Official/Final 2020 Rookie RB Ranks

[AussieMate]

How would you rank/compare Miles Sanders among the top rookie RBs this year?

I had Sanders ranked #1 last year. If he was in this rookie class I would draft him over CEH, who I had ranked #1 this year, but it wouldn't be by much. The only reason would be size and durability. I love CEH's landing spot better, but I prefer avoiding downside when given the opportunity. Therefore, Sanders 1.01.

This is simply not true. You had him ranked as your #3 back, and only elevated him to 1.01 after the Chiefs picked him.

viewtopic.php?t=199123

Am I missing something, you said it yourself, he moved him to 1.01 after the landing spot.... He posted above after the landing spot.... I don't see the "gotcha" that you think you hit here. Unless you know for a fact Mike meant that 1.01 ranking as pre landing spot.
I'm fine with the few posters calling Mike out when he contradicts himself but this one seemed like you're reaching.

[Cult of Dionysus]

Mike knows how to use language. When he wrote "I had" him at 1.01, that reads very differently than saying "I have" him at 1.01.

Yes, he can point to the OP in this thread, and say he was merely referring to that... But that's this thread and the correct tense would really be the present, would it not?

I'm not playing gotcha games. Mike has earned a certain level of scrutiny all on his own, largely by over selling his analysis.

BTW, I credit Mike for having CEH in his top tier before the Draft. Only a few did that.

Myself, I took CEH at 1.10 in my Pre-NFL Draft league, and tried to move up to secure him a little earlier, but was unable to do so. So that's my record on CEH.

[MEuRaH]

I had Sanders ranked #1 last year. If he was in this rookie class I would draft him over CEH, who I had ranked #1 this year, but it wouldn't be by much. The only reason would be size and durability. I love CEH's landing spot better, but I prefer avoiding downside when given the opportunity. Therefore, Sanders 1.01.

This is simply not true. You had him ranked as your #3 back, and only elevated him to 1.01 after the Chiefs picked him.

viewtopic.php?t=199123

An exert using the link you quoted:

I have CEH RB3 on my ranks If by some miracle he gets a great landing spot and Swift/Dobbins/Taylor do not, he could vault up to 1.01.

Post draft rankings are always the official rankings. I have CEH #1 post draft.

I also said the following 3+ weeks before the NFL draft in my DLF article:

In my opinion, Edwards-Helaire is in the same tier as JK Dobbins or D’Andre Swift [who are RB1 and RB2]. Landing spots could dictate that this running back should be the 1.01 selection in all rookie drafts. I think Clyde Edwards-Helaire is the most-underrated rookie running back in the 2020 draft.

I'd like to move on. If anyone has differences of opinion or theories on RBs, that's worth discussing imo.

[Cult of Dionysus]

I give you credit for having him in your top tier pre Draft. Most did not.

[MEuRaH]

I give you credit for having him in your top tier pre Draft. Most did not.

But you didn't have him at 1.01 until after the Draft, as do 90% of dynasty owners. Just about any top prospect can get to 1.01 with a great landing spot, unless theirs a generational talent coming out.

So don't pass it off like you did before the Draft.

I didn't. I def had him 1.03 before the draft. I have that written in nearly a dozen spots.

You're arguing against your own imagination I believe. Maybe you just wanna fight for the sake of fighting? Put up your dukes!

[jcc6fd]

The playerprofiler analytics guys really seem to like Cam Akers. Is it reasonable to assume he will take a lead role (albeit in some form of timeshare) year 1? If so he might be a bargain based on opportunity/usage. Picking in the mid/late first has me intrigued about him so interested to hear any strong opinion about his prospects as both a talent and his opportunity.

[PTW32]

The playerprofiler analytics guys really seem to like Cam Akers. Is it reasonable to assume he will take a lead role (albeit in some form of timeshare) year 1? If so he might be a bargain based on opportunity/usage. Picking in the mid/late first has me intrigued about him so interested to hear any strong opinion about his prospects as both a talent and his opportunity.

Hes super raw and its tough to jurge his college career bc he was on an awful offense with an awful offensive line. His feet are incredible, I like his size and opportunity. However the Rams offesive line isnt great either so he could struggle.

He's last out of the top 5 rbs for me and id pass on him at 1.05 or 1.06 for Lamb and Juedy. After that id consider him depending on team need.

[jcc6fd]

The playerprofiler analytics guys really seem to like Cam Akers. Is it reasonable to assume he will take a lead role (albeit in some form of timeshare) year 1? If so he might be a bargain based on opportunity/usage. Picking in the mid/late first has me intrigued about him so interested to hear any strong opinion about his prospects as both a talent and his opportunity.

Hes super raw and its tough to jurge his college career bc he was on an awful offense with an awful offensive line. His feet are incredible, I like his size and opportunity. However the Rams offesive line isnt great either so he could struggle.

