PDA

View Full Version : Montee Ball had less risk than Eddie Lacy in NFL draft, Broncos believed



Denver Native (Carol)
05-26-2013, 09:29 PM
Today's question about the Denver Broncos comes from Vic Johnson:

Q: Going back to the draft any insight on why the Broncos preferred Montee Ball over Eddy Lacy? Lacy's college career attempts are roughly equal to Ball's senior year alone what about the wear and tear on Ball?

A: The Broncos have been clear since they selected Montee Ball in the third round of the NFL draft 58th overall that they liked his production at Wisconsin. They also like his potential to be an early-down runner and play in passing situations.

They passed on Lacy in both the first and second rounds, as did most teams in the league, until the Packers took him 61st overall, near the bottom of the second round.

rest - http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_23328937/montee-ball-had-less-risk-than-eddie-lacy

Jaded
05-26-2013, 10:38 PM
You can have as much wear and tear in as many carries Lacy had as Ball had in his carries, it's all relative.

Dzone
05-26-2013, 10:40 PM
Good article.
3rd round? 58th pick? He obviously meant 2nd

tomjonesrocks
05-26-2013, 11:05 PM
Denver's all-in and rightfully so for the next couple years. If Ball is the best back -right now- he was the better pick. We will see...

Jsteve01
05-27-2013, 12:12 AM
the numbers say ball is the better back. he doesn't have the physical attributes but he's a much more decisive runner. He has all world vision.

OrangeHoof
05-27-2013, 09:45 AM
It doesn't tell me what they didn't like about Lacey but clearly the entire league had their chance to take both and passed on them at least once. With both backs, my chief question is whether it was the back or the OL that should get credit for the production. Both ran behind terrific lines with many top draft choices in their own right.

Jsteve01
05-27-2013, 12:36 PM
Ball not so much this last year and he also didn't have Russell Wilson which allowed defenses to key on him. Still had a great year. Lacy had an issue with a fused toe plus he's coming off a toe injury. He worth the risk for a playoff contender but I probably wouldn't have taken him any earlier than the Pack did.

Chef Zambini
05-27-2013, 02:00 PM
[QUOTE=Jsteve01;1965784]the numbers say ball is the better back. he doesn't have the physical attributes but he's a much more decisive runner. He has all world vision.


.vision is an under-rated commodity

BroncoWave
05-27-2013, 08:51 PM
Yeah, personally I don't care about the huge amount of carries Ball had in college. Our window to win the super bowl is 2, maybe 3 years. If we can get three solid years of production out of him and get a ring in that span, he was well worth the pick.

King87
05-27-2013, 09:12 PM
College touches aren't relevant. I hate to just offer a generalization, but I think it's true.

Jaded
05-28-2013, 12:52 AM
"The Broncos Window" is quickly becoming the most overused cliche in professional sports.

1999, Mayan calendar and Peyton Mannings retirement.

TXBRONC
05-28-2013, 06:31 AM
"The Broncos Window" is quickly becoming the most overused cliche in professional sports.

1999, Mayan calendar and Peyton Mannings retirement.

Manning has a small window for winning at least one more championship but it doesn't necessarily the Broncos chance winning championship end just Manning retires. That's the reason they drafted Osweiler so that when Manning does retire they can just keep chugging along.

Ravage!!!
05-28-2013, 10:06 AM
College touches aren't relevant. I hate to just offer a generalization, but I think it's true.

I truly think those that are so worried about the "wear on the tires" are really pushing for something to complain about. If you are looking for a workhorse RB that can last, why would you not want a guy that has PROVED to be a workhorse back that can last? I think there is ZERO proof that RBs that have less carries in college have longer careers in the NFL.

Chef Zambini
05-28-2013, 11:11 AM
I am starting a new thread, PFM'
s window.

BroncoWave
05-28-2013, 12:04 PM
I truly think those that are so worried about the "wear on the tires" are really pushing for something to complain about. If you are looking for a workhorse RB that can last, why would you not want a guy that has PROVED to be a workhorse back that can last? I think there is ZERO proof that RBs that have less carries in college have longer careers in the NFL.

