[Goose]

Later in the first round would probably be best, long-term.

True, if you last. The careers of running backs are often short. Keeping that in mind, the earlier the better might be best, as the money curve is steep. If you are still around, your second contract is where you hope to get paid, I guess. But, in the recent past, lots of running backs don't ever see that second contract.

[Goose]

Later in the first round would probably be best, long-term.

True, if you last. The careers of running backs are often short. Keeping that in mind, the earlier the better might be best, as the money curve is steep. If you are still around, your second contract is where you hope to get paid, I guess. But, in the recent past, lots of running backs don't ever see that second contract.

[stupac2]

Where McCaffrey wants to go is a complicated function of how much he values certain things:

1) Money. Obviously earlier is better.
2) Chance of an Owl. Generally later is better but that's not ironclad.
3) Scheme fit. All bets are off, no correlation there.
4) Competition at the position. Again, no correlation.
5) Pride. Earlier is better.

There are probably others. No one here knows how he values any of those things, but generally speaking I'd think that for pride reasons alone he'd want to be earlier.

[stupac2]

Where McCaffrey wants to go is a complicated function of how much he values certain things:

1) Money. Obviously earlier is better.
2) Chance of an Owl. Generally later is better but that's not ironclad.
3) Scheme fit. All bets are off, no correlation there.
4) Competition at the position. Again, no correlation.
5) Pride. Earlier is better.

There are probably others. No one here knows how he values any of those things, but generally speaking I'd think that for pride reasons alone he'd want to be earlier.

[BostonCard]

No team is going to draft a running back in the first round unless they have a gaping need at the position.

BC

[BostonCard]

No team is going to draft a running back in the first round unless they have a gaping need at the position.

BC

[SF_Cardinal_Fan]

No team is going to draft a running back in the first round unless they have a gaping need at the position.

BC

For more than a decade the NFL has been under appreciating the running back position. And college programs have followed that trend as well, favoring the passing game..
That last five years of drafts had an average of only one first round running back selection, and those picks were mostly late first round.
But I think if NFL teams make a commitment to the running game, including using their high draft picks on RB's, those teams will recognize the benefit of a balanced offense.

[SF_Cardinal_Fan]

No team is going to draft a running back in the first round unless they have a gaping need at the position.

BC

For more than a decade the NFL has been under appreciating the running back position. And college programs have followed that trend as well, favoring the passing game..
That last five years of drafts had an average of only one first round running back selection, and those picks were mostly late first round.
But I think if NFL teams make a commitment to the running game, including using their high draft picks on RB's, those teams will recognize the benefit of a balanced offense.

[BostonCard]

Why work out privately when you have this:

https://twitter.com/sinow/status/854855075981926400

on twitter.  That's pdq.

[BostonCard]

Why work out privately when you have this:

https://twitter.com/sinow/status/854855075981926400

on twitter.  That's pdq.

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=16796.msg191985#msg191985 date=1492636988]
No team is going to draft a running back in the first round unless they have a gaping need at the position.

BC

For more than a decade the NFL has been under appreciating the running back position. And college programs have followed that trend as well, favoring the passing game..
That last five years of drafts had an average of only one first round running back selection, and those picks were mostly late first round.
But I think if NFL teams make a commitment to the running game, including using their high draft picks on RB's, those teams will recognize the benefit of a balanced offense.
[/quote]

I don't think it is that teams undervalue running backs, it's that it seems harder to predict success in the NFL at the running back position than at other positions.  Every position obviously is going to have its beta, but some seem to have fewer busts at high draft picks or surprises from low draft picks than others.  But running backs seem to have a much weaker correlation between draft position and ultimate success than most.  So, if a guy projected to go in the first round is only somewhat more likely to find success than a guy projected to go in the fourth round, why invest a high pick for a (relative) crapshoot.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=16796.msg191985#msg191985 date=1492636988]
No team is going to draft a running back in the first round unless they have a gaping need at the position.

BC

For more than a decade the NFL has been under appreciating the running back position. And college programs have followed that trend as well, favoring the passing game..
That last five years of drafts had an average of only one first round running back selection, and those picks were mostly late first round.
But I think if NFL teams make a commitment to the running game, including using their high draft picks on RB's, those teams will recognize the benefit of a balanced offense.
[/quote]

I don't think it is that teams undervalue running backs, it's that it seems harder to predict success in the NFL at the running back position than at other positions.  Every position obviously is going to have its beta, but some seem to have fewer busts at high draft picks or surprises from low draft picks than others.  But running backs seem to have a much weaker correlation between draft position and ultimate success than most.  So, if a guy projected to go in the first round is only somewhat more likely to find success than a guy projected to go in the fourth round, why invest a high pick for a (relative) crapshoot.

