Second Round - AJ Dillon - Poll

[M-C-G]

I gave this pick an A and I'm feeling really good about it.

I have waited until this moment, but I hit the 'A' and it felt good.

[crkone]

Read on Twitter

[Treebeard]

He's a better reciever than expected, too

[M-C-G]

Read on Twitter

Watching him churn for 7 yards in a pile and guys trying to tackle him in the cold, yeah, he is going to be a problem with us having home field advantage. Not hard to see this scenario is exactly why the Packers thought he was worth a 2nd round pick, even though he was a '3rd string RB'

[LikeABosh]

He's a better reciever than expected, too

Yeah, he has amazing hands. I gave this pick a B and it's partly because everyone was saying he wouldn't have helped in the passing game

[ReasonablySober]

Read on Twitter

Watching him churn for 7 yards in a pile and guys trying to tackle him in the cold, yeah, he is going to be a problem with us having home field advantage. Not hard to see this scenario is exactly why the Packers thought he was worth a 2nd round pick, even though he was a '3rd string RB'

Ironically, that list is making a case for not spending a second round pick on a runningback. Not that I'm complaining or saying that I wouldn't have done so. I like Dillon.

[MikeIsGood]

Read on Twitter

Watching him churn for 7 yards in a pile and guys trying to tackle him in the cold, yeah, he is going to be a problem with us having home field advantage. Not hard to see this scenario is exactly why the Packers thought he was worth a 2nd round pick, even though he was a '3rd string RB'

Ironically, that list is making a case for not spending a second round pick on a runningback. Not that I'm complaining or saying that I wouldn't have done so. I like Dillon.

I get what you're saying and ultimately don't totally disagree, though maybe for different reasons, but this list also makes a case (to me) to not take this stat seriously. Latavius Murray has struggled to stay on the field for the Ravens, for example.

That said, I have no idea what these stats are or mean, and maybe I'm reading it wrong. I've literally never heard of this before.

And all of that aside, I liked Dillon then and I love him now.

[ReasonablySober]

Watching him churn for 7 yards in a pile and guys trying to tackle him in the cold, yeah, he is going to be a problem with us having home field advantage. Not hard to see this scenario is exactly why the Packers thought he was worth a 2nd round pick, even though he was a '3rd string RB'

Ironically, that list is making a case for not spending a second round pick on a runningback. Not that I'm complaining or saying that I wouldn't have done so. I like Dillon.

I get what you're saying and ultimately don't totally disagree, though maybe for different reasons, but this list also makes a case (to me) to not take this stat seriously. Latavius Murray has struggled to stay on the field for the Ravens, for example.

That said, I have no idea what these stats are or mean, and maybe I'm reading it wrong. I've literally never heard of this before.

And all of that aside, I liked Dillon then and I love him now.

I hear you. I think I read it a couple times and thought I knew what it was before, but I had it wrong (I thought it was a percentage of plays that went for a minimum number of yards, weren't stuffs, it's not that). As defined in this case:

Success Rate (running backs): A measure of running back consistency based on the percentage of carries where the player gains 40% of needed yards on first down, 60% of needed yards on second down, or 100% of needed yards on third or fourth down. Small adjustment in fourth quarter based on whether team is more than a touchdown behind or running out the clock. A running back above 50% is very consistent; below 40% is very inconsistent.

Which, okay? That seems like a very weird stat that applies situational context where it shouldn't.

[MikeIsGood]

Ironically, that list is making a case for not spending a second round pick on a runningback. Not that I'm complaining or saying that I wouldn't have done so. I like Dillon.

I get what you're saying and ultimately don't totally disagree, though maybe for different reasons, but this list also makes a case (to me) to not take this stat seriously. Latavius Murray has struggled to stay on the field for the Ravens, for example.

That said, I have no idea what these stats are or mean, and maybe I'm reading it wrong. I've literally never heard of this before.

And all of that aside, I liked Dillon then and I love him now.

I hear you. I think I read it a couple times and thought I knew what it was before, but I had it wrong (I thought it was a percentage of plays that went for a minimum number of yards, weren't stuffs, it's not that). As defined in this case:

Success Rate (running backs): A measure of running back consistency based on the percentage of carries where the player gains 40% of needed yards on first down, 60% of needed yards on second down, or 100% of needed yards on third or fourth down. Small adjustment in fourth quarter based on whether team is more than a touchdown behind or running out the clock. A running back above 50% is very consistent; below 40% is very inconsistent.

Which, okay? That seems like a very weird stat that applies situational context where it shouldn't.

So doesn't this seem to favor third-down backs on good teams with good run blocking and play calling?

[ReasonablySober]

I get what you're saying and ultimately don't totally disagree, though maybe for different reasons, but this list also makes a case (to me) to not take this stat seriously. Latavius Murray has struggled to stay on the field for the Ravens, for example.

That said, I have no idea what these stats are or mean, and maybe I'm reading it wrong. I've literally never heard of this before.

And all of that aside, I liked Dillon then and I love him now.

I hear you. I think I read it a couple times and thought I knew what it was before, but I had it wrong (I thought it was a percentage of plays that went for a minimum number of yards, weren't stuffs, it's not that). As defined in this case:

Success Rate (running backs): A measure of running back consistency based on the percentage of carries where the player gains 40% of needed yards on first down, 60% of needed yards on second down, or 100% of needed yards on third or fourth down. Small adjustment in fourth quarter based on whether team is more than a touchdown behind or running out the clock. A running back above 50% is very consistent; below 40% is very inconsistent.

Which, okay? That seems like a very weird stat that applies situational context where it shouldn't.

So doesn't this seem to favor third-down backs on good teams with good run blocking and play calling?

LOL right? A good quarterback probably helps too. That whole thing with keeping a defense honest.

[skones]

Hadn't realized he was rankings 2nd overall amongst running backs by PFF.

[M-C-G]

Hadn't realized he was rankings 2nd overall amongst running backs by PFF.

I am not sure all the calculations that go into but I am guessing he gets a nice bump for yards after contact / broken tackles and lack of negative plays.

The pass catching still looks a bit stiff at times, but better than I probably could have hoped for.

[th87]

Read on Twitter

Watching him churn for 7 yards in a pile and guys trying to tackle him in the cold, yeah, he is going to be a problem with us having home field advantage. Not hard to see this scenario is exactly why the Packers thought he was worth a 2nd round pick, even though he was a '3rd string RB'

Wish they used him more against TB last year.