Change to Nick Foles Gives Rams Average Offseason Grade/Wagoner

[Alan]

@FrantikRam with this:
Well, I have heard that knees can be stronger after these surgeries...so there actually is a chance that he is less of an injury risk...all depends on the person. But either way, I doubt the Rams draft him if there is a concern.....so as fans we shouldn't be concerned about the knee.

True for some injuries (Tommy John surgeries and broken bones for example) but not true for ACL and MCL injuries. Again I'll refer you to one of our past threads where that was all laid out. Or you can just Google it.

Joseph and Wells didn't play well, and they didn't play well with the unit. Simply replacing them with different but equally (less) talented players could have improved the OL. Replacing them with younger guys that have more talent....only good.

True but those weren't the set of facts we were talking about. You said "You need 5 guys that play well together" and I said you need more than just that and gave you an example of 5 guys playing together whose play wasn't better than the sum of the parts. As for the "younger guys that have more talent....only good" part, refer to what I said about that probability of any of those O-line players we drafted achieving that "more talent....only good" status.

We don't actually need two of them to turn out - we need 1. Along with the other solid starters, one weak link on an offensive line - well, every team has that.

I Disagree. Plus you're completely forgetting that we also have a hole at OC with no proven solution to fix that. Using my math, that's three holes we have to fill.

I guess we will have to disagree on the last part. I outlined why, and I'm not sure how you could argue with it, but just to recap: based on the cap space, Bradford situation, and draft picks we had - this offseason turned out as good as it possibly could have. That's worth an A in my book.

I don't remember ever having a year in Junior High or High School where all my teachers graded the same way. Some graded using a curve, some graded strictly using percentages and some mixed it up so I'm not surprised two posters might grade something differently. :cheers:

 

[Alan]

nighttrain with this:
RB's are notoriously injury prone, IN a Fisher offense it makes sense to bulk up on RB's, at least that's my opinion

ps average career for RB 5 years or less

Can't disagree with that train but if you're talking about an injury replacement for your star RB (which we appear to be as you're not arguing that the refrigerators wouldn't make Mason a star too) then is it really a wise thing to do to use the #10 pick in the draft to do that? With much bigger team needs. In a year in which all the pundits said the draft was very deep at the RB position. After all, where did we draft our star (Mason)?

 

[nighttrain]

Gurley> Mason, this my opinion, also i'm drinking the koolaid this year, haven,t felt this good in a very long time
train

 

[Merlin]

I decided to call Kool-Aid himself, and asked him if our OL would be ok...

His response: "OH YEAH!!"

So I feel good about it.

 

[Alan]

RAGRam keeping some data on a need to know basis:
I have the numbers slightly different restricting the draft picks to OL only, I have the chance of finding at least one solid starter (40+ starts) at 96%, and the chances of finding 2 starters at 72%. But then I'm suffering from really bad hay fever at the moment so who knows .

A couple of points here:

First of all, you didn't give me enough info to respond intelligently (not holding your breath for that you say? ) to your post. Can you post the link to the stats you used?

So you eliminated all the non O-line picks but did you use the same pick numbers of 57, 72, 119, 215?

What years did you use? The data I used was compiled over the last 50 years ending with 2012. I used that period because I thought it was reasonably representative of what the odds would be today but it only gives a general indication of what would be true today at a particular position. Especially when you're talking about drafting O-line players. That paradigm has shifted drastically over the the last 15 years or so. We just had a comprehensive thread about this very same subject within the last 30 days or so and it used more relevent (as in more recent) data and broke it down to the various positions. If you think I'm talking out of my ass you should do a search for that and if you do, I'm very confident your figures won't hold up.

But like I already said, until I have access to the same data as you used I can't really make a comment on it.

 

[Alan]

nighttrain feeling goooood:
Gurley> Mason, this my opinion, also i'm drinking the koolaid this year, haven,t felt this good in a very long time

Take the A-train over to my house sometime and I'll hook you up with something that will really make you feel good. :cheers:

 

[RamzFanz]

So how did they go about fixing that offensive line? They passed on all veteran options and bet big on the NFL draft.

