Football Outsider says: pick top-ten RB over OT

[Coach Tuesday]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?page=NextLevel2

 

Goes against everything I've ever heard, but interesting nonetheless...

[Tortured Soul]

It totally ignores the passing side of the offense.

[Coach Tuesday]

It totally ignores the passing side of the offense.

 

It does. I guess the theory is that a strong running game takes the pressure off of the passing game, but you're right, it's a one-sided argument.

[PromoTheRobot]

It totally ignores the passing side of the offense.

And ignores that no RB can run without some blocking.

 

PTR

[DasNootz]

And ignores that no RB can run without some blocking.

 

PTR

 

Barry Sanders did.

[C.Biscuit97]

3 rbs picked in the top 10 over the last 25 years have won Super Bowls: Reggie Bush (who was mainly a decoy), Jamal Lewis (who played on one of the greatest defensive teams ever and on an offense that didn't score a td for a month), and Marshall Faulk (who was traded before he won one).

[Coach Tuesday]

3 rbs picked in the top 10 over the last 25 years have won Super Bowls: Reggie Bush (who was mainly a decoy), Jamal Lewis (who played on one of the greatest defensive teams ever and on an offense that didn't score a td for a month), and Marshall Faulk (who was traded before he won one).

 

THAT is what you think is the meaningful measurable for a first round pick? Superbowl wins??

[C.Biscuit97]

THAT is what you think is the meaningful measurable for a first round pick? Superbowl wins??

 

 

It proves the point that if you build your team around a high profile running back, you aren't going to win a Super Bowl. Isn't that the goal of building a team? And drafting a rb in the top 10 is even more follish when you already have 2 1,000 yard rushers on the roster.

[DasNootz]

Jerome Bettis also won a Superbowl and was picked 10th

[DasNootz]

It proves the point that if you build your team around a high profile running back, you aren't going to win a Super Bowl. Isn't that the goal of building a team? And drafting a rb in the top 10 is even more follish when you already have 2 1,000 yard rushers on the roster.

 

How many QBs drafted in the top 10 in that same period won superbowls?

[dpberr]

The common denominator is that all the teams that were used as examples had average or below average quarterbacks for the years cited.

[DasNootz]

The common denominator is that all the teams that were used as examples had average or below average quarterbacks for the years cited.

 

Or that teams that have picks in the top 10, take longer to rebuild than the the average NFL career for a first rounder.

[dpberr]

I guess my point is that if you have a less than great passing game, of course you'll try to run the ball more.

[Coach Tuesday]

It proves the point that if you build your team around a high profile running back, you aren't going to win a Super Bowl. Isn't that the goal of building a team? And drafting a rb in the top 10 is even more follish when you already have 2 1,000 yard rushers on the roster.

 

It absolutely does NOT prove that point. In fact, you've just posited a complete logical fallacy. And Reggie Bush just won a Super Bowl, so there's your "black swan."

[dave mcbride]

It proves the point that if you build your team around a high profile running back, you aren't going to win a Super Bowl. Isn't that the goal of building a team? And drafting a rb in the top 10 is even more follish when you already have 2 1,000 yard rushers on the roster.

You conveniently forgot to include the entire first round. That leaves out Emmitt Smith, Jerome Bettis, Corey Dillon, Joseph Addai, and OJ Anderson. Also, Walter Payton, a 4th overall pick, won a SB ring 25 years ago. Finally, Jamal Lewis was the most productive offensive player on the field in the Ravens-Giants Super Bowl, and rushed for over 1300 yards that year.

[PromoTheRobot]

Barry Sanders did.

Sure did. How many games did the Lions win?

 

PTR

[dave mcbride]

Sure did. How many games did the Lions win?

 

PTR

Since you asked, they consistently fielded a winner in his heyday. They made the playoffs five times in seven seasons from 1991-1997. They haven't made the playoffs since he retired.

[Arkady Renko]

And ignores that no RB can run without some blocking.

 

PTR

 

Huh? They compared choosing a highly rated tackle with choosing a highly-rated RB. Highly-rated RB increased performance more.

[bbb]

How many QBs drafted in the top 10 in that same period won superbowls?

 

8 Super Bowls out of 25........and Big Ben was drafted 11th. If it was top 11, it would be 10 of 25.

[Adam]

Barry Sanders did.

No he didn't. Lomas Brown, Glover, etc.... were pretty good. Just cause the media says Barry Sanders did it all himself and that Wayne Fontes is a buffoon doesn't make either true.

