Chances of finding a starting RB in the draft

[xwalker]

I'm an advocate for getting Peterson at the right price because he's a proven commodity, but I don't see how that invalidates the statistics I've presented.

This thread isn't about Peterson, though. It's about how hard it is to draft a starting running back. I'm certainly all for drafting one if we don't go after Peterson, and I want us to do it within the first two rounds because the success rates for drafting one historically decline, as they do for other positions.

I was guess guessing at what Fuzzy was implying. Peterson had not crossed my mind prior to his post.

 

[xwalker]

This.

That 4.2 ypc average combined with about 30 carries per game will yield good things.

And it doesn't matter if you have 1 back or 4 backs that do it.

Yep, about 126 yards per game rushing.

 

[gimmesix]

I would say any player who's average can be fluffed by a couple decent runs likely isn't doing well in the first place.

Bottom line, most backs don't get the carries to make an impact. Furthermore, most backs don't project to go to a place that has a very good OL to work with.

If Dallas takes a RB high, that player will have all the opportunity in the world to prove himself.

I'm not sure it would be fair to say most of these backs would make an impact with more carries. Most of them get limited carries for a reason. Several did worse the more carries they got.

It is probably that whomever Dallas takes will get more of an opportunity than some. But who knows? If he gets off to a slow start and McFadden shows he's better than his 3.4 average the last three seasons, he might be relegated to a backup role.

 

[gimmesix]

I was guess guessing at what Fuzzy was implying. Peterson had not crossed my mind prior to his post.

Thanks. It wasn't my intent to bring Peterson into this debate. I said all I wanted to on that subject in another thread.

The purpose of this thread is to strictly examine the probability of success of RBs taken in the first three rounds.

 

[gimmesix]

Have you studied his game footage with the Raiders?

He looks fine physically. They were just terrible and he is not jitter-bug type RB that would ever be good when getting hit in the backfield on most plays. There are some styles of RB that can have some success with bad blocking, but McFadden and for that matter Murray are that type of players.

When I look at the 2014 version of McFadden, I think he could have played for Indiana or Wisconsin with similar or better results than Coleman/Gordon.

No, I haven't looked at his game footage. I'm just going by his poor YPC and what I've read from others who have studied his game footage to see why it was so poor.

What they've said is that he wasn't real good at finding the hole, either running into the backs of his linemen or cutting away from it. That could be because he doesn't trust his linemen.

They said he's tripped up too often and goes down too easily. That could be the result of some of the injuries he's suffered making him weaker than he used to be or perhaps his heart wasn't into it.

I don't discount the possibility that he could be much better here than he was there, I'm just not for counting on it. I like that he was brought in to compete, but we at least need to give him someone to compete with, and I don't believe a back who has done nothing in this league, a backup with one good year in that role and a spot player are enough competition.

 

[gimmesix]

There are some styles of RB that can have some success with bad blocking, but McFadden and for that matter Murray are that type of players.

Murray did pretty well (5.5 YPC) with Phil Costa, Montrae Holland, Bill Nagy and Kyle Kosier on the interior in 2011, a rookie right tackle and Doug Free at left tackle.

Did McFadden have worse than that?

 

[jday]

I share your concern. Dallas needs to get little lucky here in draft. As much as I don't want to give up too much for Peterson...he is probably safest play for Cowboys.

A 30 year old who has been out of football for over a year and necessitates the trade of a 1st round pick and a starting caliber corner is the safest play?


Seriously?

 

[jday]

There seems to be an assumption that we will be able to find a good-enough running back at some point in this draft, so I thought I would take a look at what past drafts show us about first-year success.

Running backs taken in the first three rounds are listed with number of starts/yards per carry/carries-total yards rushing/TDs for their first year.

2014 - 5 of 8 backs averaged at least 4.0 per carry, but 2 of those had no starts; 3 of 8 started at least 8 games; 1 of 8 rushed for 1,000 yards; 1 of 8 scored more than 4 rushing TDs
(2-54) Bishop Sankey (9/3.7/152-569/2)
(2-55) Jeremy Hill (8/5.1/221-1,124/9)
(2-57) Carlos Hyde (0/4.0/83-333/4)
(3-69) Charles Sims (0/2.8/66-185/1)
(3-75) Tre Mason (9/4.3/179-765/4)
(3-94) Terrance West (6/3.9/171-673/4)
(3-96) Jerick McKinnon (6/4.8/113-538/0)
(3-97) Dri Archer (0/4.0/10-40/0)