Not true. They pursued veteran options. They made Barksdale a better offer than the Chargers.

Let's ignore the fact that Gurley is recovering from a knee injury and may never be the player he was before the injury and let's pay no attention the math that says he has a much greater than normal chance of suffering another knee injury in the future.

Alan, your pessimism cup runneth over.

Actually, we don't have any math that says Gurley may never be the player he was before or that he has a much greater chance than normal of suffering a knee injury. Those studies were on men and women of all athletic levels and using old procedures. His surgeon, one of the top in the world and an NFL player specialist, says he believes Gurley will be as good as ever. AP is better than he ever was using the same procedure.

Let's also ignore the fact that all our O-lines draft picks might have been picked higher than their talent level warranted.

According to talking heads who are wrong just about always. Johnny Eightball ring a bell?

Havenstein - approximately 33% chance of being a total bust and an even greater chance of being only a marginal starter.

I wonder what the odds are of grabbing a bust veteran for a whole lot more money?


But, yes. We are going to need a lot of luck with the O line. There's a scary lack of depth and experience. I'm hoping the Rams find some answers before the season starts.

 

[kurtfaulk]

7-8-1
7-9
6-10
Maybe?

the first year was a clean out and reestablishing bradford on the right track after the 2011 disaster. but after that

clemens
hill
davis

.

 

[kurtfaulk]

He's been covering the team since 2004. He saw the worst of the worst and wasn't nearly as negative as he has been over the last 2 years or so.

I'm sure part of it is since he's no longer on the Rams payroll he gets to say whatever he wants. Not to mention controversy sells on ESPN.

there's nothing controversial about wagoner, he's as bland as you can get.

it's just that he's wet blanket bland.

.

 

[Alan]

RamzFanz with this:

Alan, your pessimism cup runneth over.

Actually, we don't have any math that says Gurley may never be the player he was before or that he has a much greater chance than normal of suffering a knee injury. Those studies were on men and women of all athletic levels and using old procedures. His surgeon, one of the top in the world and an NFL player specialist, says he believes Gurley will be as good as ever. AP is better than he ever was using the same procedure.

According to talking heads who are wrong just about always. Johnny Eightball ring a bell?

I wonder what the odds are of grabbing a bust veteran for a whole lot more money?

But, yes. We are going to need a lot of luck with the O line. There's a scary lack of depth and experience. I'm hoping the Rams find some answers before the season starts.

Actually, you misunderstand my position vis-a-vis the Gurley pick. I'm not pessimistic about his chances of returning to his old form. I'm realistically concerned about his chances and I think it was a big gamble to take him with his injury history at #10. A bigger gamble than I would have taken considering both the needs we had elsewhere and the quality of the RBs already on our roster. Not the same thing at all.

If a history of injuries isn't a valid concern, why are all the teams, you know, concerned about them?

I've got to admit it's getting better a little better all the time but it's still not as good. What did those doctors say about SB? Actually, you have no idea how good AP is because he hasn't played a single down has he? Plus this:

http://allamericanorthopedic.com/adrian-peterson-leads-way-in-acl-recovery-in-nfl/
Adrian Peterson leads way in ACL recovery in NFL
Original post from USA Today

Vikings running back Adrian Peterson leads the NFL in rushing a season after an ACL tear

NFL players in ‘high-risk zone’ for ACL injury

ACL tears typically are caused by a blow to the knee from the outside or a sudden stop.

“I was blocking a defender and my right leg was planted. A safety went to tackle the running back … and (he) just actually ended up diving straight right into my knee, from the outside in,” Kelce said.

The injury is common in football. This season, the University of Maryland lost four quarterbacks with ACL tears.

Yet studies show women athletes are more likely to sustain ACL injuries. The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons lists varying estimates of the risk for women at two to 10 times higher than for men.