[C.Biscuit97]

You conveniently forgot to include the entire first round. That leaves out Emmitt Smith, Jerome Bettis, Corey Dillon, Joseph Addai, and OJ Anderson. Also, Walter Payton, a 4th overall pick, won a SB ring 25 years ago. Finally, Jamal Lewis was the most productive offensive player on the field in the Ravens-Giants Super Bowl, and rushed for over 1300 yards that year.

 

 

Read the topic. It said "Top Ten RB." That's why I left out the rest of the 1st round because it wasn't valid to the conversation we are having here.

[KD in CA]

Huh? They compared choosing a highly rated tackle with choosing a highly-rated RB. Highly-rated RB increased performance more.

 

It is a ridiculous study that supports no conclusions. There are far too many unaccounted for variables and it takes into consideration way too small a sample size.

[C.Biscuit97]

Jerome Bettis also won a Superbowl and was picked 10th

 

 

You're right and good catch. Still, it only makes 4 out of 25 years and Bettis won the SB on another team than the one that drafted him. So 2 rbs drafted in the top 10 have won a Super Bowl with the original team that drafted them. That's a terrible %.

[C.Biscuit97]

It absolutely does NOT prove that point. In fact, you've just posited a complete logical fallacy. And Reggie Bush just won a Super Bowl, so there's your "black swan."

 

 

I already said Bush was one of the 4 in 25 who won a SB. But The Saints obviously won the Super Bowl because of their 3rd leading rusher and a guy who didn't get over 400 yards.

[Thurman#1]

You're right and good catch. Still, it only makes 4 out of 25 years and Bettis won the SB on another team than the one that drafted him. So 2 rbs drafted in the top 10 have won a Super Bowl with the original team that drafted them. That's a terrible %.

 

 

The #9 pick and the #11 pick are very very comparable. In fact, all the way back to maybe #15 or perhaps #16 (making it the first half of the round) are a very legit comparison to the #9 pick.

 

I do agree with you that a team drafting 29th or 30th or otherwise very late in the draft isn't a good comparison ... those teams almost always already have a good OL and they are usually either already Super Bowl caliber teams or only one or two guys away. But it's simply not fair to arbitrarily pick 10 as your number because it's nice and round and happens to make your argument stronger. Below-average teams all make a good comparison.

[mikey98277]

The #9 pick and the #11 pick are very very comparable. In fact, all the way back to maybe #15 or perhaps #16 (making it the first half of the round) are a very legit comparison to the #9 pick.

 

I do agree with you that a team drafting 29th or 30th or otherwise very late in the draft isn't a good comparison ... those teams almost always already have a good OL and they are usually either already Super Bowl caliber teams or only one or two guys away. But it's simply not fair to arbitrarily pick 10 as your number because it's nice and round and happens to make your argument stronger. Below-average teams all make a good comparison.

 

 

While your point maybe valid, it does not apply, this topic has to do with top-10 picks, so even if other lower tier teams maybe comparable, this is not the thread for it, read the title.

[Thoner7]

Biggest. Idiot. Ever.

 

OL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RB

[Steely Dan]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?page=NextLevel2

 

Goes against everything I've ever heard, but interesting nonetheless...

 

Good article, thanks.

 

 

And ignores that no RB can run without some blocking.

 

PTR

 

That's the point of the article. A great LT isn't necessary for a running game to succeed. In fact getting a LT leads to a less effective running game. Yes, he has to, literally, have some blocking but that's not what the article is about.

 

 

You conveniently forgot to include the entire first round. That leaves out Emmitt Smith, Jerome Bettis, Corey Dillon, Joseph Addai, and OJ Anderson. Also, Walter Payton, a 4th overall pick, won a SB ring 25 years ago. Finally, Jamal Lewis was the most productive offensive player on the field in the Ravens-Giants Super Bowl, and rushed for over 1300 yards that year.

 

This is only addressing the top 10 picks.

 

I still think that a LT is going to be worth more overall to a team when pass blocking is factored in than a RB, but if the Bills end up taking Spiller it's not as bad as it seems.

[tonyjustbcuz]

Barry Sanders did.

 

 

Thank You! I brought that up last night and came to the conclusion that you'd prefer great blocking obviously, but a real good or great RB finds holes or at least some seams and creases to run through just like Barry Did. Last year Fred Jackson really did a superb job and got a good amount of yards even though he shared the RB duties with Lynch to some extent. Jackson was tearing it up before Lynch came back off of a suspension.