2013 - 4 of 6 averaged at least 4.0 per carry, but 3 of those had no starts; 2 of 6 started at least 8 games; 1 of 6 rushed for 1,000 yards; 3 of 6 had more than 4 rushing TDs
(2-37) Giovani Bernard (0/4.1/170-695/5)
(2-48) Le'Veon Bell (13/3.5/244-860/8)
(2-58) Montee Ball (0/4.7/120-559/4)
(2-61) Eddie Lacy (15/4.1/284-1,178/11)
(2-62) Christine Michael (0/4.4/18-79/0)
(3-96) Knile Davis (1/3.5/70-242/4)

2012 - 5 of 7 averaged at least 4.0 per carry, but 4 of those had 2 or fewer starts; 2 of 7 started at least 8 games; 1 of 7 rushed for 1,000 yards; 2 of 7 had more than 4 rushing TDs
(1-3) Trent Richardson (15/3.6/267-950/11)
(1-31) Doug Martin (16/4.6/319-1,454/11)
(1-32) David Wilson (2/5.0/71-358/4)
(2-50) Isaiah Pead (1/5.4/10-54/0)
(2-61) LaMichael James (0/4.6/27-125/0)
(2-67) Ronnie Hillman (0/3.9/85-330/1)
(3-84) Bernard Pierce (0/4.9/108-532/1)

2011 - 2 of 8 averaged at least 4.0 per carry, but 1 of those had 2 or fewer starts; 1 of 7 started at least 8 games; 0 of 8 rushed for 1,000 yards; 2 of 8 had more than 4 rushing TDs
(1-28) Mark Ingram (4/3.9/122-474/5)
(2-38) Ryan Williams (3/2.8/58-164/0)
(2-56) Shane Vereen (0/3.8/15-57/1)
(2-57) Mikel Leshoure (14/3.7/215-798/9)
(2-62) Daniel Thomas (2/3.5/165-581/0)
(3-71) DeMarco Murray (7/5.5/164-897/2)
(3-73) Stevan Ridley (2/5.1/87-441/1)
(3-96) Alex Green (0/3.7/3-11/0)

So over a four-year span, 16 of 28 averaged at least 4.0 per carry, but 10 of those had 2 or fewer starts; 8 of 28 started at least 8 games; 3 of 28 rushed for 1,000 yards; 8 of 28 had more than 4 rushing TDs in their first years.

I respect the amount of work that was put into this, but the big question to me is what would have been the results for the above RB's behind the Cowboys offensive line last year when you take in consideration that over 1,000 of Demarco Murray's yards were before being touched? Therein is the issue with the above study. Most of the above RB's didn't have anywhere close to the same opportunities that Murray had playing behind their perspective offensive lines.

 

[DFWJC]

Ypc should be on a curve based on number of carries before we even consider all the other variables.

I remember Felix having low carries and very high ypc.

One thing we all should know by now is that with Dallas' passing game, running the ball has almost always yielded a high ypc on the downs where the defense had to be honest.

Until recently, that usually broke down in essential run situations. In fact it was so unreliable in short yardage situations there for a few years that we gave up even trying at times...to our detriment.

 

[DFWJC]

I respect the amount of work that was put into this, but the big question to me is what would have been the results for the above RB's behind the Cowboys offensive line last year when you take in consideration that over 1,000 of Demarco Murray's yards were before being touched? Therein is the issue with the above study. Most of the above RB's didn't have anywhere close to the same opportunities that Murray had playing behind their perspective offensive lines.

Yep.
A ton of backs would have rushed for 1k last year by just running through the hole provided.
That's not a diss on Murray, as he still got 800 more. It's a compliment to our line and also the always ongoing threat of us passing he ball. No loaded boxes vs Dallas.

 

[jnday]

I'm totally fine with a 2nd or 3rd round pick joining McFadden and Randle in a Marinelli-style wave attack. I don't want Randle starting but he is good in his role - a few carries, pass block and play ST. McFadden will play well behind this OL if he is sharing carries with a guy like Ajayi or Buck Allen.

I would expect the running game to regress quite a bit with this approach.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm an advocate for getting Peterson at the right price because he's a proven commodity, but I don't see how that invalidates the statistics I've presented.