I would be interested in seeing someone do some sort of analysis on that. I don't have the time to do it myself, but I would like to see if there is any sort of correlation between college touches and NFL longevity.

Hawgdriver
05-28-2013, 01:20 PM
I would be interested in seeing someone do some sort of analysis on that. I don't have the time to do it myself, but I would like to see if there is any sort of correlation between college touches and NFL longevity.

Thurman Thomas sez correlations is 0.

Ball apparently is pretty serious about taking care of his body in the offseason. I take that as a positive.

OrangeHoof
05-28-2013, 05:35 PM
You decide. Top 20 career NCAA FBS rushing attempts since 1970:



1
Steve Bartalo (http://www.totalfootballstats.com/PlayerRB.asp?id=224)
1211
1983-1986



2
Anthony Thompson (http://www.totalfootballstats.com/PlayerRB.asp?id=3809)
1161
1986-1989



3
Charles White (http://www.totalfootballstats.com/PlayerRB.asp?id=4113)
1147
1976-1979



4
Travis Prentice (http://www.totalfootballstats.com/PlayerRB.asp?id=3169)
1138
1996-1999



5
Tony Dorsett (http://www.totalfootballstats.com/PlayerRB.asp?id=1063)
1133
1973-1976



6
Ron Dayne (http://www.totalfootballstats.com/PlayerRB.asp?id=981)
1115
1996-1999



7
Cedric Benson (http://www.totalfootballstats.com/PlayerRB.asp?id=296)
1112
2001-2004



8
Trevor Cobb (http://www.totalfootballstats.com/PlayerRB.asp?id=1205508)
1091
1989-1992



9
Lorenzo White (http://www.totalfootballstats.com/PlayerRB.asp?id=4130)
1082
1984-1987



10
Avon Cobourne (http://www.totalfootballstats.com/PlayerRB.asp?id=763)
1050
1999-2002



11
Ken Simonton (http://www.totalfootballstats.com/PlayerRB.asp?id=3535)
1023
1998-2001



12
Mike Hart (http://www.totalfootballstats.com/PlayerRB.asp?id=1203443)
1015
2004-2007



13
Herschel Walker (http://www.totalfootballstats.com/PlayerRB.asp?id=4001)
1014
1980-1982



14
Ricky Williams (http://www.totalfootballstats.com/PlayerRB.asp?id=4199)
1011
1995-1998



15
Chris Parker (http://www.totalfootballstats.com/PlayerRB.asp?id=1226432)
1009
1993-1995



16
Damion Fletcher (http://www.totalfootballstats.com/PlayerRB.asp?id=1205902)
1009
2006-2009



17
Montel Harris (http://www.totalfootballstats.com/PlayerRB.asp?id=1206041)
973
2008-2012



18
Thurman Thomas (http://www.totalfootballstats.com/PlayerRB.asp?id=3854)
956
1984-1987



19
George Rogers (http://www.totalfootballstats.com/PlayerRB.asp?id=3348)
954
1977-1980



20
Deland McCullough (http://www.totalfootballstats.com/PlayerRB.asp?id=1226946)
949
1992-1995




How many of these names had great NFL careers?

Sorry if the chart looks bad. Highlight the chart like you are going to cut-and-paste and you'll see the names and numbers more clearly.

King87
05-28-2013, 05:38 PM
How many of those dudes were flash in the plans and didn't flame out because of injury? Half of those guys were never going to be good in the pros and we knew it. We laughed at Mike Hart.

Ravage!!!
05-28-2013, 05:52 PM
Yeah.. that's an interesting chart, but it doesn't really tell me much. I mean, there are a TON of reasons why QBs don't make it in the NFL, and I don't think anyone has tried to compare how many throws they made in college that could have put the wear-n-tear on their shoulder cuff. Same with RBs. There are a ton of reasons why a guy doesn't make it in the NFL, at any position.

OrangeHoof
05-28-2013, 06:24 PM
It's a little different with QBs and RBs. - A RB is likely to have a collision on practically every play, often more than one. The QB might get five hits in a game if he's a thrower instead of a runner.