BC

[BostonCard]

Brief interview between Rich Eisen and David Shaw about Thomas and McCaffrey.

https://twitter.com/richeisenshow/status...3251126272

His decision not to play in the Sun Bowl is discussed.

[BostonCard]

Brief interview between Rich Eisen and David Shaw about Thomas and McCaffrey.

https://twitter.com/richeisenshow/status...3251126272

His decision not to play in the Sun Bowl is discussed.

[fullmetal]

Running backs also seem to be one of the most frequently injured positions.  We've also seen good/serviceable running backs come out of late-round draft picks, so proper scouting may lead to better ROI when picking late-round diamonds in the rough.  And whereas most teams only need 3-5 RBs, teams will definitely need more OL/DL, LBs, WRs, and CBs.

I still think Cook and Fournette are valued above CMac by NFL GMs...and that NFL GMs are wrong about that.  But I wouldn't fault said GMs for addressing positions of need on the line in the first round.

[fullmetal]

Running backs also seem to be one of the most frequently injured positions.  We've also seen good/serviceable running backs come out of late-round draft picks, so proper scouting may lead to better ROI when picking late-round diamonds in the rough.  And whereas most teams only need 3-5 RBs, teams will definitely need more OL/DL, LBs, WRs, and CBs.

I still think Cook and Fournette are valued above CMac by NFL GMs...and that NFL GMs are wrong about that.  But I wouldn't fault said GMs for addressing positions of need on the line in the first round.

[CTcard]

[quote author=SF_Cardinal_Fan link=topic=16796.msg191995#msg191995 date=1492648452]
For more than a decade the NFL has been under appreciating the running back position. And college programs have followed that trend as well, favoring the passing game..
That last five years of drafts had an average of only one first round running back selection, and those picks were mostly late first round.
But I think if NFL teams make a commitment to the running game, including using their high draft picks on RB's, those teams will recognize the benefit of a balanced offense.

I don't think it is that teams undervalue running backs, it's that it seems harder to predict success in the NFL at the running back position than at other positions. 
[/quote]

I agree with the idea that it is not so much that teams undervalue running backs (or the running game). My understanding is that much of the reason is the two-part consideration that,
1. very few running backs last long, and
2. the belief that outside of a very few transcendent stars, the success of the run game depends more upon the offensive line (blocking) and QB (adjusting to the proper plays) than upon the differences between a first round and third round RB.

[CTcard]

[quote author=SF_Cardinal_Fan link=topic=16796.msg191995#msg191995 date=1492648452]
For more than a decade the NFL has been under appreciating the running back position. And college programs have followed that trend as well, favoring the passing game..
That last five years of drafts had an average of only one first round running back selection, and those picks were mostly late first round.
But I think if NFL teams make a commitment to the running game, including using their high draft picks on RB's, those teams will recognize the benefit of a balanced offense.

I don't think it is that teams undervalue running backs, it's that it seems harder to predict success in the NFL at the running back position than at other positions. 
[/quote]

I agree with the idea that it is not so much that teams undervalue running backs (or the running game). My understanding is that much of the reason is the two-part consideration that,
1. very few running backs last long, and
2. the belief that outside of a very few transcendent stars, the success of the run game depends more upon the offensive line (blocking) and QB (adjusting to the proper plays) than upon the differences between a first round and third round RB.

[SF_Cardinal_Fan]

[quote author=SF_Cardinal_Fan link=topic=16796.msg191995#msg191995 date=1492648452]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=16796.msg191985#msg191985 date=1492636988]
No team is going to draft a running back in the first round unless they have a gaping need at the position.

BC

For more than a decade the NFL has been under appreciating the running back position. And college programs have followed that trend as well, favoring the passing game..
That last five years of drafts had an average of only one first round running back selection, and those picks were mostly late first round.
But I think if NFL teams make a commitment to the running game, including using their high draft picks on RB's, those teams will recognize the benefit of a balanced offense.
[/quote]

I don't think it is that teams undervalue running backs, it's that it seems harder to predict success in the NFL at the running back position than at other positions.  Every position obviously is going to have its beta, but some seem to have fewer busts at high draft picks or surprises from low draft picks than others.  But running backs seem to have a much weaker correlation between draft position and ultimate success than most.  So, if a guy projected to go in the first round is only somewhat more likely to find success than a guy projected to go in the fourth round, why invest a high pick for a (relative) crapshoot.