 

Back in the 90's...can't remember which year but Bledsoe had his one really good year as a Bills QB..Especially early on in the season. He had well over 4,000 yards passing....the RB's probably had 1,400 yards or more, and the Bills were ranked

11th in the leaugue in Total Offense. This was all achieved despite the Bill's having a porous Offensive Line which allowed

about 56 sacks!!! that particular year. They gave up about 10 more sacks than last year's team did which is unbelievable!!!

(but true)..

 

Yes, a good O Line is important, but good QB's, WR's, and RB's can still achieve great numbers with select playcalling, focusing away from their trouble spot on the O Line, Sometimes implementing some shotgun plays, etc...there are ways

to manage around offensive flaws to some extent.

 

The one flaw that really stands out and is difficult to work around is inept QB's as the ball goes into their hands nearly every play! You cannot make up for the QB! A particular RB may have the ball in his hands 1 or 2 plays per set of downs,

a WR may get a play each set of downs, A Offensive lineman may screw up possibly a handful of plays per game which leads to two or three sacks, but nobody...I mean nobody has the ball as much or impacts a game and season as much the

QB!

 

So one way or the other the Bills need to ensure they get Clausen, but I believe that they need to move back into the 1st round or hope that their is a good OT available with their 2nd round pick because it would definitely make things that much

easier if the QB had good offensive line protection.

[Guest dog14787]

Jerome Bettis also won a Superbowl and was picked 10th

 

Exactly, and you can bet Nix/Gailey are looking for that big bruiser/Bettis type RB.

[BuffOrange]

Surprising since those guys have always been very bullish on drafting OLmen high.

Never heard of that particular columnist - he must be new to the staff.

[dave mcbride]

Read the topic. It said "Top Ten RB." That's why I left out the rest of the 1st round because it wasn't valid to the conversation we are having here.

I don't think "top ten" is a valid category. Every team has one and only one first pick; whether it's 17th or 9th is sort of immaterial.

[billsfan89]

When will people learn that football is a symbiotic game. All components of a team effect each other. If you don't have an offensive line then your running backs don't have holes, how good can a QB be without good blocking? Very few QB's have the ability to play above their O-lines capacity to protect them (Kurt Warner's freakishly quick release often protected the Cards O-line but that's not a frequent situation at all).

 

So unless you have a great QB who can make really quick decisions and has a freak quick release you need an O-line to protect him. Almost every running back needs an O-line to make holes for them. Also how good can a team be if the O-line is good and the QB and skill players suck?

 

Sure the running backs get holes but its only a matter of time before a team stacks the box. And if a team stacks the box and you don't have a QB with weapons to take advantage of that situation. All in each and every part of an offense (And Defense) impacts each other.

 

The only question you have to ask when it comes to what you draft is how hard is it to get said position. Running backs can be found in the later rounds top ten running backs better be top 5 running backs down the road or else you wasted a pick. QB's LT's and defensive difference makers are all top ten picks because they aren't easy to find at all. WR's, RB's, G/C, Tight Ends, are rarely take in the top ten unless they are freak talents because they can be found in other fashions either later in rounds or in free agency/trade (How many times has an elite QB or LT been on the open market Drew Breese is the only one I can think of).

[Thoner7]

So we have come to the conclusion that if you have Barry Sanders as your RB, then you dont need an OL.

 

Last I checked Barry Sanders retired and there will prob never be anyone as good as him.

 

As good as Barry was, he also lead the league in rush attempts for negative yards - which is a stat directly linked to poor line play.

 

Ill take the good OL every day of the week because undrafted rookies like Terrell Davis can rush for 2000 yards behind a good OL, while the best RB in history never achieved that feat behind a bad line

[Rockinon]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?page=NextLevel2

 

Goes against everything I've ever heard, but interesting nonetheless...

No. we should should not grab a RB because we all ready have 2 very good ones. LT, LT, LT.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

So we have come to the conclusion that if you have Barry Sanders as your RB, then you dont need an OL.

 

Last I checked Barry Sanders retired and there will prob never be anyone as good as him.

 

As good as Barry was, he also lead the league in rush attempts for negative yards - which is a stat directly linked to poor line play.

 

Ill take the good OL every day of the week because undrafted rookies like Terrell Davis can rush for 2000 yards behind a good OL, while the best RB in history never achieved that feat behind a bad line

Thoner Bro, It doesn't really change your point very much but inaccuracy always weakens an argument because it lessens your credibility.

 

Terrell Davis was a 6th round pick.

 

He rushed for 2000 yards in his his 4th season, not as a rookie.

