Bowers and Heyward in round 1?

[Box_O_Rocks]

Well, I've always been taught to use and example when I state something. It proves hypothetical reasoning with actual facts, so it simplifies things for the most part since hypothetical discussions can run on for ages.

For instance? :biggrin2:

 

[tricktak]

I didn't know that. Where did that come from?

New England Patriots Coveted Julius Peppers, Who Could Be In Sight This Year? | Bleacher Report

 

[MaineMan]

New England Patriots Coveted Julius Peppers, Who Could Be In Sight This Year? | Bleacher Report

That's your source for, "Everyone knows how much the patriots valued peppers and saw him as a victure at outside linebacker for years to come. " -?

Would you by any chance be interested in buying a bridge? I know where there's a very nice one for sale, cheap!

 

[FredFromDartmouth]

I like Heyward quite a bit and (judging from the interviews I have seen) he seems mature and well-adjusted. He would not embarrass us in press conferences like Allen Bailey might (I like Baily a lot but his hayseed persona would be attached by the usual jackals in the press).

It is hard to say where Heyward will go; I have to trust that BB will only take him if he is a good bargain at the time. Is he late first or second? I have even see third.

Unfortunately I suspect that there will be a run on DEs in the first that will make some of these guy over-valued for the Patriots.

 

[Patriot Missile]

Unfortunately I suspect that there will be a run on DEs in the first that will make some of these guy over-valued for the Patriots.

Not so sure. You are going to have to lump in the run of DE's along with the OT run that is sure to surface. As well as 3 possible QB's 2 WR's possibly 1 RB. Almost forgot, how can we forget Pouncey claims he is going 9th to the Cowboys?

 

[the wrothbroughterer]

Not so sure. You are going to have to lump in the run of DE's along with the OT run that is sure to surface. As well as 3 possible QB's 2 WR's possibly 1 RB. Almost forgot, how can we forget Pouncey claims he is going 9th to the Cowboys?

You know, that has been a recurring theme across this board. It seems that the consensus is there isn't a single RB with a 1st round draft grade, and that I can buy. There also seems to be a consensus that there will only be 1, if any RBs taken in the 1st round. So I did a little research and after looking through every draft from 1996 to 2010, there were at least 2 RBs taken in the 1st round every year.

Point being, even in a weak RB class, teams will draft one. It may again only be 2 this year but that is 1 less DE or Rush LB to be taken, further improving our chances of grabbing a premium player at that position.

 

[Patriot Missile]

You know, that has been a recurring theme across this board. It seems that the consensus is there isn't a single RB with a 1st round draft grade, and that I can buy. There also seems to be a consensus that there will only be 1, if any RBs taken in the 1st round. So I did a little research and after looking through every draft from 1996 to 2010, there were at least 2 RBs taken in the 1st round every year.

Point being, even in a weak RB class, teams will draft one. It may again only be 2 this year but that is 1 less DE or Rush LB to be taken, further improving our chances of grabbing a premium player at that position.

10-15 years ago Ingram and Leshoure were top 10 locks. The whole perception of the RB has changed with the evolution of the passing game. Owners are saving a ton of money for it too considering the RB used to be the 2nd highest paid player on the team.

 

[SanAngeloState]

First, bowers is a one year wonder who disappears for long stretches. He's also more a 4-3 than 3-4. I see him as a bust even without the bum knee. Which reduces his value quite a bit, ie to zero. Microfracture surgery? that's a desperatio move, no?

Back to the subject at hand, quinn and heyward would be great, IMO.

There's also no such word as victure, sorry.

 

[MaineMan]

First, bowers is a one year wonder who disappears for long stretches. He's also more a 4-3 than 3-4. I see him as a bust even without the bum knee. Which reduces his value quite a bit, ie to zero. Microfracture surgery? that's a desperatio move, no?

Back to the subject at hand, quinn and heyward would be great, IMO.

There's also no such word as victure, sorry.

Really? I just assumed that it was an alternate term for "vicarage". Or maybe had something to do with "victuals". Or maybe was a nouveau contraction for "victory picture."

Or maybe just a typo.

 

[Wilfork#75]

First, bowers is a one year wonder who disappears for long stretches. He's also more a 4-3 than 3-4. I see him as a bust even without the bum knee. Which reduces his value quite a bit, ie to zero. Microfracture surgery? that's a desperatio move, no?

Back to the subject at hand, quinn and heyward would be great, IMO.

So you don't like Bowers, but prefer Quinn who is also a one year wonder, has a benign brain tumor, has only ever played 4-3 DE and missed the entire 2010 season due to suspension, fair enough. I personally like both of these guys, but I don't see how you can dismiss Bowers, yet still like Quinn when he has many of the same issues Bowers has, especially when no one really knows the extent of Bowers injury.