“I think it has to do with different dimensions of their height and weight and body mass index, and their muscles may not be as strong,” said Christopher Harner, an orthopedic surgeon and medical director of the Center for Sports Medicine at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC).

NFL players, however, are in a uniquely high risk zone because of the stopping and starting, the cutting and unexpected blows to the knee. But the injury no longer means a player’s career is over. Doctors generally say an athlete can return in 6-9 months after surgery.

“We’ve had seven players on our football team that have had this surgery before and are playing now,” Jets Coach Rex Ryan said after Revis’ injury. ” … I don’t think there’s any doubt he’s going to come back strong from it.”

The repairs come with no guarantees. Doctors at the Richmond Bone and Joint Clinic in Sugarland, Texas, found in 2010 that 31 of 49 (63%) of NFL players studied returned to play in the league an average of 10.8 months after surgery.

There is a chance of re-injury. Nose tackle Casey Hampton of the Pittsburgh Steelers has had three ACL reconstructions: one on his left knee while at the University of Texas and two on his right knee with the Steelers, including one this past offseason.

But NFL players have a much better shot at coming back from knee injuries than they did decades ago, when careers were shortened or ended — most notably that of Hall of Fame running back Gale Sayers, who played for the Chicago Bears from 1965-71.

Harner, an orthopedic surgeron for 25 years, said there have been pivotal advancements in the surgery.

“Putting (the graft) in the right spot, using the athlete’s own tissue and returning them cautiously with correct rehab. Those are the three keys,” said Harner, president of the American Orthopedic Society for Sports Medicine.

Over the years, surgeons have tried synthetic replacements; Harner said they haven’t worked. Grafts from deceased donors still are used. But Harner said the optimal graft is from the patient’s own body, such as the patellar tendon or a hamstring tendon.

“I think your own tissue is better,” he said.

Freddie Fu, also an orthopedic surgeon at UPMC, echoes that.

“Studies have shown that there is a slightly increased risk of re-rupture in the young, active athletic population with (grafts from cadavers),” said Fu, chair of the Department of Orthopedic Surgery at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.

With the options in place now, is a reconstructed ACL as good as the original?

Fu said it is “not the same” but that surgeons are working to make the replacement as close to the original as possible: “We feel that we are re-creating a knee that is very similar to the pre-injury knee.”

Prehab and rehab

Surgeons typically don’t reconstruct ACLs until a week or two after the injury. That interim is for the prehab.

“The best thing to do before surgery is to get as much swelling out of the joint as possible to get their range of motion back,” said Anna Hartman, a physical therapist and Director of Physical Performance Therapy at Phoenix-based Athletes’ Performance, a training/rehab center for elite athletes.

“The more range of motion they go into surgery with and the less swelling … the better the outcomes they have.”

That means ice and elevation, massage and manipulation of the knee and exercising muscles of the hip that shut down after a leg injury. Hartman also has her patients work on range of motion in a pool with his or her body unweighted.

After surgery, Hartman said the doctors typically have the athletes stay home for 2-3 days. The knee is in an immobilizer (a type of brace that can be adjusted to allow for varying degrees of knee bending), and the athlete is on crutches.

After that, the rehab moves into full swing. Hartman said athletes usually are off crutches in two weeks, although the immobilizer will stay on for about four weeks.

From five weeks to 16 weeks, she said, the athlete does exercises to strengthen the muscles of the hip, thigh and calves. “Typically around 12 weeks, we’ll clear them to start running straight ahead,” she said.

The cutting and running come between 4-6 months.

“Six months, usually, the doctor will clear them to return to sports-specific activities,” Hartman said.

She added, “I won’t allow somebody to cut until they’ve shown me they have good strength and hip stability and are tolerating things well.”

The emphasis is on the quality, not the quickness, of the recovery.