BroncoWave
05-28-2013, 07:01 PM
Yeah.. that's an interesting chart, but it doesn't really tell me much. I mean, there are a TON of reasons why QBs don't make it in the NFL, and I don't think anyone has tried to compare how many throws they made in college that could have put the wear-n-tear on their shoulder cuff. Same with RBs. There are a ton of reasons why a guy doesn't make it in the NFL, at any position.

So you don't think it's possible that more carriers for a RB equals more collisions equals more wear and tear on the body? I would say that could lead to shorter NFL careers for RBs, on average. I don't know definitively if that's the case, but it makes sense.

BroncoWave
05-28-2013, 07:14 PM
I think a good way to do the study would be to only look at first and second round picks and do some sort of correlational chart looking at how many carries they had in high school compared to how many they had in the NFL.

Just looking at the top 20 RBs in terms of carries doesn't take into account whether that player was actually drafted to be a starter or not.

MOtorboat
05-28-2013, 07:58 PM
Remember when HammeredOut started going on a tangent about how only 7 percent of left-handed quarterbacks drafted "pan out" and between a few of us we basically figured out that about 7 percent of ALL quarterbacks "pan out"?

That's 6 of 20 who had decent to great NFL careers and 3 of 20 who are Hall of Famers. That's 30 percent and 15 percent. I'd bet that's right on line with the success rate of drafted running backs.

BroncoWave
05-28-2013, 08:11 PM
Remember when HammeredOut started going on a tangent about how only 7 percent of left-handed quarterbacks drafted "pan out" and between a few of us we basically figured out that about 7 percent of ALL quarterbacks "pan out"?

That's 6 of 20 who had decent to great NFL careers and 3 of 20 who are Hall of Famers. That's 30 percent and 15 percent. I'd bet that's right on line with the success rate of drafted running backs.

I agree with this. That's why I think it would paint a clearer picture if you limited the study to first and second round running backs.

Hawgdriver
05-28-2013, 08:32 PM
Here is a list of players with more college rushing attempts than Montee Ball. Since 1977 or somethign.

Player - Draft Position - NFL Production (yards rushing/average per carry)

Ron Dayne - 11 - 3722/3.8

Steve Bartalo - 143 - 30/3.3

Anthony Thompson - 31 - 831/3.3

Travis Prentice - 63 - 525/2.8

Cedric Benson - 4 - 6017/3.8*

Trevor Cobb - u/d - 0

Lorenzo White - 22 - 4242/4.0

Dontrell Moore - u/d - 0

Avon Cobourne - u/d - 27/2.7

Ken Simonton - u/d - 4/2.0

Mike Hart - 202 - 264/3.7

Ricky Williams - 5 - 10009/4.1

Damion Fletcher - u/d - 0

Herschel Walker - 114* - 8225/4.2

Charles White - 27 - 3075/3.9

Montel Harris - u/d - 0

Deangelo Williams - 27 - 5784/4.9*

Thurman Thomas - 40 - 12074/4.2

Deland McCullough - u/d - 0

Paul Palmer - 19 - 1053/3.9

Robert Holcombe - 37 - 1141/3.4

LaDainian Tomlinson - 5 - 13684/4.3

Michael Turner - 154 - 7338/4.5*

Damien Anderson - u/d - 142/4.1

Marcus Allen - 10 - 12243/4.1

George Rogers - 1 - 7176/4.2

Montee Ball - ???

There are some NFL studs that had more college carries than Ball:

Marcus Allen
LaDainian Tomlinson
Thurman Thomas
George Rogers
Herschel Walker
Ricky Williams

There are many college backs on the list of "most college rushing attempts" that never got a look in the NFL.

There are a few backs with a lot of carries that disappointed in the NFL.

Ron Dayne - 11 - 3722/3.8
Paul Palmer - 19 - 1053/3.9
Charles White - 27 - 3075/3.9
Anthony Thompson - 31 - 831/3.3
Robert Holcombe - 37 - 1141/3.4
Travis Prentice - 63 - 525/2.8

Short careers, unimpressive production. Charles White may not belong in this group. You could go crazy with analysis.