 

[the wrothbroughterer]

10-15 years ago Ingram and Leshoure were top 10 locks. The whole perception of the RB has changed with the evolution of the passing game. Owners are saving a ton of money for it too considering the RB used to be the 2nd highest paid player on the team.

I completely agree which is why I went all the way back to 1996 to make sure that the sample crossed different periods of offensive philosophy.

I meant to post the breakdown last night but I'm the oldest 23 year old on the planet and at 11:15 it was well past my bed time. Anyway, here it is and it's expanded to show a greater sample for the "feature back" era:

2010- 3
2009- 3
2008- 5
2007- 2
2006- 4
2005- 3
2004- 3
2003- 2
2002- 2
2001- 3
2000- 5
1999- 2
1998- 4
1997- 2
1996- 3
1995- 5
1994- 3
1993- 3
1992- 3
1991- 3

Without actually applying this to a curve, it looks pretty equally distributedm but there is a slight weight in favor of the earlier samples relative to the new ones, i.e. the "feature back" years versus the "multi-headed monster" attack. At first glance the best years for RBs were 95, 00, and 08 in terms of perceived draft value (5 selected in the first) and 97, 02, 03, and 07 the weakest(only 2). So while the 1990s-early 2000s put the greatest weight on the position, they also held 3 of the 4 weakest years for perceived RB draft value (as I recall, the multi-headed monster approach didn't really take off until later in the decade, circa 2006).

The point is, at least 2 are going in the 1st round. The expanded sample of the last 20 drafts has no less than 2 RBs going in the 1st round and accross that sample there is bound to be a similar class to this one.

 

[West Philly Patriot]

So you don't like Bowers, but prefer Quinn who is also a one year wonder, has a benign brain tumor, has only ever played 4-3 DE and missed the entire 2010 season due to suspension, fair enough. I personally like both of these guys, but I don't see how you can dismiss Bowers, yet still like Quinn when he has many of the same issues Bowers has, especially when no one really knows the extent of Bowers injury.

what he said.

 

[SanAngeloState]

So you don't like Bowers, but prefer Quinn who is also a one year wonder, has a benign brain tumor, has only ever played 4-3 DE and missed the entire 2010 season due to suspension, fair enough. I personally like both of these guys, but I don't see how you can dismiss Bowers, yet still like Quinn when he has many of the same issues Bowers has, especially when no one really knows the extent of Bowers injury.

I think quinn could be a natural at 3-4, bowers not so much...too thick and slow. Also a little bit mentally challenged.

 

[Husse]

I think quinn could be a natural at 3-4, bowers not so much...too thick and slow. Also a little bit mentally challenged.

From what I've seen Bowers seems much brighter in comparison to Quinn.
All I've really watched is the combine interview, but I think Bowers came off well.

In my opinion, Quinn came off as very scripted with cliches answers regarding the suspension/tumor, maybe that is because he has been asked them so many times already.

 

[tricktak]

so you don't like bowers, but prefer quinn who is also a one year wonder, has a benign brain tumor, has only ever played 4-3 de and missed the entire 2010 season due to suspension, fair enough. I personally like both of these guys, but i don't see how you can dismiss bowers, yet still like quinn when he has many of the same issues bowers has, especially when no one really knows the extent of bowers injury.

thank you!!!!!!

 

[Off The Grid]

I completely agree which is why I went all the way back to 1996 to make sure that the sample crossed different periods of offensive philosophy.

I meant to post the breakdown last night but I'm the oldest 23 year old on the planet and at 11:15 it was well past my bed time. Anyway, here it is and it's expanded to show a greater sample for the "feature back" era:

2010- 3
2009- 3
2008- 5
2007- 2
2006- 4
2005- 3
2004- 3
2003- 2
2002- 2
2001- 3
2000- 5
1999- 2
1998- 4
1997- 2
1996- 3
1995- 5
1994- 3
1993- 3
1992- 3
1991- 3

Without actually applying this to a curve, it looks pretty equally distributedm but there is a slight weight in favor of the earlier samples relative to the new ones, i.e. the "feature back" years versus the "multi-headed monster" attack. At first glance the best years for RBs were 95, 00, and 08 in terms of perceived draft value (5 selected in the first) and 97, 02, 03, and 07 the weakest(only 2). So while the 1990s-early 2000s put the greatest weight on the position, they also held 3 of the 4 weakest years for perceived RB draft value (as I recall, the multi-headed monster approach didn't really take off until later in the decade, circa 2006).

The point is, at least 2 are going in the 1st round. The expanded sample of the last 20 drafts has no less than 2 RBs going in the 1st round and accross that sample there is bound to be a similar class to this one.