BC
[/quote]

My observation is that there are a lot of high first round draft pick non productive NFL linemen, QB's, defensive backs, and wide receivers. In recent years those positions seem to be the most popular (high picks) among the NFL GM's charged with making their team's draft selections.
I consider a "successful draft pick" to be one where the player ends up as a legitimate NFL starter for 5 or 6 seasons. So, by using that criteria,  placekickers, punters, tight ends, and certainly running backs should be worthy of high first round pick selection.
If Christian McCaffrey can be a legitimate 5+ season NFL starter, whether that be at RB, WR, Special Teams, or a combination of all three roles, then I think he is worthy of a high first round pick.
Former Stanford great Darrin Nelson was multi purpose type ball carrier and receiver who was the 7th pick in the first round of the 1982 draft.
I understand it is a different era now, but McCaffrey has a larger physique and is a more dynamic and explosive player than was Nelson.

[SF_Cardinal_Fan]

[quote author=SF_Cardinal_Fan link=topic=16796.msg191995#msg191995 date=1492648452]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=16796.msg191985#msg191985 date=1492636988]
No team is going to draft a running back in the first round unless they have a gaping need at the position.

BC

For more than a decade the NFL has been under appreciating the running back position. And college programs have followed that trend as well, favoring the passing game..
That last five years of drafts had an average of only one first round running back selection, and those picks were mostly late first round.
But I think if NFL teams make a commitment to the running game, including using their high draft picks on RB's, those teams will recognize the benefit of a balanced offense.
[/quote]

I don't think it is that teams undervalue running backs, it's that it seems harder to predict success in the NFL at the running back position than at other positions.  Every position obviously is going to have its beta, but some seem to have fewer busts at high draft picks or surprises from low draft picks than others.  But running backs seem to have a much weaker correlation between draft position and ultimate success than most.  So, if a guy projected to go in the first round is only somewhat more likely to find success than a guy projected to go in the fourth round, why invest a high pick for a (relative) crapshoot.

BC
[/quote]

My observation is that there are a lot of high first round draft pick non productive NFL linemen, QB's, defensive backs, and wide receivers. In recent years those positions seem to be the most popular (high picks) among the NFL GM's charged with making their team's draft selections.
I consider a "successful draft pick" to be one where the player ends up as a legitimate NFL starter for 5 or 6 seasons. So, by using that criteria,  placekickers, punters, tight ends, and certainly running backs should be worthy of high first round pick selection.
If Christian McCaffrey can be a legitimate 5+ season NFL starter, whether that be at RB, WR, Special Teams, or a combination of all three roles, then I think he is worthy of a high first round pick.
Former Stanford great Darrin Nelson was multi purpose type ball carrier and receiver who was the 7th pick in the first round of the 1982 draft.
I understand it is a different era now, but McCaffrey has a larger physique and is a more dynamic and explosive player than was Nelson.

[Goose]

Running backs also seem to be one of the most frequently injured positions.

I think you are exactly correct here. You can make a very good draft pick and he may be gone in two years because he blew out a knee. Yes, other positions get injured too, but NFL running backs take more punishment and need every bit of speed they can find. Linemen can come back with a bit less speed and survive it. Running backs often lose a step and can't.

I still think Cook and Fournette are valued above CMac by NFL GMs...and that NFL GMs are wrong about that.

I think some GMs do think that. I think some probably don't. It is a combination of need with the evaluation of the player's skills. There is lots of talk about the Panthers perhaps taking CMac. The reason for this is that while they have some need for a running back, the also need a receiver and a punt returner. So CMac may be a better value for them that Fournette, even if they think Fournette is better as a "running back". In some cases, CMac isn't being evaluated as just a running back. That probably will move him up in the draft from where a "running back" would be drafted.

[Goose]

Running backs also seem to be one of the most frequently injured positions.

I think you are exactly correct here. You can make a very good draft pick and he may be gone in two years because he blew out a knee. Yes, other positions get injured too, but NFL running backs take more punishment and need every bit of speed they can find. Linemen can come back with a bit less speed and survive it. Running backs often lose a step and can't.

I still think Cook and Fournette are valued above CMac by NFL GMs...and that NFL GMs are wrong about that.

I think some GMs do think that. I think some probably don't. It is a combination of need with the evaluation of the player's skills. There is lots of talk about the Panthers perhaps taking CMac. The reason for this is that while they have some need for a running back, the also need a receiver and a punt returner. So CMac may be a better value for them that Fournette, even if they think Fournette is better as a "running back". In some cases, CMac isn't being evaluated as just a running back. That probably will move him up in the draft from where a "running back" would be drafted.

[fullmetal]

All of the above makes sense.

I consider a "successful draft pick" to be one where the player ends up as a legitimate NFL starter for 5 or 6 seasons. So, by using that criteria, placekickers, punters, tight ends, and certainly running backs should be worthy of high first round pick selection.