Most interesting to me is whether durability was a factor in the short careers of Paul Palmer and Robert Holcombe. I'm not familiar with them.

For the TLDR crowd (me). -->

Seems to me like it doesn't matter that a back was a workhorse in college. Marcus Allen, LT, and several other studs did fine in the NFL after carrying their college team. Most of the others on the list didn't get drafted. A few of them were drafted high but never panned out. It's unclear if that is because they were spent casings.

Chef Zambini
05-28-2013, 08:36 PM
Most NFL backs only have a 5 year window of peak performance.
regardless of their workload in college.
a franchise should squeeze all they can out of a RB on a rookie contract!
500 touches a season if he is up to it !

MOtorboat
05-28-2013, 08:42 PM
Most NFL backs only have a 5 year window of peak performance.
regardless of their workload in college.
a franchise should squeeze all they can out of a RB on a rookie contract!
500 touches a season if he is up to it !

I would agree, and I think your last line is trying to be funny, but I can't tell. The record is 416.

BroncoWave
05-28-2013, 09:41 PM
So I just did a study taking 40 RBs who were first and second round picks between 1985-1989 to look at the correlation between carries in college and carries in the NFL. Turns out I was dead wrong on this.

Of the top 25% of RBs in that span in terms of carries in college, they averaged 1105 carries in their NFL careers.
Of the bottom 25% in terms of carries, they averaged 399 carries in their NFL careers.

Now this isn't the largest sample size, but it does tend to show that the more carries a guy had in college, the more he would likely have in the NFL. So I guess this puts to bed any worries about Ball having too many carries in college.

Chef Zambini
05-29-2013, 06:20 AM
I would agree, and I think your last line is trying to be funny, but I can't tell. The record is 416.thats 416 carries, I said "TOUCHES" !
400 carriies and 100 catches = 500 touches.

TXBRONC
05-29-2013, 09:40 AM
Remember when HammeredOut started going on a tangent about how only 7 percent of left-handed quarterbacks drafted "pan out" and between a few of us we basically figured out that about 7 percent of ALL quarterbacks "pan out"?

That's 6 of 20 who had decent to great NFL careers and 3 of 20 who are Hall of Famers. That's 30 percent and 15 percent. I'd bet that's right on line with the success rate of drafted running backs.

If 7% of all left-handed quaterbacks panned out that would actually be pretty demand good considering that aren't that many of them begin with.

Ravage!!!
05-29-2013, 10:18 AM
So you don't think it's possible that more carriers for a RB equals more collisions equals more wear and tear on the body? I would say that could lead to shorter NFL careers for RBs, on average. I don't know definitively if that's the case, but it makes sense.

No, I really don't. I think that a Terrel Davis (and many many MANy other RBs throughout the years) is a perfect example. He iddn't have many carries in college, and still gets hurt in the NFL. So what I'm saying is, that yes, RBs lose time and careers to injuries. But is there a correlation between the number of carries they had in college to the length/success of their career in the NFL? I don't think there can be a simple correlation considering the number of OTHER factors that can/will be involved. Whether that's injury, unable to simply pick up the NFL offense, not having the ability to block, not getting on the right team...having another RB on the roster that beats you out....whatever the case may be for each individual guy most probably had NOTHING to do with the number of carries they had in college.

BroncoWave
05-29-2013, 12:04 PM
No, I really don't. I think that a Terrel Davis (and many many MANy other RBs throughout the years) is a perfect example. He iddn't have many carries in college, and still gets hurt in the NFL. So what I'm saying is, that yes, RBs lose time and careers to injuries. But is there a correlation between the number of carries they had in college to the length/success of their career in the NFL? I don't think there can be a simple correlation considering the number of OTHER factors that can/will be involved. Whether that's injury, unable to simply pick up the NFL offense, not having the ability to block, not getting on the right team...having another RB on the roster that beats you out....whatever the case may be for each individual guy most probably had NOTHING to do with the number of carries they had in college.

Did you miss my last post in this thread, or did you read it and decided you still wanted to argue anyway?

Chef Zambini
05-29-2013, 01:25 PM
isnt the answer obvious?