Since 2001, only one team (2006 Colts) has won a SB with a RB they drafted in the 1st round as their leading rusher

[Ricky Spanish]

AKA reason # 56 for why I'm against RBs taken in the first round

[heel31ok]

So it has been done...

[Davidson Deac II]

The Patriots skew the results to a certain extent.  But I generally agree that using a first on a rb is not the best use of the pick.  I like CMC, but I would have preferred Barnett. 

[ericr0319]

you can find a pointless stat like this for every position outside of the QB. 

[LinvilleGorge]

4 minutes ago, ericr0319 said:

you can find a pointless stat like this for every position outside of the QB. 

Yep, I bet the results would look similar for a lot of positions.

[Mother Grabber]

i’ll take pointless stats for 1000 please Alex

[RumHam]

Another pointless post. Hey, do a stat where the team's kicker had a five million dollar franchise tag. What did they do? #OneStarVote

[heel31ok]

15 minutes ago, Mother Grabber said:

i’ll take pointless stats for 1000 please Alex

 

[frash.exe]

here’s another stat: since 2006, the huddle has wet their collective panties over at least one RB prospect in the first round

 

the point of OP is to prove that there is no rule that says that you need to invest in that coveted bell cow running back to win in this league.

[Mother Grabber]

41 minutes ago, frash.exe said:

here’s another stat: since 2006, the huddle has wet their collective panties over at least one RB prospect in the first round

 

the point of OP is to prove that there is no rule that says that you need to invest in that coveted bell cow running back to win in this league.

unfortunately, the OP proves the exact opposite.  Since the stat is taken completely out any relevant context, we are looking at it purely from drafting an RB in the 1st as it correlates to SBs.

There are 22 starting positions.  Thus, drafting any of the starting positions in the 1st correlates to 4.5% of a chance to win a super bowl.

The article chose 2001 for some reason, but ok.  Since 2001, there have been 17 or 18 super bowls, depending on how you count it, one of which was won by a team that featured their RB taken in the 1st, which represents 5.6-5.8% of the super bowls.

Therefore, the only conclusion we can draw from this ridiculous stat is that drafting a running back with your first round pick gives you a 150% better chance of winning the super bowl.

Thread of the year.

[frash.exe]

6 minutes ago, Mother Grabber said:

unfortunately, the OP proves the exact opposite.  Since the stat is taken completely out any relevant context, we are looking at it purely from drafting an RB in the 1st as it correlates to SBs.

There are 22 starting positions.  Thus, drafting any of the starting positions in the 1st correlates to 4.5% of a chance to win a super bowl.

The article chose 2001 for some reason, but ok.  Since 2001, there have been 17 or 18 super bowls, depending on how you count it, one of which was won by a team that featured their RB taken in the 1st, which represents 5.6-5.8% of the super bowls.

Therefore, the only conclusion we can draw from this ridiculous stat is that drafting a running back with your first round pick gives you a 150% better chance of winning the super bowl.

Thread of the year.

and we picked three running backs in the first round in that time span and we haven’t won poo so...

[Ricky Spanish]

10 minutes ago, Mother Grabber said:

unfortunately, the OP proves the exact opposite.  Since the stat is taken completely out any relevant context, we are looking at it purely from drafting an RB in the 1st as it correlates to SBs.

There are 22 starting positions.  Thus, drafting any of the starting positions in the 1st correlates to 4.5% of a chance to win a super bowl.

The article chose 2001 for some reason, but ok.  Since 2001, there have been 17 or 18 super bowls, depending on how you count it, one of which was won by a team that featured their RB taken in the 1st, which represents 5.6-5.8% of the super bowls.

Therefore, the only conclusion we can draw from this ridiculous stat is that drafting a running back with your first round pick gives you a 150% better chance of winning the super bowl.

Thread of the year.

If you click the link he goes into greater detail:

Quote

And in case you believe the time period selected was too specific, note that just 7 SB winning teams since 1980 have accomplished this feat (aforementioned '06 Colts, '00 Ravens, '95 Cowboys, '93 Cowboys, '92 Cowboys, '85 Bears, '83 Raiders).

It's honestly not a very cherry picked date considering the huge swing in rules that benefited the passing game around 04-06. 

Another dude took a look at all first round picks since 2008  and found the following:

Quote

What does this show? First and foremost, every one of these teams had at least one first round defensive lineman. You have to go back to 2008 to find a team with more offensive firsts than defensive firsts, a first round RB, or a first round TE, and the first round RB didn't play (it should be noted that both New England and Philly have important pass-catching TEs that they drafted in the top 50). In general, the only defensive position that really doesn't show up much is non-passrushing LB - passrushers, DTs, and DBs all show up. On offense, QB is hit-and-miss, but there's certainly no reason not to take a first round QB. RB was covered nicely by OP. TE was covered a few sentences ago. WR shows up fairly regularly. Almost every team had a first round OL.

Just interesting stuff all around. 

[Mother Grabber]

1 hour ago, frash.exe said:

and we picked three running backs in the first round in that time span and we haven’t won poo so...

from what I understand, we technically won 50, but the league didn't want us to, so they gave it to the Broncos.  So, we just need 2 more in the next 44 years, and we good.