“In the early 2000s, there were a lot of people pushing — without any science — returning in like 2-4 months,” Harner said. “Many of these athletes weren’t ready. They didn’t have the muscle power. They didn’t have the balance. … Their knee would fatigue, and they’d blow the graft out again.

Now, the rehab is more carefully monitored, Harner said: “We’re now looking at what is the function of the knee and the leg and the lower extremity. Can they do a shuttle drill (changes of direction around cones)? Can they do one-legged hops and can they run on a treadmill for 15 minutes and then stand on a single leg without having it wobble?”

Peterson rehabbed at the Vikings complex and near his Houston home, at Memorial Hermann Sports Medicine Institute, where he worked with physical therapist Russ Paine.

“The things you guys don’t see is how much I work and grind and fought through different situations to get back,” Peterson said. “Mentally, I was able to push through when I was tired and didn’t want to do anything. I definitely give credit to the things I put into my off-season.”

The patella tendon is still sore after games, but it’s a small price to pay for Peterson to return to the form that makes a 2,000-yard season possible to him.

“I’m always looking up at 2,000, 2,500 yards,” he said. “I’m making it simple for myself. … If I go out and continue to play the way I’m playing, I think it will come.”

Again I disagree with your statement. Statistics don't work that way zz. You can't look at one example and come to any statistically accurate conclusion, you must look at the aggregate and the more data you have the more accurate the conclusion. How about if I say look at SB when talking about the chances of an ACL/MCL injury reoccuring? Though neither I nor anyone else has done a study on the accuracy of pundits predictions so who knows who's right? For now, I'll stick with my opinion on this.

That doesn't have anything to do with our discussion but I understand your point and like you, I remember all the money we've thrown away on O-line FAs in the past. But let's look at another example of tipping the odds in your favor that don't involve medical concerns such as Ayers. We know what we're getting there because we've seen him in action in the NFL. Of course that doesn't explain some of the YOUNG FA O-line players we've signed in the past that just suddenly decided they didn't give a shit anymore.

I have the same hopes.

 

[Corbin]

I agree. I too find it impossible to picture anyone we drafted or could have drafted being worse than what we had. That's why I'm fine with the overall B- grade I agreed with. I'm never upset about getting an above average grade. It's the Gurley pick and not the O-line picks that brought down the preliminary grade I gave them for the draft. Of course, our O-line picks might have looked quite different had we not drafted Gurley.

Yeah I hear ya bro. B is a good grade and I think fitting, better than the Linehan or Spags era drafts! Lol
I think our picks won't be flashy but they'll do they job and Foles will be average at worst and we should have a decent offense at worst to pair with our championship defense. NFC West here we come!

And hey your more of a realist like me judging by your posts but I feel good this year with our arrow pointed up.

DONT DRINK DA KOOL AID!! Lol

 

[Alan]

Corbin not liking artificial flavoring:
And hey your more of a realist like me judging by your posts but I feel good this year with our arrow pointed up.

DONT DRINK DA KOOL AID!! Lol

Your warning came a little too late for me because despite my perennial worrying about the O-line, I've already chugged half that pitcher of Kool-Aid. The defensive half. At least I didn't eat the yellow snow. :eek:

 

[Corbin]

Your warning came a little too late for me because despite my perennial worrying about the O-line, I've already chugged half that pitcher of Kool-Aid. The defensive half. At least I didn't eat the yellow snow. :eek:

You should try it! Lol
It taste like lemonade!

 

[drasconis]

Given all your percentages, I'd say there's essentially a 99.99% chance that one of the four offensive lineman we drafted turns in a solid rookie year and develops into an integral part of this offensive line.

It's a darn shame that we need two of them to turn out that well isn't it?

Also note that the stats are what the player ultimately turns out to be. While it is reasonable to look at the stats provided and say well out of the four we have a good shot at 1 turning into a solid starter it doesn't mean they start out that way. Look at Robinson, his rookie year was rough and he is #2 pick overall, will he develop into something good, yes very likely, but he didn't start there. Even if the guys drafted this year turn out fine they are rookies this year they are going to take time to develop and learn. Relying on them, any of them, to produce at even an average level year 1 is a low percentage shot.