This is perhaps true to a certain extent, but remember that the draft is about selecting the best, the most special talents and rewarding that talent with commensurate contracts.  Placekickers and punters A) don't fill up very many roster spots, not even compared to RBs, B) play positions that lend themselves to longevity, C) perhaps have lesser impact on the game than other player positions, and D) tend to be easily filled by UDFA or late-round picks with no appreciable dropoff in talent.  So why would you reward placekickers and punters with first-round money when you can get those players for cheaper money much later in the draft?

It's a scarcity and ROI problem as well.  And if 5-6 years is an avg RB career length in the NFL, then half of all RBs don't make it that long.  By that standard, why draft pick an RB if they might only be successful 50% of the time? ;) 

I put the winky emoticon there and then think of Marcus Lattimore, Maurice Clarett, Ricky Williams, Earl Campbell, et al.  There are many reasons why RBs don't live up to their draft pick.  Some are tragic, some are self-inflicted.

Also, from 2010: A list of the most-injured position groups:
http://www.thefalcoholic.com/2010/7/7/14...ups-suffer

ProFootballLogic's analysis using only 2015 data:
http://www.profootballlogic.com/articles...-analysis/

Guess which one dominates?

[fullmetal]

All of the above makes sense.

I consider a "successful draft pick" to be one where the player ends up as a legitimate NFL starter for 5 or 6 seasons. So, by using that criteria, placekickers, punters, tight ends, and certainly running backs should be worthy of high first round pick selection.

This is perhaps true to a certain extent, but remember that the draft is about selecting the best, the most special talents and rewarding that talent with commensurate contracts.  Placekickers and punters A) don't fill up very many roster spots, not even compared to RBs, B) play positions that lend themselves to longevity, C) perhaps have lesser impact on the game than other player positions, and D) tend to be easily filled by UDFA or late-round picks with no appreciable dropoff in talent.  So why would you reward placekickers and punters with first-round money when you can get those players for cheaper money much later in the draft?

It's a scarcity and ROI problem as well.  And if 5-6 years is an avg RB career length in the NFL, then half of all RBs don't make it that long.  By that standard, why draft pick an RB if they might only be successful 50% of the time? ;) 

I put the winky emoticon there and then think of Marcus Lattimore, Maurice Clarett, Ricky Williams, Earl Campbell, et al.  There are many reasons why RBs don't live up to their draft pick.  Some are tragic, some are self-inflicted.

Also, from 2010: A list of the most-injured position groups:
http://www.thefalcoholic.com/2010/7/7/14...ups-suffer

ProFootballLogic's analysis using only 2015 data:
http://www.profootballlogic.com/articles...-analysis/

Guess which one dominates?

[Stymie]

Fournette, Cook, etc. made their mark by beating the edge (or the middle) and then out running or stiff arming the corner backs and safeties.  When they get to the Sunday games they'll find out that the edge and the middle is full of nasty guys just as fast and tough as they are going downhill.  On the other hand, CMac can make defensive studs look silly because he has world-class spatial awareness and can turn on a dime and go downill, sideways and then downhill again.  If he were a skier (maybe he is) he'd be an Olypic medallist in the slalom.  Fournette and Cook would be downhillers.  In addition, CMac can catch at WR level and is a world-class punt and kick returner.  If there are not 2-3 GMs/Coaches in the 1st ten pickers who will go for him in a blink of the eye if available, I will be stunned.  It's the difference between Franz Klammer and Jean-Claude Killy.

[Stymie]

Fournette, Cook, etc. made their mark by beating the edge (or the middle) and then out running or stiff arming the corner backs and safeties.  When they get to the Sunday games they'll find out that the edge and the middle is full of nasty guys just as fast and tough as they are going downhill.  On the other hand, CMac can make defensive studs look silly because he has world-class spatial awareness and can turn on a dime and go downill, sideways and then downhill again.  If he were a skier (maybe he is) he'd be an Olypic medallist in the slalom.  Fournette and Cook would be downhillers.  In addition, CMac can catch at WR level and is a world-class punt and kick returner.  If there are not 2-3 GMs/Coaches in the 1st ten pickers who will go for him in a blink of the eye if available, I will be stunned.  It's the difference between Franz Klammer and Jean-Claude Killy.

[SF_Cardinal_Fan]

All of the above makes sense.

[quote author=SF_Cardinal_Fan link=topic=16796.msg192011#msg192011 date=1492656992]I consider a "successful draft pick" to be one where the player ends up as a legitimate NFL starter for 5 or 6 seasons. So, by using that criteria, placekickers, punters, tight ends, and certainly running backs should be worthy of high first round pick selection.