He's last out of the top 5 rbs for me and id pass on him at 1.05 or 1.06 for Lamb and Juedy. After that id consider him depending on team need.

Thanks for the response. I had seen that consensus was his college production isn't a big problem due to bad line play. Hadn't heard that he was raw and forgot that owning the Rams lead back may not be a fantasy boon in 2020 anyway due to the suspect.

[FantasyFreak]

The reality for me is, in this type of 3 tiered system, anybody can look good, and adjust. In Mike's 1st tier last year, Holyfield was a top back. But the 3rd tiers later, you can adjust. I guess I just don't really see what this offers anybody, really. I mean, you can track back, and I defy anybody who claimed Sanders was perhaps the top back in his class before I did, on these boards. But I have my misses, too. The reality, is, the NFL draft has so much influence on our picks, between the first 2/3 rounds and how we try and judge talent vs landing spot, we hit and miss all the time.

[AussieMate]

The reality for me is, in this type of 3 tiered system, anybody can look good, and adjust. In Mike's 1st tier last year, Holyfield was a top back. But the 3rd tiers later, you can adjust. I guess I just don't really see what this offers anybody, really. I mean, you can track back, and I defy anybody who claimed Sanders was perhaps the top back in his class before I did, on these boards. But I have my misses, too. The reality, is, the NFL draft has so much influence on our picks, between the first 2/3 rounds and how we try and judge talent vs landing spot, we hit and miss all the time.

I could be wrong but I thought Mike was just showing his process and we should only really go off the 3rd and final report. From that idea you would be right in saying the first 2 tiers don't offer you much except his working out, and I guess his thoughts on a player well before the combine and NFL put their mark. He could very much just release his 3rd report only but then what would we all do in the offseason without Holyfield takes hahaha

[FantasyFreak]

The reality for me is, in this type of 3 tiered system, anybody can look good, and adjust. In Mike's 1st tier last year, Holyfield was a top back. But the 3rd tiers later, you can adjust. I guess I just don't really see what this offers anybody, really. I mean, you can track back, and I defy anybody who claimed Sanders was perhaps the top back in his class before I did, on these boards. But I have my misses, too. The reality, is, the NFL draft has so much influence on our picks, between the first 2/3 rounds and how we try and judge talent vs landing spot, we hit and miss all the time.

I could be wrong but I thought Mike was just showing his process and we should only really go off the 3rd and final report. From that idea you would be right in saying the first 2 tiers don't offer you much except his working out, and I guess his thoughts on a player well before the combine and NFL put their mark. He could very much just release his 3rd report only but then what would we all do in the offseason without Holyfield takes hahaha

Well his process was a 3 tiered system based off of last year, and again, I will try and make my argument understood. When in the first tier you are able to have a UDFA in your first tier, and by the 3rd tier (post NFL draft) you are only really then be willing to bear criticism, you really don't add anything substantial to what anyone else can do.

By Mike's system, I had Miles Sanders in tier 1, before anybody, way back in November of Sanders Senior year, where he was being discussed as a 5th round NFL pick. Sanders was his RB1 in his 3rd tier, whereas I clearly stated there was not a more talented back in the class than Miles, before he or anyone else had mentioned Miles. Now I don't claim to be a RB guru, so I will admit I have had my misses, and am cherry picking this analysis, because I could push it as a reason to base my RB analysis above others. However from tier 1, to tier 3, if tier 3 post draft, is the only way to judge, well that's just easy for anyone to do. If you have Holyfield as a top back in your fist tier, and by the end, the 3rd round of your system, he's are an aferthought, what are you really adding to the conversation? It's a tiered system that allows maximum error. Not really groundbreaking. If you held yourself to your pre-NFL draft analysis, that would be more groundbreaking. Literally anybody can adjust their rankings after the NFL has shown what they think.

[moishetreats]

The reality for me is, in this type of 3 tiered system, anybody can look good, and adjust. In Mike's 1st tier last year, Holyfield was a top back. But the 3rd tiers later, you can adjust. I guess I just don't really see what this offers anybody, really. I mean, you can track back, and I defy anybody who claimed Sanders was perhaps the top back in his class before I did, on these boards. But I have my misses, too. The reality, is, the NFL draft has so much influence on our picks, between the first 2/3 rounds and how we try and judge talent vs landing spot, we hit and miss all the time.

I could be wrong but I thought Mike was just showing his process and we should only really go off the 3rd and final report. From that idea you would be right in saying the first 2 tiers don't offer you much except his working out, and I guess his thoughts on a player well before the combine and NFL put their mark. He could very much just release his 3rd report only but then what would we all do in the offseason without Holyfield takes hahaha

Well his process was a 3 tiered system based off of last year, and again, I will try and make my argument understood. When in the first tier you are able to have a UDFA in your first tier, and by the 3rd tier (post NFL draft) you are only really then be willing to bear criticism, you really don't add anything substantial to what anyone else can do.

