Grizz, I think you and I are basically in agreement on the "In BB I Trust" mantra. Hate to say it, but hell they're smarter than me. Deus, very well done thorough look at the draft class. I think this is all illustrating the same thing different ways. Maroney's good. He's just not your #1 fantasy team guy.
VJC: Patriots.com has
Faulk's career average at 3.8
http://www.patriots.com/AllTimeLeaders/index.cfm?ac=Rushing
Look at the data you supplied: Faulk had higher YPC in cherrypicked years. In none of those years did he carry more than 55 times.
The two years in which he was given a share as large as Maroney's rookie year (175 carries), was 2000 and 2003. In those years, he carried 164 and 178 times, respectively, for YPCs of 3.5 and 3.6. In those years, he scored 4 and 0 touchdowns respectively (w/1 additional through the air in 2000). Maroney, with 175 carries, scored 6 on the ground.
The point here is, Maroney can be your every-down back. He just isn't Lady Tom, and he isn't Priest Holmes c 2003, and he isn't Marshall Faulk c 2000. You might look back, though, and say "My GOD I can't believe I argued against this guy!"
He's a single right now. He's not a home run. I can't say that often enough. Some little part of me will go "woo hoo!" whenever we draft a much-talked-about skill player, or wants that skill player so bad I want to urge trading the whole draft for him. But that's irrational exuberance. We DO NOT KNOW that Darren McFadden is what we all believe he'll be. We just think he will be. And the Vikes won't trade us Peterson for Maroney. So here we are (in the real world). In the real world, I don't see the smartest strategy for maximizing our return on investment being to give up on a guy who's performing well enough to contribute solidly to our system.
What you're missing is, we have a sure thing at his current level (contributing solidly, and able to be a 2-down back, in the 170-200 carries/year range.) Since some risk has been removed from Peterson by virtue of him playing a year, you would like to go backwards, and find some way that we trade 2006 for 2007, draft Peterson instead of Maroney, or whatever. Or maybe, since the risk is removed from Addai by virtue of his post-draft performance, you want to go back in time and make that deal with the questions already answered. It doesn't work that way. Going forward every path carries risks with it. Do you risk paying two 1st round running backs, and being no better off, and sacrificing the possible depth picks as an "opportunity cost"? Do you risk that Maroney might not be the best in the game, or even what you would consider an "okay" first rounder? Etc.
There might not be a tool that valuates risk in the Pats' front office; it may be more of a "gut" thing than that (though I doubt it.) But think of risks as a quantum version of costs - you have to pay to play, basically.
What I object to is that you give people this ridiculous choice of ignoring the risks that existed at the time of the draft, and drafting over with foreknowledge of all risks. Clearly, your bar for ridiculing any who for NOW stick with the choice as made, is that you believe you can evaluate all the choices with less than 2 season's hindsight, ignoring already the possibility that further years within their rookie contracts will yield significant results.
I would be surprised if Maroney is at the peak of his development. In fact, I would say the start of 07 represents a trough.
My sense is you're evaluating him at a low ebb, and urging people to "sell low". What do you offer them as a substitute? The competing alternative of Peterson. Were you able to make a deal for him now, you'd be "buying high." Same with Addai. I think this may look very different to you in a year.
PFnV
PFnV