This is perhaps true to a certain extent, but remember that the draft is about selecting the best, the most special talents and rewarding that talent with commensurate contracts.  Placekickers and punters A) don't fill up very many roster spots, not even compared to RBs, B) play positions that lend themselves to longevity, C) perhaps have lesser impact on the game than other player positions, and D) tend to be easily filled by UDFA or late-round picks with no appreciable dropoff in talent.  So why would you reward placekickers and punters with first-round money when you can get those players for cheaper money much later in the draft?

It's a scarcity and ROI problem as well.  And if 5-6 years is an avg RB career length in the NFL, then half of all RBs don't make it that long.  By that standard, why draft pick an RB if they might only be successful 50% of the time? ;) 

I put the winky emoticon there and then think of Marcus Lattimore, Maurice Clarett, Ricky Williams, Earl Campbell, et al.  There are many reasons why RBs don't live up to their draft pick.  Some are tragic, some are self-inflicted.

Also, from 2010: A list of the most-injured position groups:
http://www.thefalcoholic.com/2010/7/7/14...ups-suffer

ProFootballLogic's analysis using only 2015 data:
http://www.profootballlogic.com/articles...-analysis/

Guess which one dominates?
[/quote]

Two of the Raiders first round picks were Ray Guy (13 year career as an NFL punter) and Sebastian Janikowski (going on 17 tears as an NFL placekicker). Considering the long term contributions those two players made to the Raiders, both of them should be defined as good value draft selections.
In contrast, over the years the Raiders made a lot of non productive draft picks of QB's and WR's.
Again, my point is that it makes good sense to draft for "starting longevity", regardless of position.
You are absolutely correct with your point about certain positions being less prone to injury than others. As for which positions "impact the game the most", I think that is hard to evaluate. I know I am being naive, but I do like to think that football is a team game with each position dependent on the performance of the players in other positions, and that all positions must work together to make for an outstanding team performance.
Andrew Luck is a highly skilled QB, but due to coaching and roster deficiencies, the Colts are not a very good team. Would the Colts have been better off using their 1st round 1st overall pick on a position other than QB ? Maybe, but I don't think it matters. What matters is that the team puts all the pieces together, including coaching and the full roster of players.
When the whole team package is excellent, that team is not so dependent on any one position. For example, the late great Bill Walsh had the 49ers offense moving well not just with Montana or Young, but also at times with Matt Cavanaugh, Jeff Kemp, and Steve Bono playing QB.

[SF_Cardinal_Fan]

All of the above makes sense.

[quote author=SF_Cardinal_Fan link=topic=16796.msg192011#msg192011 date=1492656992]I consider a "successful draft pick" to be one where the player ends up as a legitimate NFL starter for 5 or 6 seasons. So, by using that criteria, placekickers, punters, tight ends, and certainly running backs should be worthy of high first round pick selection.

This is perhaps true to a certain extent, but remember that the draft is about selecting the best, the most special talents and rewarding that talent with commensurate contracts.  Placekickers and punters A) don't fill up very many roster spots, not even compared to RBs, B) play positions that lend themselves to longevity, C) perhaps have lesser impact on the game than other player positions, and D) tend to be easily filled by UDFA or late-round picks with no appreciable dropoff in talent.  So why would you reward placekickers and punters with first-round money when you can get those players for cheaper money much later in the draft?

It's a scarcity and ROI problem as well.  And if 5-6 years is an avg RB career length in the NFL, then half of all RBs don't make it that long.  By that standard, why draft pick an RB if they might only be successful 50% of the time? ;) 

I put the winky emoticon there and then think of Marcus Lattimore, Maurice Clarett, Ricky Williams, Earl Campbell, et al.  There are many reasons why RBs don't live up to their draft pick.  Some are tragic, some are self-inflicted.

Also, from 2010: A list of the most-injured position groups:
http://www.thefalcoholic.com/2010/7/7/14...ups-suffer

ProFootballLogic's analysis using only 2015 data:
http://www.profootballlogic.com/articles...-analysis/

Guess which one dominates?
[/quote]

Two of the Raiders first round picks were Ray Guy (13 year career as an NFL punter) and Sebastian Janikowski (going on 17 tears as an NFL placekicker). Considering the long term contributions those two players made to the Raiders, both of them should be defined as good value draft selections.
In contrast, over the years the Raiders made a lot of non productive draft picks of QB's and WR's.
Again, my point is that it makes good sense to draft for "starting longevity", regardless of position.
You are absolutely correct with your point about certain positions being less prone to injury than others. As for which positions "impact the game the most", I think that is hard to evaluate. I know I am being naive, but I do like to think that football is a team game with each position dependent on the performance of the players in other positions, and that all positions must work together to make for an outstanding team performance.
Andrew Luck is a highly skilled QB, but due to coaching and roster deficiencies, the Colts are not a very good team. Would the Colts have been better off using their 1st round 1st overall pick on a position other than QB ? Maybe, but I don't think it matters. What matters is that the team puts all the pieces together, including coaching and the full roster of players.
When the whole team package is excellent, that team is not so dependent on any one position. For example, the late great Bill Walsh had the 49ers offense moving well not just with Montana or Young, but also at times with Matt Cavanaugh, Jeff Kemp, and Steve Bono playing QB.