By Mike's system, I had Miles Sanders in tier 1, before anybody, way back in November of Sanders Senior year, where he was being discussed as a 5th round NFL pick. Sanders was his RB1 in his 3rd tier, whereas I clearly stated there was not a more talented back in the class than Miles, before he or anyone else had mentioned Miles. Now I don't claim to be a RB guru, so I will admit I have had my misses, and am cherry picking this analysis, because I could push it as a reason to base my RB analysis above others. However from tier 1, to tier 3, if tier 3 post draft, is the only way to judge, well that's just easy for anyone to do. If you have Holyfield as a top back in your fist tier, and by the end, the 3rd round of your system, he's are an aferthought, what are you really adding to the conversation? It's a tiered system that allows maximum error. Not really groundbreaking. If you held yourself to your pre-NFL draft analysis, that would be more groundbreaking. Literally anybody can adjust their rankings after the NFL has shown what they think.

I remember back in high school and college having to write research reports. I would be given a topic and an assignment to write an X-page essay on it.

Almost always, as soon as I received the topic, I had an initial opinion.

Then I started doing some research and writing my outline. Sometimes my thesis changed, sometimes it stayed the same. Fine either way.

Then I would gather more information, oftentimes changing my outline and even occasionally re-working my thesis. Again, fine any way.

Some teachers just wanted to see the final report, and that's okay. Others wanted to see every draft, too, and I could live with that.

If I were publishing my essay, then I would only share the final draft. For some, seeing the evolution of its creation and my thought-process, though, was compelling. To each their own.

Read all three if you find it helpful or interesting or wait for the final draft. I'm sure that either is good with Mike! And both options offer rich opportunity for discussion and debate.

[CGW]

The reality for me is, in this type of 3 tiered system, anybody can look good, and adjust. In Mike's 1st tier last year, Holyfield was a top back. But the 3rd tiers later, you can adjust. I guess I just don't really see what this offers anybody, really. I mean, you can track back, and I defy anybody who claimed Sanders was perhaps the top back in his class before I did, on these boards. But I have my misses, too. The reality, is, the NFL draft has so much influence on our picks, between the first 2/3 rounds and how we try and judge talent vs landing spot, we hit and miss all the time.

I could be wrong but I thought Mike was just showing his process and we should only really go off the 3rd and final report. From that idea you would be right in saying the first 2 tiers don't offer you much except his working out, and I guess his thoughts on a player well before the combine and NFL put their mark. He could very much just release his 3rd report only but then what would we all do in the offseason without Holyfield takes hahaha

Well his process was a 3 tiered system based off of last year, and again, I will try and make my argument understood. When in the first tier you are able to have a UDFA in your first tier, and by the 3rd tier (post NFL draft) you are only really then be willing to bear criticism, you really don't add anything substantial to what anyone else can do.

By Mike's system, I had Miles Sanders in tier 1, before anybody, way back in November of Sanders Senior year, where he was being discussed as a 5th round NFL pick. Sanders was his RB1 in his 3rd tier, whereas I clearly stated there was not a more talented back in the class than Miles, before he or anyone else had mentioned Miles. Now I don't claim to be a RB guru, so I will admit I have had my misses, and am cherry picking this analysis, because I could push it as a reason to base my RB analysis above others. However from tier 1, to tier 3, if tier 3 post draft, is the only way to judge, well that's just easy for anyone to do. If you have Holyfield as a top back in your fist tier, and by the end, the 3rd round of your system, he's are an aferthought, what are you really adding to the conversation? It's a tiered system that allows maximum error. Not really groundbreaking. If you held yourself to your pre-NFL draft analysis, that would be more groundbreaking. Literally anybody can adjust their rankings after the NFL has shown what they think.

So you only pay attention to those who have better accuracy than the NFL? I'd bet there are very few (none) on here who do. I doubt many people stick to their rankings post NFL draft.

Saying this type of ranking system is flawed is fine, but saying it isn't valuable is an oversight. I look at this type of analysis to find insight on the guys who aren't in the top tier. Guys like singletary, who wasn't on my radar at all, and I was able to dig deeper on because he showed up here. That late 2nd, early 3rd pick for me turned into an asset worth a 1st quickly. That's what I'm looking for. If you are looking for someone with better accuracy than the NFL, it's not going to happen.

[FantasyFreak]

I could be wrong but I thought Mike was just showing his process and we should only really go off the 3rd and final report. From that idea you would be right in saying the first 2 tiers don't offer you much except his working out, and I guess his thoughts on a player well before the combine and NFL put their mark. He could very much just release his 3rd report only but then what would we all do in the offseason without Holyfield takes hahaha

Well his process was a 3 tiered system based off of last year, and again, I will try and make my argument understood. When in the first tier you are able to have a UDFA in your first tier, and by the 3rd tier (post NFL draft) you are only really then be willing to bear criticism, you really don't add anything substantial to what anyone else can do.

