappyDays

[Hapless Bills Fan]

14 hours ago, WideNine said:

 

Thanks for the info...

 

I thought the book on Mongo was his run blocking was solid if not spectacular and he was a finisher, but he seemed off balance and was lunging a lot down the stretch.

 

The drop in play would make more sense if he was playing through an injury.

 

I do like him as a depth guy that can be serviceable and cover a lot of positions in a pinch and he clearly wants to be here.

 

It got posted elsewhere but there was an article in some fitness magazine about Feliciano coming back from injury

https://www.muscleandfitness.com/athletes-celebrities/winning-strategy-jon-feliciano-kept-pounding-after-tearing-pec/

 

Quote

“I’ve had lots of bumps and bruises with football, but nothing ever made me throw up from the pain,” Feliciano recalled. “I was telling my spotter not to touch the bar, and as I was pushing, I felt the ligament in my pec snap. It felt like slow motion, even though it happened fast.”

Two days later, Feliciano underwent surgery and was placed on Injured Reserve in September. It also meant nearly two months away from weight training.

 

Quote

“I still feel like I have a lot to prove,” Feliciano says. “I didn’t feel healthy at all till now. I’m still. Like until the till now I’m still doing rehab for my circumstance, you know, getting that right. Uh, so I have a lot to prove. I want to prove what kind of player I am when I’m, when I’m healthy.

 

Quote

It took about six weeks before I was able to pick up a dumbbell. We started with a 10 pounds on my bad pec, and 90 with the other. That went on for about two weeks. About eight weeks then I started doing like six, 50 pounds, 60 pounds. But honestly, I didn’t feel very strong the whole season.

 

From what I saw, Feliciano was getting beat at times with footwork especially on stunts.  Judging by the look in his eyes in a couple of post-game pressers, I would say he was getting pretty doped up to be able to play.  That can affect reaction times all around.

[prissythecat]

17 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

...

 

So overall I feel like you could replace the RB portion of the article with any other non-QB position and come away with the same conclusions.

 

+1

Edited April 21, 2021 by prissythecat

[auburnbillsbacker]

21 hours ago, MrSarcasm said:

This day and age I would argue that the RB postion is the least valuable postion in the NFL.

It's very important but there is a lot of talent available so there isn't a need to take one early.  

[TBBills]

1 hour ago, Sherlock Holmes said:

You draft McCaffrey every time...

Exactly why draft a QB when you can draft a fantasy football stud...

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

59 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

This is true with any position other than QB. I remember reading once that if JJ Watt in his prime missed a game, Vegas would only knock half a point off of Houston's spread. Does that mean elite pass rushers aren't important? Football is still a team game so one player missing a game is never going to make a huge difference.

 

Same goes for the argument that elite RBs haven't gotten their teams to a championship. Again, this is already true of most elite non-QBs in the league. The simple counterargument is that if the Bills had a Derrick Henry or Christian McCaffrey last year we would have been a better team with a better chance of beating the Chiefs. If you try to argue otherwise you aren't being realistic.

 

As for the argument that late 1st round RBs recently haven't been very good players, that is again true of every other position. Look at pass rushers drafted in the range of #30. The only hit is TJ Watt. It's hard to find good players at that spot. If Henry and Chubb had been taken at the bottom of the 1st instead of in the 2nd they would have been good picks. You can't discount them just because teams misvalued them.

 

In 2016 (Derrick Henry's draft year) teams at the bottom of the 1st round picked superstars like Artie Burns, Paxton Lynch, Joshua Garnett, Robert Nkemdiche, and Vernon Butler. Any one of those teams would be better off with Henry right now.

 

The article uses Michel and Penney as examples of late 1st round RBs that didn't work out. Well Chubb was drafted that same year at pick 35. The problem wasn't taking a RB at the end of the 1st, it was taking the wrong one.

 

So overall I feel like you could replace the RB portion of the article with any other non-QB position and come away with the same conclusions.

excellent post!