[BostonCard]

https://theringer.com/2017-nfl-draft-chr...3bb0d1009f

This is a great piece about the two über-versatile players in the draft, McCaffrey and Michigan's Jabril Peppers (and to think there was an outside chance we would have had both of them).

McCaffrey initially focused on one position at Stanford: When he arrived on campus, the coaching staff saw him as a pure running back. But they also knew that he excelled at receiver in high school and eventually attempted to ease him into catching a few passes. Once that happened, it didn’t take long for them to realize that he could easily master the entire route tree. “We’d teach him a bang-8 route, a seven-step post, and we’d only have to show him on film once,” Stanford offensive coordinator Mike Bloomgren says. “He was good at it because — really — he’s just good at life.” McCaffrey quickly became one of the most talented pass-catching running backs in the country. In his sophomore year, he caught 45 passes for 645 yards on his way to a second-place Voldemort finish.

Great piece; note that it finds that McCaffrey's (and Peppers') versatility may be working against them because there is no clear archetype that scouts can look at as a model.

BC

[BostonCard]

https://theringer.com/2017-nfl-draft-chr...3bb0d1009f

This is a great piece about the two über-versatile players in the draft, McCaffrey and Michigan's Jabril Peppers (and to think there was an outside chance we would have had both of them).

McCaffrey initially focused on one position at Stanford: When he arrived on campus, the coaching staff saw him as a pure running back. But they also knew that he excelled at receiver in high school and eventually attempted to ease him into catching a few passes. Once that happened, it didn’t take long for them to realize that he could easily master the entire route tree. “We’d teach him a bang-8 route, a seven-step post, and we’d only have to show him on film once,” Stanford offensive coordinator Mike Bloomgren says. “He was good at it because — really — he’s just good at life.” McCaffrey quickly became one of the most talented pass-catching running backs in the country. In his sophomore year, he caught 45 passes for 645 yards on his way to a second-place Voldemort finish.

Great piece; note that it finds that McCaffrey's (and Peppers') versatility may be working against them because there is no clear archetype that scouts can look at as a model.

BC

[DC 86]

When the whole team package is excellent, that team is not so dependent on any one position. For example, the late great Bill Walsh had the 49ers offense moving well not just with Montana or Young, but also at times with Matt Cavanaugh, Jeff Kemp, and Steve Bono playing QB.

Unfortunately this is not really true which is why quarterbacks are routinely overdrafted as teams desperately search for a capable player for that crucial position.

Steve Bono never played for Bill Walsh, joined the team after Walsh retired.
Jeff Kemp only played one season for the 49ers, as a backup to Joe Montana. Kemp started six games and the team's record was 3-2-1 under him (the team was 6-2 in games started by Montana that year).
Matt Cavanaugh was a career backup who started a grand total of two games in his 49ers career. He completed 61 passes over the course of his three year stint in SF.

I doubt that even Bill Walsh (one of the most brilliant offensive minds in football history) would have won a Super Bowl with Bono/Kemp/Cavanaugh (or DeBerg for that matter) as his starting quarterback.

The reality is that an elite quarterback is generally essential to winning a championship. The last 25 Super Bowls have been won by the following starting quarterbacks: Troy Aikman, Steve Young, Brett Favre, John Elway, Kurt Warner, Trent Dilfer, Tom Brady, Brad Johnson, Ben Roethlisberger, Peyton Manning, Eli Manning, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, Joe Flacco and Russell Wilson.

Aikman, Young, Favre, Elway, and Warner are in the Hall of Fame. Brady, Roethlisberger, the Mannings, Brees and Rodgers will almost certainly join them. The exceptions are Dilfer, Johnson, Flacco and Wilson who played with defenses that are considered historically good, among the most dominant units of all time (and Dilfer and Johnson were still Pro Bowlers albeit journeymen, while the book is not closed on Flacco and Wilson who are highly respected if not projected for the HoF.)

On the merits none of the quarterbacks in this year's draft class grade as first rounders but we will surely see at least three (and possibly five) drafted on the first day, perhaps as high as second overall! On the surface it doesn't make sense but the correlation between elite quarterback play and playoff success is so high that reaching is also understandable.

[DC 86]

When the whole team package is excellent, that team is not so dependent on any one position. For example, the late great Bill Walsh had the 49ers offense moving well not just with Montana or Young, but also at times with Matt Cavanaugh, Jeff Kemp, and Steve Bono playing QB.