The rams loading up on OL draft picks this year was like a guy at age 69 hearing he should diversify hes retirement plan so it more solid, realizing he has no tech stocks and running out and buying a bunch. It is unlikey to help him if he retires at 70 (it is something he should have done years ago)...it might pay off if he waits to retire til 75. Same with the OL for the Rams, the draft picks are likely to not improve the situation much this year (note in some ways they will be better in some worse- part of developing), 3 years from now we may be in good shape.

 

[Zaphod]

Some interesting thoughts, so I thought I would share my own. Of course, I've already stated my own priority for offensive line with the first pick, but I'm not going to pretend I'm not excited about the Gurley pick even with the risks.
Bit this post is about the offensive line. And on that point I think we're going to be ok. I have to believe that at least two of our picks will work out there well enough for a season and one of our three guys will be alright to play at center especially if we use zone blocking more.
The reason for my optimism is that the coaches have had some time to evaluate their three centers, and CoachO, I think really clarified to me why one of them wasn't used more last year considering Well's performance.

 

[RAGRam]

A couple of points here:

First of all, you didn't give me enough info to respond intelligently (not holding your breath for that you say? ) to your post. Can you post the link to the stats you used?

So you eliminated all the non O-line picks but did you use the same pick numbers of 57, 72, 119, 215?

What years did you use? The data I used was compiled over the last 50 years ending with 2012. I used that period because I thought it was reasonably representative of what the odds would be today but it only gives a general indication of what would be true today at a particular position. Especially when you're talking about drafting O-line players. That paradigm has shifted drastically over the the last 15 years or so. We just had a comprehensive thread about this very same subject within the last 30 days or so and it used more relevent (as in more recent) data and broke it down to the various positions. If you think I'm talking out of my ass you should do a search for that and if you do, I'm very confident your figures won't hold up.

But like I already said, until I have access to the same data as you used I can't really make a comment on it.

Sorry wasn't feeling to great with the hay fever, but still felt the need to post.

What I did was took all OL drafted between 2005 and 2010, my assumption being that drafting has changed a lot over the years, with modern methods of scouting and analysis, so it's best to go recent, whilst setting a cut-off at 2010 would provide players with enough time to make an impact in the NFL. The rookie wage scale may have changed things, but it's still too early to say to what extent. Maybe my assumption that scouting in 1965 is any different to 2005 is a complete load of tosh, but 2005-2010 still provided me with a large enough sample size.

I then set a binomial indicator for if the player became a starter (again defined as 40+ career starts) or not. I then fit a generalised linear model to the data, which provided me with the formula:

Which clearly for Rob Havenstein (pick 57) provides a probability of 73%.
For Jamon Brown (pick 72) provides a probability of 67%.
For Andrew Donnal (pick 119) provides a probability of 43%.
For Cody Wichmann (pick 215) provides a probability as low as 10% (for a quick comparison 3 of the 25 players drafted in picks 205 to 225 over the same period became starters (Zach Strief, Ted Larsen and J'Marcus Webb) which works out at 12%).

Now assuming independence (which is clearly a false assumption, if one player becomes a starter it clearly reduces the probability of another of the three taking up the remaining spot, but what the hell let's run with it) you get the probability of finding a starter at 95% and the probability of finding 2 at 70%, admittedly lower than my initial back of a napkin calculation, but still I like my odds.

Now I wouldn't be stupid enough to believe that my analysis is any more valid than your OP, I just thought it was interesting that if you use different starting data (a smaller but still large enough draft period, restricting to OL) you come away with a completely different conclusion.

Do you have a link to that other thread?

 

[blue4]

B- is fair. We did good at the QB position.

We didn't need a running back, especially not a first round one with a Sam Bradford like injury history. Hopefully he will make me eat those words, but right now it's a questionable decision to me.

