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

[Ricky Spanish]

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

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

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

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

[SOJA]

great post OP I completely agree 

[Davidson Deac II]

Well, I do disagree with some of your worth it vs not worth it.  Stewart's availability or lack thereof is overstated a bit.  He has played in about 80% of his potential games, probably a decent number for a running back.  He did go thru a stretch of about 2 years when he missed a lot of games and his effectiveness in the ones he did play in was limited.  But his overall numbers are pretty decent, better than Le'Veon Bell by comparison (especially if you look at their first three seasons only). 

 

Overall though, I agree that most running backs aren't worth a first unless they are a true game changer ala Gurley

[Ricky Spanish]

28 minutes ago, Davidson Deac II said:

Well, I do disagree with some of your worth it vs not worth it.  Stewart's availability or lack thereof is overstated a bit.  He has played in about 80% of his potential games, probably a decent number for a running back.  He did thru a stretch of about 2 years when he missed a lot of games and his effectiveness in the ones he did play in was limited.  But his overall numbers are pretty decent, better than Le'Veon Bell by comparison (especially if you look at their first three seasons only). 

 

Overall though, I agree that most running backs aren't worth a first unless they are a true game changer ala Gurley

Fair enough didn't realize I had Bell as a Yes, he should be a Debatable because his career is so young. I'll fix that now. As for Stewart,he's still only rushed for 1,000 yards once in his carrier. Yes he's been splitting carries, but that's another argument against him being worth a first round pick in my mind.

[panthers34]

Kenneth Dixon in the 3rd please

[motocross_cat]

Awsome post man.

It just depends on how the first round goes i guess.  Getty doesnt even know who will be there at 30. 

 

[DeSim]

2 minutes ago, Promethean Forerunner said:

If G-Man does indeed take Henry in the first, I'll severely question it. Show me a RB Henry's size who got drafted in the first round, lived up to expectations and stayed in the league longer than 4-5 years. Go ahead. I'll wait. 

Eddie George?

[Ricky Spanish]

1 minute ago, DeSim said:

Eddie George?

You're right, but I don't Think there's been anyone since him. That's roughly 20 years since it last happened. You could argue it won't ever happen again based on how big and fast defensive guys are these days, or you could argue that just means that the league is due for another one. I personally have my doubts. 

Peterson is the only one who comes close and he's 2 or 3 inches shorter with 15-20lbs less on him.

[TheRumGone]

12 minutes ago, Promethean Forerunner said:

"But... Henry... he's huge bro. Like a behemoth! Look at what he did in Alabama!!!! Derrick would plow through defenders like nothing and fit our system like a glove. We're gonna be unstoppable in short yardage situations!"

If G-Man does indeed take Henry in the first, I'll severely question it. Show me a RB Henry's size who got drafted in the first round, lived up to expectations and stayed in the league longer than 4-5 years. Go ahead. I'll wait. 

It's why I sincerely believe that Gettleman isn't considering Henry as a first round prospect. Maybe a second or third but first??? I mean, it's borderline laughable. You can't argue history. Furthermore, 'Bruisers' in the modern game are becoming obsolete like FBs. We've got DEs/DTs moving like LBs and LBs moving like DBs nowadays.

If straightline speed were the end all and be all, then, yeah, Henry would be a Top 15 pick but the mere fact that this guy goes from 60mph to 0mph while changing direction is not worthy of a first round grade.

Will be waiting for your entertaining meltdown posts if we draft him.

[motocross_cat]

Bigger faster defensive players should mean bigger faster runningbacks right?

Idk.  It will be fun to track him wherever he goes.

 

[Bartin]

4 minutes ago, Cracka McNasty said:

You're right, but I don't Think there's been anyone since him. That's roughly 20 years since it last happened. You could argue it won't ever happen again based on how big and fast defensive guys are these days, or you could argue that just means that the league is due for another one. I personally have my doubts. 

Peterson is the only one who comes close and he's 2 or 3 inches shorter with 15-20lbs less on him.

Are there any examples of 1st round RBs Henry's size failing in the NFL? Trying to use past performance of RBs similar in size to Henry to say he will either be good or bad is a bad idea because there have been so few of them. There's not nearly enough data to make an informed decision. It's a poor argument from both sides.

[AppHeel]

I'm 100% fine with us drafting Henry. Can't question his physical tools. The Bama running back NFL pedigree "curse" or whatever doesn't bother me. If Henry isn't the pick I'm fine with that too because Gman likes other players better. However, if we don't draft Henry then I'd prefer to not draft a running back period. We had 5 guys including Tolbert on the 53 the entire season two of which were Rookies. Let's ride with what we have if Henry isn't the pick imo. Could strengthen other positions in the meantime.

[beastson]

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

[csx]

"If G-Man does indeed take Henry in the first, I'll severely question it."

 

That sounds terrifying.