This thread isn't about Peterson, though. It's about how hard it is to draft a starting running back. I'm certainly all for drafting one if we don't go after Peterson, and I want us to do it within the first two rounds because the success rates for drafting one historically decline, as they do for other positions.

Really, so what am I supposed to take from this then? We're likely screwed and without hope?

You're going to pretend like this exact same discussion using the exact same bias wasn't used as a basis to spend a first or second round pick to get Petersen. After all the rookie is likely to suck. . .

 

[xwalker]

Murray did pretty well (5.5 YPC) with Phil Costa, Montrae Holland, Bill Nagy and Kyle Kosier on the interior in 2011, a rookie right tackle and Doug Free at left tackle.

Did McFadden have worse than that?

Kosier was a decent player. Holland was a really good run blocker, he just had issues in Pass Pro. Tyron was better than half the league in his 1st snap.

The biggest issue is that the Cowboys had a legit passing game and defenses didn't just sell out to stop the run.

 

[Floatyworm]

So 3 RBs out of 28 broke a 1000 yards their rookie year.................So we are basically looking at a little over 10% chance our RB we draft will even break 1000 yds.

So that leaves McFadden to fill the void if the rookie cant get it done

Man, I sure hope letting Murray walk doesn't blow up in our face ( I am talking about from a production standpoint).

Well.....I'll throw this out there......Doug Martin was one of the 3 RBs that ran for over a 1000 yrds his rookie year....Jay Ajayi is a better back than Martin

 

[gimmesix]

I respect the amount of work that was put into this, but the big question to me is what would have been the results for the above RB's behind the Cowboys offensive line last year when you take in consideration that over 1,000 of Demarco Murray's yards were before being touched? Therein is the issue with the above study. Most of the above RB's didn't have anywhere close to the same opportunities that Murray had playing behind their perspective offensive lines.

Obviously, we don't know. The only thing we can look at is the evidence we've got. But from what I understand about the running back position from a historical draft standpoint, what we see here holds up pretty well across time.

I saw a study (and can't find it now) over 10 years that showed that 59 percent of running backs drafted in the first round and 25 percent in the second round became starters. Another 10-year study (through 2009 ... I think the other was more recent) showed 58 percent in the first round and 36 in the second, I believe it was, became starters. (The rate drops into the teens after those rounds.)

I have trouble believing that that all comes down to the quality of the line. The first study said that running backs have either one of the highest or the highest "bust" rates in the draft, although obviously there are busts at every position each year.

And again, that doesn't mean we don't draft one because we've got to have one IMO. It's just that finding the ones who will succeed isn't easy.

 

[gimmesix]

Really, so what am I supposed to take from this then? We're likely screwed and without hope?

You're going to pretend like this exact same discussion using the exact same bias wasn't used as a basis to spend a first or second round pick to get Petersen. After all the rookie is likely to suck. . .

It's just all the numbers available on drafted running backs. What other numbers do you want me to present?

My whole point in this thread is that it is much more difficult than people think to draft a starting running back. It was based more on the fact that many seem to believe this draft is so deep at the position that we can just wait to grab one in the third or fourth round and be OK. What I believe it shows is that it's hard drafting a starting running back in any round so we don't need to assume anything about the position.

If you can't separate this thread from the other, that's your issue. I've said over and over again, if we didn't go after Peterson, that I would draft a running back in the first or second round, but I don't think there's anything wrong with looking at historical data to see that it isn't easy. If you want to close your eyes to it, that's your prerogative.

I've also consistently said I wouldn't trade a first- or second-round pick for Peterson, so I don't know what your deal is, other than I seem to have rubbed you wrong by presenting facts. (If the facts had showed the opposite, I would have presented them to show that it's easy to draft a starting running back.)

No evidence is perfect because there are multiple factors involved, but when it shows that you find few players at a position who turn out to be starters, I think we should be prepared for that. It's the primary reason I like the McFadden pickup because as bad as he's been the past three seasons, he at least gives us another dart to throw at the starting spot and maybe one will stick.

 

[gimmesix]

Kosier was a decent player. Holland was a really good run blocker, he just had issues in Pass Pro. Tyron was better than half the league in his 1st snap.

The biggest issue is that the Cowboys had a legit passing game and defenses didn't just sell out to stop the run.

I think we tend to undersell Oakland's line because we want McFadden to be better than he's been. Maybe it was that much worse than a line that featured Costa at center, but I don't assume that. We seem to be relying on the fact that any back we get is going to succeed because our line is that much better than everyone else's, but NFL history has shown that there have been good backs despite not having a great line or great QB play.