GREAT work, Brother Wroth IRA!! Gratefull thanks to you!! :rocker:

...And VERY encouraging: Every little bit helps in The War Effort, and, as you say, even one extra spot filled in by scree, detritus, refuse, and debris could be just enough to push a prized target down to US.

Indeed, Trends are Trends until they aren't, so that data should not be interpreted as conclusive, in light of the emerging Bear Market in Feature Running Backs.

But it certainly is very compelling...and persuasive.

 

[MaineMan]

I completely agree which is why I went all the way back to 1996 to make sure that the sample crossed different periods of offensive philosophy.

I meant to post the breakdown last night but I'm the oldest 23 year old on the planet and at 11:15 it was well past my bed time. Anyway, here it is and it's expanded to show a greater sample for the "feature back" era:

2010- 3
2009- 3
2008- 5
2007- 2
2006- 4
2005- 3
2004- 3
2003- 2
2002- 2
2001- 3
2000- 5
1999- 2
1998- 4
1997- 2
1996- 3
1995- 5
1994- 3
1993- 3
1992- 3
1991- 3

Without actually applying this to a curve, it looks pretty equally distributedm but there is a slight weight in favor of the earlier samples relative to the new ones, i.e. the "feature back" years versus the "multi-headed monster" attack. At first glance the best years for RBs were 95, 00, and 08 in terms of perceived draft value (5 selected in the first) and 97, 02, 03, and 07 the weakest(only 2). So while the 1990s-early 2000s put the greatest weight on the position, they also held 3 of the 4 weakest years for perceived RB draft value (as I recall, the multi-headed monster approach didn't really take off until later in the decade, circa 2006).

The point is, at least 2 are going in the 1st round. The expanded sample of the last 20 drafts has no less than 2 RBs going in the 1st round and accross that sample there is bound to be a similar class to this one.

Excellent job.

The next questions, aside from the obvious, "How have they produced?" -- How many of the more recent draftees are actually being used as 3-down "feature backs", as opposed to the draftees from 10-20 years ago? IOW, is it possible that there's still considerable value in having a high-end RB as part of your RBBC? Conversely, is it absolutely necessary that an RB be a 3-down feature back to make it worth taking him in the first round?

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

I completely agree which is why I went all the way back to 1996 to make sure that the sample crossed different periods of offensive philosophy.

I meant to post the breakdown last night but I'm the oldest 23 year old on the planet and at 11:15 it was well past my bed time. Anyway, here it is and it's expanded to show a greater sample for the "feature back" era:

2010- 3
2009- 3
2008- 5
2007- 2
2006- 4
2005- 3
2004- 3
2003- 2
2002- 2
2001- 3
2000- 5
1999- 2
1998- 4
1997- 2
1996- 3
1995- 5
1994- 3
1993- 3
1992- 3
1991- 3

Without actually applying this to a curve, it looks pretty equally distributedm but there is a slight weight in favor of the earlier samples relative to the new ones, i.e. the "feature back" years versus the "multi-headed monster" attack. At first glance the best years for RBs were 95, 00, and 08 in terms of perceived draft value (5 selected in the first) and 97, 02, 03, and 07 the weakest(only 2). So while the 1990s-early 2000s put the greatest weight on the position, they also held 3 of the 4 weakest years for perceived RB draft value (as I recall, the multi-headed monster approach didn't really take off until later in the decade, circa 2006).

The point is, at least 2 are going in the 1st round. The expanded sample of the last 20 drafts has no less than 2 RBs going in the 1st round and accross that sample there is bound to be a similar class to this one.

Define "feature back" in the context of the various eras. For example, Kevin Faulk was a second round pick who, in the absence of a Cory Dillon (also a second rounder) often received over 50% of the RB touches over the course of a season due to his versatility in a passing oriented offense.

Last year Spiller and Best were drafted as much for their receiving as their speed, neither could be said to be feature backs in the Adrian Peterson mold. Mathews was drafted by San Diego as much for his all-round game as his between the tackles ability. I suspect defining a "true" feature back for any one era, or even any one team, is going to be more challenging than any of us would like.

An "E" for effort, but it's lack of clear conclusion is not surprising given how a "feature" back for one team is a change of pace back for another. The more basic question gets down to the team level, in this case 'is Mark Ingram a "feature back" in the NE system?' 'Is Ryan Hill?' 'Mikel Leshoure?' Do any warrant a first round valuation when considering their roles (plural) in NE's system?

Ingram is a good 'move the chains' RB. He's not a breakaway threat. He's an okay receiver, and blocker. In short, he's not likely to be seen as a primary weapon for NE's potent passing offense. NE's O-line is not a drive blocking hawg line such as Minnesota, it's more of a zone/drive hybrid which would enjoy a Mark Ingram running, but not value him as highly for the greater percentage of snaps/game.