[HappyDays]

1 hour ago, dave mcbride said:

Teams actually still do care about the fifth year option, which only makes sense assuming you trust your judgment about whom you’re drafting. If they draft the next Stefon Gilmore, you can bet they’ll use that option.

 

But meanwhile there's a thread on this board with an ongoing debate about whether it is prudent to pick up Tremaine Edmunds' 5th year option. Which is crazy because I feel like he is the exact type of player the 5th year option is designed for - someone that clearly has a lot of potential but isn't yet worthy of a long term extension. Still there is a question if he is worth using the 5th year option on. And everyone agrees if Allen is given the 5th year option it will be a formality on the way to a long term extension. So I wouldn't make any draft pick with the 5th year option on my mind. Draft the BPA at a position of need and worry about the rest later.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

21 hours ago, Rigotz said:

https://www.nbcsports.com/edge/article/offseason-research/teams-are-never-first-round-rb-away

 

This is a fantastic write-up on why Playoff teams are "never a first round RB away from Super Bowl."

Obviously, very relevant to the Bills and they are specifically mentioned in this article.

 

This also doesn't consider the draft capital we've already spent on Running Backs recently.

If you're one of the folks clamoring for Najee or Etienne, give this a read.

 

So first of all, Thanks to the OP for posting a thought-provoking article.  Good read.

 

Something like ~50% of all positions drafted in the top of the 1st round pan out.  ~30% in the later half of the 1st/top of the 2nd.  And that's just whether they become a solid starter, not whether they become a difference-making star.  So this has to be looked at properly in a sort of Net Present Value context of "what are the odds of getting an impact player if you draft ANY position in the first round?"  How would the article look if analyzing the impact of WR or QB or DE or CB drafted in the 1st round over the last 11 years, ESPECIALLY if the assessment went into 2nd contracts vs being traded/cut and so forth?

 

Of the RBs he names, 7 were drafted at the top of the 1st round, 4 were drafted mid-round, and 9 were drafted at the bottom of the first round.  So looked at in the above "overall odds of success" context, you would expect ~9 good players out of 20 1st round draftees.  So when he says

Quote

Most (15 of 20) haven’t even led their team in YPC as the primary starter
Half (10 of 20) haven’t even gained above average yards per carry
Most (10 of 15) of those eligible haven’t been good enough to receive a second contract

I'm not sure what the 1st statement means - a run-heavy team could have a good RB already.  But we expect 9 NFL-caliber players out of 20, so if half HAVE gained above-avererage YPC, that would be a bit better than expected.

I think pretty much all of us would agree that RB is a very dependent position.  The RB's success depends upon the OL being able to open holes and the QB being able to mount enough of a downfield passing attack to keep teams from crowding the box.  If the team is not "set" at QB, it makes little sense to bring in an RB, as the Giants did with Saquon Barkley.  On the other hand, there's not much question that Zeke Elliott was a huge factor in the Cowboys turning it around from 4-12 to 13-3 and playoffs in 2016.  I would argue (I think it would be more debated) that Edwards-Helaire added a needed element to the Chiefs offense - they're still not overall much of a rushing team (27 in attempts last year, 23 in attempts this year), but their MO is to have enough rushing game to pick up the slack when teams manage to stifle their pass attack - and they got almost as many yards out of Edwards-Helaire in 2020 as they did out of two backs combined in 2019.

 

Personally, I give the benefit of the doubt to Beane and company.  I don't think they're going to pull a Nix/Gailey and go into the draft lusting after a particular player like Spiller, thinking he'll make the difference.  Overall I perceive our needs as bigger on D and on OL and would prefer a defensive player, but if they see someone they believe is able to add a missing element at RB at #30, I'm not going to second-guess them.

 

Good read, though, OP, thanks for posting it!