We didn't like Joe Barksdale. Good run blocker but limited in pass protection. Then we turn around and draft a whole bunch of Joe Barksdales.

Mike Martz was one of my favorite coaches all time, but his biggest flaw IMO was drafting players to fit his system instead of drafting the best players and fitting his system to them. This is what I'm scared Jeff Fisher has done. I think it's likely we struggle mightily pass blocking for a while, and I'm afraid we are going to end up being one of those teams that can't come back from any kind of a deficit because of it. Especially this penalty prone team. I see 3 down and over 5 yards being a huge problem.

I'm not saying any of this WILL happen, just that the pieces are there for it to happen.

 

[Alan]

RAGRam releasing the Kraken:
What I did was took all OL drafted between 2005 and 2010, my assumption being that drafting has changed a lot over the years, with modern methods of scouting and analysis, so it's best to go recent, whilst setting a cut-off at 2010 would provide players with enough time to make an impact in the NFL. The rookie wage scale may have changed things, but it's still too early to say to what extent. Maybe my assumption that scouting in 1965 is any different to 2005 is a complete load of tosh, but 2005-2010 still provided me with a large enough sample size.

I then set a binomial indicator for if the player became a starter (again defined as 40+ career starts) or not. I then fit a generalised linear model to the data, which provided me with the formula:

Which clearly for Rob Havenstein (pick 57) provides a probability of 73%.
For Jamon Brown (pick 72) provides a probability of 67%.
For Andrew Donnal (pick 119) provides a probability of 43%.
For Cody Wichmann (pick 215) provides a probability as low as 10% (for a quick comparison 3 of the 25 players drafted in picks 205 to 225 over the same period became starters (Zach Strief, Ted Larsen and J'Marcus Webb) which works out at 12%).

Now assuming independence (which is clearly a false assumption, if one player becomes a starter it clearly reduces the probability of another of the three taking up the remaining spot, but what the hell let's run with it) you get the probability of finding a starter at 95% and the probability of finding 2 at 70%, admittedly lower than my initial back of a napkin calculation, but still I like my odds.

Now I wouldn't be stupid enough to believe that my analysis is any more valid than your OP, I just thought it was interesting that if you use different starting data (a smaller but still large enough draft period, restricting to OL) you come away with a completely different conclusion.

Do you have a link to that other thread?

I hope you're feeling better this morning.

Not necessary as you laid out your parameters very well and I'll trust your math.

What I liked:
Excellent time period because it takes into account the new O-line drafting paradigm.

I like your reasoning for cutting it off at 2010 so as to take a longer/better look at their performances.

Your math. Fantastic job of computing the statistical chances of drafting two starters.

What I liked less (and this also includes some of my own OP):
6 years of data is not as big a pool as I would have liked. As you mentioned yourself.

Didn't differentiate between T, G, and C. The data in our (the ROD) last conversation differentiated between Ts (which are usually picked much earlier than Gs and Cs) and Gs and Cs which I believe were lumped together.

Didn't attempt to further refine your equation to answer this part of my original post: "and an even greater chance of being only a marginal starter." Of course this complaint is totally unfair as you didn't claim to address that and I'm not asking for much am I?

Comments:
I actually think, despite my "liked less" comments (the last two of which my OP didn't address either) that your analysis was more accurate for our discussion than my OP with regards to the possibility of having drafted two starters. While the pool of data was much smaller, your data pool only included the drafting paradigms that are relevant to today's NFL and didn't include the less relevant data of the distant past.

This comment by you, "if one player becomes a starter it clearly reduces the probability of another of the three taking up the remaining spot", would in large part have been made moot had you differentiated between the different positions. That of course would have been an extremely time consuming task as you would have actually had to look at each player's history to see at which position he actually would up starting in the majority of those 40 games and you also would have had to make a subjective call as to whether a player drafted as a T (Saffold) who wasn't able to be a reliable starter at that position (a T bust) but did become a reliable starter at another position (G) was a bust or not. While he might turn out to be a great G, you still haven't filled that hole at T. Tough call. If Pryor makes it as a WR is he still a bust even though you don't have that franchise QB you dreamed of (and drafted for)?