Is there a 225 lb, 1.48/10, 4.4/40, 3.90 ss, 6.8 3-c, 38" v RB with a four season annual average of 1,000 yds rushing, 500 yds receiving, 700 yds KR/PR in this draft class? Is he a patient runner who sets up blockers? Does he see the field well? Hold onto the football like it's his salvation? Durable? Regular in the choir, no arrests, punctual, gym rat, 3.0 GPA, etc? Oops, I think I'm in love, maybe fantasy football isn't so bad after all ...

Would Adrian Peterson be a feature back in NE? Behind this O-line? With his fumbleitis? Durability concerns coming out of college? I have my doubts. More properly, we should be looking for a "NE" feature back, because I believe that is what Caserio & Co. are doing. Danny Woodhead is closer to the NE ideal than some of us might like.

 

[the wrothbroughterer]

Define "feature back" in the context of the various eras. For example, Kevin Faulk was a second round pick who, in the absence of a Cory Dillon (also a second rounder) often received over 50% of the RB touches over the course of a season due to his versatility in a passing oriented offense.

Last year Spiller and Best were drafted as much for their receiving as their speed, neither could be said to be feature backs in the Adrian Peterson mold. Mathews was drafted by San Diego as much for his all-round game as his between the tackles ability. I suspect defining a "true" feature back for any one era, or even any one team, is going to be more challenging than any of us would like.

An "E" for effort, but it's lack of clear conclusion is not surprising given how a "feature" back for one team is a change of pace back for another. The more basic question gets down to the team level, in this case 'is Mark Ingram a "feature back" in the NE system?' 'Is Ryan Hill?' 'Mikel Leshoure?' Do any warrant a first round valuation when considering their roles (plural) in NE's system?

Ingram is a good 'move the chains' RB. He's not a breakaway threat. He's an okay receiver, and blocker. In short, he's not likely to be seen as a primary weapon for NE's potent passing offense. NE's O-line is not a drive blocking hawg line such as Minnesota, it's more of a zone/drive hybrid which would enjoy a Mark Ingram running, but not value him as highly for the greater percentage of snaps/game.

Is there a 225 lb, 1.48/10, 4.4/40, 3.90 ss, 6.8 3-c, 38" v RB with a four season annual average of 1,000 yds rushing, 500 yds receiving, 700 yds KR/PR in this draft class? Is he a patient runner who sets up blockers? Does he see the field well? Hold onto the football like it's his salvation? Durable? Regular in the choir, no arrests, punctual, gym rat, 3.0 GPA, etc? Oops, I think I'm in love, maybe fantasy football isn't so bad after all ...

Would Adrian Peterson be a feature back in NE? Behind this O-line? With his fumbleitis? Durability concerns coming out of college? I have my doubts. More properly, we should be looking for a "NE" feature back, because I believe that is what Caserio & Co. are doing. Danny Woodhead is closer to the NE ideal than some of us might like.

Great counterpoint. I threw that together pretty quickly this morning in my office and didn't have time to round out the rest of my argument. I was really only trying to enforce my belief that we're going to see at least 2 RBs taken in the 1st round of the draft this year.

You do make a very compelling argument that "feature" isn't a given theme and that in practice it is something that varies with individual team's offensive strategies. However, it would be to a team's detriment that employs the RBBC strategy do so in the face of a talent on their roster that is a clear cut improvement over their current personnel. The Vikings didn't have to take Adrian Peterson in 2007 with Chester Taylor already on the roster and being a very serviceable back, but I bet they don't regret the decision. Ultimately I think it just adds a wrinkle into what it truly means to be a feature back. Not only do you have to be head and shoulders above the personnel on your own roster, but the talents you bring to the field need to parallel the traits your offensive strategy values most. If you don't have both you can still be a piece to solving the Super Bowl puzzle, just a smaller piece. So, you are right in that maybe an Adrian Peterson might be a colossal flop as a Patriot seeing as they value ball security highly and he holds the football like he's afraid of it, but maybe a Steven Jackson type would, forcing the team to alter their strategy in the running game.

In trying to define what a feature RB looks in the NFL right now, I'd personally follow these criteria in order. I'm a #s ***, skills are important but if they don't translate into on field performance, your 4.40/40 and 3.90/ss account for precisely ****.

1. Leads team in percentage of Offensive Carries
2. Percentage of team's 1st Downs
3. Leading RBs on team in percentage of Offensive Third Downs Played
4. Percentage of Offensive Touches in 4th quarter

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

I'm a #s ***, skills are important but if they don't translate into on field performance, your 4.40/40 and 3.90/ss account for precisely ****.

Hence an annual All-Purpose yardage breakdown for my profile.