Unfortunately this is not really true which is why quarterbacks are routinely overdrafted as teams desperately search for a capable player for that crucial position.

Steve Bono never played for Bill Walsh, joined the team after Walsh retired.
Jeff Kemp only played one season for the 49ers, as a backup to Joe Montana. Kemp started six games and the team's record was 3-2-1 under him (the team was 6-2 in games started by Montana that year).
Matt Cavanaugh was a career backup who started a grand total of two games in his 49ers career. He completed 61 passes over the course of his three year stint in SF.

I doubt that even Bill Walsh (one of the most brilliant offensive minds in football history) would have won a Super Bowl with Bono/Kemp/Cavanaugh (or DeBerg for that matter) as his starting quarterback.

The reality is that an elite quarterback is generally essential to winning a championship. The last 25 Super Bowls have been won by the following starting quarterbacks: Troy Aikman, Steve Young, Brett Favre, John Elway, Kurt Warner, Trent Dilfer, Tom Brady, Brad Johnson, Ben Roethlisberger, Peyton Manning, Eli Manning, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, Joe Flacco and Russell Wilson.

Aikman, Young, Favre, Elway, and Warner are in the Hall of Fame. Brady, Roethlisberger, the Mannings, Brees and Rodgers will almost certainly join them. The exceptions are Dilfer, Johnson, Flacco and Wilson who played with defenses that are considered historically good, among the most dominant units of all time (and Dilfer and Johnson were still Pro Bowlers albeit journeymen, while the book is not closed on Flacco and Wilson who are highly respected if not projected for the HoF.)

On the merits none of the quarterbacks in this year's draft class grade as first rounders but we will surely see at least three (and possibly five) drafted on the first day, perhaps as high as second overall! On the surface it doesn't make sense but the correlation between elite quarterback play and playoff success is so high that reaching is also understandable.

[Mick]

[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=16796.msg192027#msg192027 date=1492706475]
All of the above makes sense.

[quote author=SF_Cardinal_Fan link=topic=16796.msg192011#msg192011 date=1492656992]I consider a "successful draft pick" to be one where the player ends up as a legitimate NFL starter for 5 or 6 seasons. So, by using that criteria, placekickers, punters, tight ends, and certainly running backs should be worthy of high first round pick selection.

This is perhaps true to a certain extent, but remember that the draft is about selecting the best, the most special talents and rewarding that talent with commensurate contracts.  Placekickers and punters A) don't fill up very many roster spots, not even compared to RBs, B) play positions that lend themselves to longevity, C) perhaps have lesser impact on the game than other player positions, and D) tend to be easily filled by UDFA or late-round picks with no appreciable dropoff in talent.  So why would you reward placekickers and punters with first-round money when you can get those players for cheaper money much later in the draft?

It's a scarcity and ROI problem as well.  And if 5-6 years is an avg RB career length in the NFL, then half of all RBs don't make it that long.  By that standard, why draft pick an RB if they might only be successful 50% of the time? ;) 

I put the winky emoticon there and then think of Marcus Lattimore, Maurice Clarett, Ricky Williams, Earl Campbell, et al.  There are many reasons why RBs don't live up to their draft pick.  Some are tragic, some are self-inflicted.

Also, from 2010: A list of the most-injured position groups:
http://www.thefalcoholic.com/2010/7/7/14...ups-suffer

ProFootballLogic's analysis using only 2015 data:
http://www.profootballlogic.com/articles...-analysis/

Guess which one dominates?
[/quote]

Two of the Raiders first round picks were Ray Guy (13 year career as an NFL punter) and Sebastian Janikowski (going on 17 tears as an NFL placekicker). Considering the long term contributions those two players made to the Raiders, both of them should be defined as good value draft selections.
In contrast, over the years the Raiders made a lot of non productive draft picks of QB's and WR's.
Again, my point is that it makes good sense to draft for "starting longevity", regardless of position.
You are absolutely correct with your point about certain positions being less prone to injury than others. As for which positions "impact the game the most", I think that is hard to evaluate. I know I am being naive, but I do like to think that football is a team game with each position dependent on the performance of the players in other positions, and that all positions must work together to make for an outstanding team performance.
Andrew Luck is a highly skilled QB, but due to coaching and roster deficiencies, the Colts are not a very good team. Would the Colts have been better off using their 1st round 1st overall pick on a position other than QB ? Maybe, but I don't think it matters. What matters is that the team puts all the pieces together, including coaching and the full roster of players.
When the whole team package is excellent, that team is not so dependent on any one position. For example, the late great Bill Walsh had the 49ers offense moving well not just with Montana or Young, but also at times with Matt Cavanaugh, Jeff Kemp, and Steve Bono playing QB.
[/quote]


Ray Guy is the only punter in the NFL HoF.

