Triplethreat I like you pal, but please stop treating your analysis as scientific fact. You didn’t prove that there’s a 60% chance that a RB taken in rounds 2-3 will be trash nor did you prove 100% of RBs drafted in round 1 will he hits
Here are my problems with you treating your analysis as proof of anything:
1. You proved that in the last 4 drafts under your odd scoring system where Joe Mixon, McKinnon, Foreman, Conner, and Drake are somehow already misses (grades of incomplete would probably help your analysis) while somehow McCaffrey is already labeled a hit.
2. There has been a string of high success in the draft for first round running backs lately. Doing an analysis in the middle of that stretch is about as bad of a look at the overall picture as you can get. Yes, for 3 years now first round RBs have paid dividends. How about going back 20 years? Where do Cadillac Williams, CJ Spiller, Reggie Bush, Ryan Matthews, Trent Richardson, Knowshon Moreno, Rashard Mendenhall, McFadden, Cedric Benson, and a few others im likely leaving out fit in this analysis?
3. Very interesting that your arbitrary stopping point was 4 years when the 5th year contained no first rounders and Bernard, Bell, and Lacy all in the second round (as well as Montee Ball who was a clear miss)
4. You can’t just look at the difference in hit rate in first and second/third round for running backs (which is also ignoring a plethora of pro bowl backs picked after round 3, but that’s an argument for another post) without looking at those same splits for OTHER positions. The argument is that you can find better talent in later rounds RELATIVELY easier for RB than positions like QB, edge rusher, DB etc
Regardless a sample size of 5 first rounders, 4 Years, and 1 position analyzed isn’t going to cut it.