By Mike's system, I had Miles Sanders in tier 1, before anybody, way back in November of Sanders Senior year, where he was being discussed as a 5th round NFL pick. Sanders was his RB1 in his 3rd tier, whereas I clearly stated there was not a more talented back in the class than Miles, before he or anyone else had mentioned Miles. Now I don't claim to be a RB guru, so I will admit I have had my misses, and am cherry picking this analysis, because I could push it as a reason to base my RB analysis above others. However from tier 1, to tier 3, if tier 3 post draft, is the only way to judge, well that's just easy for anyone to do. If you have Holyfield as a top back in your fist tier, and by the end, the 3rd round of your system, he's are an aferthought, what are you really adding to the conversation? It's a tiered system that allows maximum error. Not really groundbreaking. If you held yourself to your pre-NFL draft analysis, that would be more groundbreaking. Literally anybody can adjust their rankings after the NFL has shown what they think.

So you only pay attention to those who have better accuracy than the NFL? I'd bet there are very few (none) on here who do. I doubt many people stick to their rankings post NFL draft.

Saying this type of ranking system is flawed is fine, but saying it isn't valuable is an oversight. I look at this type of analysis to find insight on the guys who aren't in the top tier. Guys like singletary, who wasn't on my radar at all, and I was able to dig deeper on because he showed up here. That late 2nd, early 3rd pick for me turned into an asset worth a 1st quickly. That's what I'm looking for. If you are looking for someone with better accuracy than the NFL, it's not going to happen.

But Singletary would have been on your radar after he was drafted in the third by the Bills, not because of Mike's report. I don't understand your point. If his system is only to be judged on the segment after the NFL draft (which the other poster claimed), there are plenty of other more credible sources to look at. Why do the first 2 stages at all, when you have UDFA's as your top tier in the first stage? To me it just shows that you need more data/info from more credible sources to make you analysis anywhere near accurate, which anyone can do. The ranks aren't even really ranks, it tiers of the obvious players. The 4 most obvious players are all grouped together, with no real defined rank, and a bunch of possible scenarios. That's fine, I suppose, but it's really something literally anybody could post. It's just amateur film watching, with loose tiers. Cool, but doesn't really help me much, personally. Cool that he puts the effort in, for sure.

[CGW]

Well his process was a 3 tiered system based off of last year, and again, I will try and make my argument understood. When in the first tier you are able to have a UDFA in your first tier, and by the 3rd tier (post NFL draft) you are only really then be willing to bear criticism, you really don't add anything substantial to what anyone else can do.

By Mike's system, I had Miles Sanders in tier 1, before anybody, way back in November of Sanders Senior year, where he was being discussed as a 5th round NFL pick. Sanders was his RB1 in his 3rd tier, whereas I clearly stated there was not a more talented back in the class than Miles, before he or anyone else had mentioned Miles. Now I don't claim to be a RB guru, so I will admit I have had my misses, and am cherry picking this analysis, because I could push it as a reason to base my RB analysis above others. However from tier 1, to tier 3, if tier 3 post draft, is the only way to judge, well that's just easy for anyone to do. If you have Holyfield as a top back in your fist tier, and by the end, the 3rd round of your system, he's are an aferthought, what are you really adding to the conversation? It's a tiered system that allows maximum error. Not really groundbreaking. If you held yourself to your pre-NFL draft analysis, that would be more groundbreaking. Literally anybody can adjust their rankings after the NFL has shown what they think.

So you only pay attention to those who have better accuracy than the NFL? I'd bet there are very few (none) on here who do. I doubt many people stick to their rankings post NFL draft.

Saying this type of ranking system is flawed is fine, but saying it isn't valuable is an oversight. I look at this type of analysis to find insight on the guys who aren't in the top tier. Guys like singletary, who wasn't on my radar at all, and I was able to dig deeper on because he showed up here. That late 2nd, early 3rd pick for me turned into an asset worth a 1st quickly. That's what I'm looking for. If you are looking for someone with better accuracy than the NFL, it's not going to happen.

But Singletary would have been on your radar after he was drafted in the third by the Bills, not because of Mike's report. I don't understand your point. If his system is only to be judged on the segment after the NFL draft, there are plenty of other more credible sources to look at. Why do the first 2 at all, when you have UDFA's as your top tier in the first stage? To me it just shows that you need more data/info from more credible sources to make you analysis anywhere near accurate, which anyone can do.

Sounds good. We can probably go ahead and delete 95% of this discussion forum as it is all just pre-draft fluff anyway. I think maybe the bigger concern is the way Mike goes about it? Which I agree with, can be over the top and deserve criticism.