[Mick]

[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=16796.msg192027#msg192027 date=1492706475]
All of the above makes sense.

[quote author=SF_Cardinal_Fan link=topic=16796.msg192011#msg192011 date=1492656992]I consider a "successful draft pick" to be one where the player ends up as a legitimate NFL starter for 5 or 6 seasons. So, by using that criteria, placekickers, punters, tight ends, and certainly running backs should be worthy of high first round pick selection.

This is perhaps true to a certain extent, but remember that the draft is about selecting the best, the most special talents and rewarding that talent with commensurate contracts.  Placekickers and punters A) don't fill up very many roster spots, not even compared to RBs, B) play positions that lend themselves to longevity, C) perhaps have lesser impact on the game than other player positions, and D) tend to be easily filled by UDFA or late-round picks with no appreciable dropoff in talent.  So why would you reward placekickers and punters with first-round money when you can get those players for cheaper money much later in the draft?

It's a scarcity and ROI problem as well.  And if 5-6 years is an avg RB career length in the NFL, then half of all RBs don't make it that long.  By that standard, why draft pick an RB if they might only be successful 50% of the time? ;) 

I put the winky emoticon there and then think of Marcus Lattimore, Maurice Clarett, Ricky Williams, Earl Campbell, et al.  There are many reasons why RBs don't live up to their draft pick.  Some are tragic, some are self-inflicted.

Also, from 2010: A list of the most-injured position groups:
http://www.thefalcoholic.com/2010/7/7/14...ups-suffer

ProFootballLogic's analysis using only 2015 data:
http://www.profootballlogic.com/articles...-analysis/

Guess which one dominates?
[/quote]

Two of the Raiders first round picks were Ray Guy (13 year career as an NFL punter) and Sebastian Janikowski (going on 17 tears as an NFL placekicker). Considering the long term contributions those two players made to the Raiders, both of them should be defined as good value draft selections.
In contrast, over the years the Raiders made a lot of non productive draft picks of QB's and WR's.
Again, my point is that it makes good sense to draft for "starting longevity", regardless of position.
You are absolutely correct with your point about certain positions being less prone to injury than others. As for which positions "impact the game the most", I think that is hard to evaluate. I know I am being naive, but I do like to think that football is a team game with each position dependent on the performance of the players in other positions, and that all positions must work together to make for an outstanding team performance.
Andrew Luck is a highly skilled QB, but due to coaching and roster deficiencies, the Colts are not a very good team. Would the Colts have been better off using their 1st round 1st overall pick on a position other than QB ? Maybe, but I don't think it matters. What matters is that the team puts all the pieces together, including coaching and the full roster of players.
When the whole team package is excellent, that team is not so dependent on any one position. For example, the late great Bill Walsh had the 49ers offense moving well not just with Montana or Young, but also at times with Matt Cavanaugh, Jeff Kemp, and Steve Bono playing QB.
[/quote]


Ray Guy is the only punter in the NFL HoF.

[CowboyIndian]

Ray Guy is the only punter in the NFL HoF.

Yale Lary

[CowboyIndian]

Ray Guy is the only punter in the NFL HoF.

Yale Lary

[bl82]

Might as well add Sammy Baugh to that list.  I still can't believe he averaged 51.4 yards per punt one year...

[bl82]

Might as well add Sammy Baugh to that list.  I still can't believe he averaged 51.4 yards per punt one year...

[DC 86]

Might as well add Sammy Baugh to that list.  I still can't believe he averaged 51.4 yards per punt one year...

Baugh was an incredible all around player, but his punting statistics are highly misleading. Many of his kicks came on third down in an era when offenses were limited and field position was critical; he would surprise the defense and punt it downfield where the ball would roll unimpeded. Of course many years later Walt Harris would unfortunately be inspired by Baugh's tactic.

Ray Guy is indeed the only Hall of Famer who was exclusively a punter (although he was the Raiders' emergency QB).

Trivia question for CowboyIndian, Phogge or Bob K: how is Yale Lary connected to Stanford?

[DC 86]

Might as well add Sammy Baugh to that list.  I still can't believe he averaged 51.4 yards per punt one year...

Baugh was an incredible all around player, but his punting statistics are highly misleading. Many of his kicks came on third down in an era when offenses were limited and field position was critical; he would surprise the defense and punt it downfield where the ball would roll unimpeded. Of course many years later Walt Harris would unfortunately be inspired by Baugh's tactic.

Ray Guy is indeed the only Hall of Famer who was exclusively a punter (although he was the Raiders' emergency QB).

Trivia question for CowboyIndian, Phogge or Bob K: how is Yale Lary connected to Stanford?