[dave mcbride]

24 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

But meanwhile there's a thread on this board with an ongoing debate about whether it is prudent to pick up Tremaine Edmunds' 5th year option. Which is crazy because I feel like he is the exact type of player the 5th year option is designed for - someone that clearly has a lot of potential but isn't yet worthy of a long term extension. Still there is a question if he is worth using the 5th year option on. And everyone agrees if Allen is given the 5th year option it will be a formality on the way to a long term extension. So I wouldn't make any draft pick with the 5th year option on my mind. Draft the BPA at a position of need and worry about the rest later.

I think QBs are different. I think it's more about players like, say, Stefon Gilmore - a clearly good player at a premier position - whose contractual negotiations are going to be difficult.  The Bills DID pick up his option, and he had his best season as a Bill: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/G/GilmSt00.htm. The Bills weren't a good team overall, but if they had the coaching/offense of the last couple of seasons, that fifth year from an elite player might win them a game or two more - enough to maybe get them over the hump.  

 

More recently, the Saints picked up Marshon Lattimore's option, which was obviously the right thing to do. With a running back, though, I don't think so. And I tend to view MLBs as the defensive mirror image of RBs -- guys taking tons of hits and not really being game changers. There are a couple who are -- Kuechly certainly was, as is Devin Bush now -- but that's because they can cover. In other words, they're assets in the passing game. The number of RBs who are above replacement level in the passing game is pretty small -- Kamara and McCaffrey come immediately to mind. Kamara in my opinion IS a guy worth keeping (he does so much more than most RBs, like Marshall Faulk), but of course he was a third rounder. LeVeon Bell was another terrific receiver, but his career went completely sideways early on, mostly because of bad decision making on his part.  

Edited April 21, 2021 by dave mcbride

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, dave mcbride said:

Teams actually still do care about the fifth year option, which only makes sense assuming you trust your judgment about whom you’re drafting. If they draft the next Stefon Gilmore, you can bet they’ll use that option. From Beane himself yesterday:

 

‘1. The Bills’ spot at No. 30 in the first round is a good one to attract offers. Teams may want to grab another first-round pick due to a run at a position and because first-round picks can be kept under contract for an extra year, via the fifth-year option that teams are allowed to apply to the contracts of first round picks.

 

“I would be surprised if we don’t get some calls for 30,” Beane said. “We just have to make a judgement about how we see the board and if we’re willing to give it up.

“I would definitely take this pick if there's a guy that we're excited about and we've got a good solid first round grade on,” Beane said of No. 30. “We're very comfortable staying at 30 and getting that fifth-year option. But again we'll just kind of listen to the board and see what happens.”’

https://buffalonews.com/sports/bills/draft-deals-scouting-problems-and-more-from-brandon-beanes-pre-draft-news-briefing/article_f627bb96-a219-11eb-93f7-e77fce545469.html

 

I swear, Beane must sit down before pressers and make himself a cheat sheet of talking points he wants to hit to sow as much confusion and ambiguity as possible into the predictions by other teams of what the Bills are gonna do.  We'll draft at 30 and take the 5th round option, unless we get good offers and the board falls such that we think it's in our favor to traded down.  Then again, if a guy we have a top grade on as a difference-maker falls a bit, we might trade up, too.

 

29 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

But meanwhile there's a thread on this board with an ongoing debate about whether it is prudent to pick up Tremaine Edmunds' 5th year option. Which is crazy because I feel like he is the exact type of player the 5th year option is designed for - someone that clearly has a lot of potential but isn't yet worthy of a long term extension. Still there is a question if he is worth using the 5th year option on. And everyone agrees if Allen is given the 5th year option it will be a formality on the way to a long term extension. So I wouldn't make any draft pick with the 5th year option on my mind. Draft the BPA at a position of need and worry about the rest later.

 

It's probably worth noting that the question about Tremaine Edmunds 5th year option does have unusual context, that being the collision between 1) the fact that we drafted 2 1st round picks in 2018 so we have 2 5th year options to consider 2) the huge cap hit from Covid, and Beane's belief that it won't recover much in 2022. 

 

That said, if Edmunds had showed himself more consistently the impact player they expected last season instead of struggling half the year and improving to OK, it still wouldn't be a question.