Actually, I don't see the "completely different conclusion" you observed. All of your probability percentages were pretty darn close to the ones in my OP. I think it's just a little more reflective of today's NFL and thus a little more accurate despite the much smaller data pool.

Havenstein - approximately 33% (yours 27%) chance of being a total bust and an even greater chance of being only a marginal starter.
Brown - approximately 40% (yours 33%) chance of being a total bust and an even greater chance of being only a marginal starter.
Donnal - approximately 50% (yours 57%) chance of being a total bust and an even greater chance of being only a marginal starter.
Wichmann - approximately 80-90% (yours 88%) chance of being a bust and an even greater chance of being only a marginal starter.

Overall though, great job Rag!!!!!

 

[LACHAMP46]

Let's ignore the fact that Gurley is recovering from a knee injury and may never be the player he was before the injury and let's pay no attention the math that says he has a much greater than normal chance of suffering another knee injury in the future. Let's also ignore the fact that all our O-lines draft picks might have been picked higher than their talent level warranted. Furthermore, let's ignore the fact that we have really really crappy backup plans for any injuries at LT and the depth at the other G and T positions suck too. Furthermore, let's ignore the fact that we have no proven options at C and that we didn't even try to lock in the only player with any experience at OC who many think will win the job. What I can't ignore is the math concerning our draft picks. Ignoring all that math isn't possible for me.

Stats and more Stats....Will you stop making so much sense in this blog Alan?

@FrantikRam with this:
Well, I have heard that knees can be stronger after these surgeries...so there actually is a chance that he is less of an injury risk...all depends on the person. But either way, I doubt the Rams draft him if there is a concern.....so as fans we shouldn't be concerned about the knee.

True for some injuries (Tommy John surgeries and broken bones for example) but not true for ACL and MCL injuries. Again I'll refer you to one of our past threads where that was all laid out.

@FrantikRam you my friend are fighting the same fight I made...Looked it all up, and ACL's (MCL's as well) do indeed blow out more frequently...there are exceptions...Look no further than AP...But many do suffer reinjury...I believe most of the numbers are from a wide range of athletes, pro skiers and such...I do believe @RAGRam has some good ground to stand on....ahahaha, his formula cannot be argued with, but where does he get his numbers? I like Alan & Ragram going at it..Einstein vs DaVinci .....LOL!

ps average career for RB 5 years or less

I thought RB's was around 3 years? Or even less...

According to talking heads who are wrong just about always. Johnny Eightball ring a bell?

Ouch!!!!

 

[Alan]

drasconis with some excellent observations:
Also note that the stats are what the player ultimately turns out to be. While it is reasonable to look at the stats provided and say well out of the four we have a good shot at 1 turning into a solid starter it doesn't mean they start out that way. Look at Robinson, his rookie year was rough and he is #2 pick overall, will he develop into something good, yes very likely, but he didn't start there. Even if the guys drafted this year turn out fine they are rookies this year they are going to take time to develop and learn. Relying on them, any of them, to produce at even an average level year 1 is a low percentage shot.

The rams loading up on OL draft picks this year was like a guy at age 69 hearing he should diversify hes retirement plan so it more solid, realizing he has no tech stocks and running out and buying a bunch. It is unlikey to help him if he retires at 70 (it is something he should have done years ago)...it might pay off if he waits to retire til 75. Same with the OL for the Rams, the draft picks are likely to not improve the situation much this year (note in some ways they will be better in some worse- part of developing), 3 years from now we may be in good shape.

I love the way you put that drasconis! Well said.

Of course you realize you've probably just exponentially increased Robocop's inability to get a good nights sleep right? Good thing you didn't include many more statistics.