Does have a great line and legit passing game help? Certainly. Is it the cure for McFadden's average play? I don't know. I think backs who lack vision, can't make at least one defender miss on their own, can't break arm tackles, etc. will struggle no matter the line and QB play. (Not saying all that describes McFadden.)

 

[Fla Cowpoke]

I respect the amount of work that was put into this, but the big question to me is what would have been the results for the above RB's behind the Cowboys offensive line last year when you take in consideration that over 1,000 of Demarco Murray's yards were before being touched? Therein is the issue with the above study. Most of the above RB's didn't have anywhere close to the same opportunities that Murray had playing behind their perspective offensive lines.

Actually, I beleive in the end it was less than 900 yards gained before contact. It was really high early on but went down as defenses started contributing more resources to trying to stop the run. PFF actually had him at like 950 yds after contact, which was really high. They also had him with like 55-60 broken tackles, which was among the highest in the league. The OL was great, but some are really diminishing what Murray did. I do think the running back that Dallas chooses has an excellent chance to be among the league leaders and should have a great shot at rookie of the year but let's not make it like anyone could have done what Murray did.

 

[gimmesix]

Ypc should be on a curve based on number of carries before we even consider all the other variables.

I remember Felix having low carries and very high ypc.

One thing we all should know by now is that with Dallas' passing game, running the ball has almost always yielded a high ypc on the downs where the defense had to be honest.

Until recently, that usually broke down in essential run situations. In fact it was so unreliable in short yardage situations there for a few years that we gave up even trying at times...to our detriment.

Well, that's part of the reason everything is listed, starts, ypc, carries-total yardage, tds.

It's difficult to judge running backs by just one of them because it all is certainly influenced by various factors. That's why my summations listed the results for each of those categories.

The 8 of 28 who started 8 or more games could be less about their failure and more about who is ahead of them or injury.

Most of the 16 of 28 who averaged more than 4 yards per carry had a low number of carries, so a big run or two could have ballooned that number, while some of the ones below 4.0 could have easily gone over it with more carries if they broke a big run.

The 3 of 28 who rushed for 1,000 yards had more opportunities than the ones who didn't. Any back can top 1,000 with enough opportunities, but that doesn't mean they are good.

What I believe the evidence shows is that less than 50 percent of the backs succeed in any of those categories, which again shows that it's not easy drafting a back who succeeds in all of them, which is what I want. I want a back who rushes for more than 4.0 per carry, who starts more than 8 games, who breaks 1,000 yards in the process, who scores more than 4 TDs, because I think that's what we need to continue the success we've had.

Even using the committee approach, we have to have a leader of that committee. Can it be any of the players we've got? Maybe, but they've got so much to prove that I don't want to rely on that.

 

[xwalker]

No, I haven't looked at his game footage. I'm just going by his poor YPC and what I've read from others who have studied his game footage to see why it was so poor.

What they've said is that he wasn't real good at finding the hole, either running into the backs of his linemen or cutting away from it. That could be because he doesn't trust his linemen.

They said he's tripped up too often and goes down too easily. That could be the result of some of the injuries he's suffered making him weaker than he used to be or perhaps his heart wasn't into it.

I don't discount the possibility that he could be much better here than he was there, I'm just not for counting on it. I like that he was brought in to compete, but we at least need to give him someone to compete with, and I don't believe a back who has done nothing in this league, a backup with one good year in that role and a spot player are enough competition.

The only thing I've seen posted from somebody else that watched the game footage was a review that Fuzzy did. He got into the specifics of exactly which OLinemen were in the game, etc.. His review was positive for McFadden and he's generally not a happy fan.

Obviously, they can't be overly dependent on McFadden, if for no other reason than his injury history; however, between McFadden, Ryan Williams and Randle, they all have a chance to be productive behind this OL in this offense. The probability of any one of them being productive is probably similar to the probability of a rookie being productive. When you add together the probability that just 1 of them steps up, then it is much higher the individual probability for each one.

There is also the issue of Pass Pro. How much will a rookie be held back for this issue. McFadden is terrific in Pass Pro (better than Murray). Despite claims otherwise, Randle was good in Pass Pro in 2014 including the Preseason. The reports are that they spent the year teaching Ryan Williams better Pass Pro technique.