 

Anyways I agree with you that the article while maybe interesting, is not a valid study.

 

This whole thread is jacked anyways...because we're talking about specific positions but not specific players.

[Nanker]

Here's a list of the Tackles picked in the top 10 spots in the Draft since 1980

1980 Anthony Munoz Cincinnati 3rd HOF (went to the big dance and lost)

1981 none

1982 none

1983 Chris Hinton Denver 4th, Jimbo Covert Chicago 6th

1984 Dean Steinkuhler Houston 2nd

1985 Lomas Brown Detroit 6th, Ken Ruettgers GB 7th, Kevin Allen Philly 9th

1986 none

1987 none

1988 Paul Gruber TB 4th

1989 Tony Mandarich GB 2nd

1990 Richmond Webb Miami 9th

1991 Charles McRae TB 7th, Antone Davis Philly 8th

1992 Bob Whitfield Atlanta 8th, Ray Roberts Seattle 10th

1993 Willie Roaf NO 8th, Lincoln Kennedy Atlanta 9th

1994 none

1995 Tony Boselli Jax 2nd

1996 Jonathan Ogden Bal 4th

1997 Orlando Pace St Louie 1st, Walter Jones Seattle 6th

1998 Kyle Turley NO 7th

1999 none

2000 Chris Samuels Wash 3rd

2001 Leonard Davis Arizona 2nd

2002 Mike D. Williams Buffalo 4th, Bryant McKinnie Minnie 7th, Levi Jones Cinci 10th

2003 Jordan Gross Carolina 8th

2004 Robert Gallery Oaklawn 2nd

2005 none

2006 D'Brickashaw Ferguson JESTS 4th

2007 Joe Thomas Cleveland 3rd, Levi Brown Arizona 5th

2008 Jake Long Miami 1st!

2009 Jason Smith, St Louie 2nd, Andre Smith Cinci 6th, Eugene Monroe Jax 8th

So, picking an OT in the top 10 spots looks like a near certain FAIL for winning a SB.

The list is not exactly murder's row either.

[KD in CA]

The list is not exactly murder's row either.

On what planet is this list not a murder's row?? This list is a who's who is dominant OTs of the past generation. Bolded are/were pro bowlers to the best of my recollection. I added a few other pro bowlers missed.

 

1980 Anthony Munoz Cincinnati 3rd HOF (went to the big dance and lost)

1981 none

1982 none

1983 Chris Hinton Denver 4th, Jimbo Covert Chicago 6th

1984 Dean Steinkuhler Houston 2nd

1985 Lomas Brown Detroit 6th, Ken Ruettgers GB 7th, Kevin Allen Philly 9th

1986 Will Wolford

1987 Harris Barton, Bruce Armstrong

1988 Paul Gruber TB 4th

1989 Tony Mandarich GB 2nd

1990 Richmond Webb Miami 9th

1991 Charles McRae TB 7th, Antone Davis Philly 8th

1992 Bob Whitfield Atlanta 8th, Ray Roberts Seattle 10th Leon Searcy

1993 Willie Roaf NO 8th, Lincoln Kennedy Atlanta 9th Brad Hopkins

1994 Todd Steussie

1995 Tony Boselli Jax 2nd

1996 Jonathan Ogden Bal 4th Willie Anderson

1997 Orlando Pace St Louie 1st, Walter Jones Seattle 6th Tarik Glenn

1998 Kyle Turley NO 7th Tra Thomas

1999 John Tait

2000 Chris Samuels Wash 3rd

2001 Leonard Davis Arizona 2nd

2002 Mike D. Williams Buffalo 4th, Bryant McKinnie Minnie 7th, Levi Jones Cinci 10th

2003 Jordan Gross Carolina 8th

2004 Robert Gallery Oaklawn 2nd Shawn Andrews

2005 Jammal Brown

2006 D'Brickashaw Ferguson JESTS 4th

2007 Joe Thomas Cleveland 3rd, Levi Brown Arizona 5th

2008 Jake Long Miami 1st! Ryan Clady

2009 Jason Smith, St Louie 2nd, Andre Smith Cinci 6th, Eugene Monroe Jax 8th

[Nanker]

On what planet is this list not a murder's row?? This list is a who's who is dominant OTs of the past generation. Bolded are/were pro bowlers to the best of my recollection. I added a few other pro bowlers missed.

But the thirteen players you added weren't drafted in the top 10. Which is what I was responding to - that a top 10 RB ≠ SB. If that's true, then by that logic a top 10 OT is a bigger mistake. I'm just sayin'.