2007 NFL Draft RB Class
February 20, 2007
 

Each week the War Room Report staff will discuss important issues as we lead up to the draft. This week's topic is the 2007 NFL Draft Running Back class. Check out Hot Reads - 2007 NFL Draft QB Class!

Chris Otwell, War Room Report NFL Writer:  There have been some pretty good RB's come out of the draft in the past 5 years, notably Larry Johnson, Ronnie Brown, Reggie Bush, and whom I think is the best all around RB taken in the last 5 years, Stephen Jackson.  I would rate Adrian Peterson's skills right along with those 4 guys, as he has the tools to be an All Pro in the NFL quickly, depending on the team that drafts him.  If he goes to either Cleveland or Houston, I'd have to say he will be an instant impact kind of player, possibly creeping up on 1,000 yards in his rookie season. 

Justin Davis, War Room Report College Football Writer: Adrian Peterson is also the top RB on my board this year, as well he should be. The combination of size, speed, elusiveness, and pure running ability at this point in his career is something we have not seen in some time. I had Reggie Bush at the top of my board for last year's draft but I valued him differently than other RB's; more as a weapon that just happened to be listed at RB. Bush is not the type of RB that you can plug into your offense as the every down, franchise workhorse for the next 10 years. Peterson is.

Matt MacCoy, War Room Report Offensive Scout: When you look at running backs and how they transition from the college ranks to the National Football League you have to take into effect all of the aspects that determine what is a "complete" RB at the highest level of competition. Of course, a running back at the NFL level has to be able to run the ball in between the tackles and have the necessary burst to get to the outside for longer runs, but just as important is the ability to be able to pass block and pick up the blitz, as well as being a factor in the passing game. I believe Adrian Peterson, as a prospect, is second to none in respect to his "pure running" talent. There hasn't been a better pure runner since LT was drafted with the 5th overall pick in 2001. However, I feel that Peterson needs work in the other areas to make him a "complete" back. I feel that the #2 pick in last year's draft Reggie Bush is a step above Peterson due to his amazing ability to catch the ball out of the backfield and that his projected "ceiling" is higher than Peterson's.

Rob Tribbett, War Room Report Editor: Peterson is as good of pure runner as we have seen in the draft since Ladainian Tomlinson. Reggie Bush rates slightly higher, due to his versatility, but Peterson has a great combination of speed and power, with the ability to make defenders miss. The only concern with Peterson is his slightly upright running style and his 6'2 height, which may limit his mileage.

2. Who is the most overrated RB in this class?

Otwell: I think that both Peterson and Marshawn Lynch are first round prospects, but after that it gets tricky.  Do you take a shot on a very talented Michael Bush, and pray that he does not get hurt?  Do you buy into the hype of a third or fourth round pick on Brian Leonard?  Or do you take a shot at my pick for the most overrated RB in the draft, Kenny Irons, whom was supposed to be the top RB in the SEC, but was out played by a certain sophomore in Arkansas.  Irons' speed and awareness seemed to taper off as the season went along, as did Auburn's SEC title chances.

Davis: The most overrated RB in this year's draft is Kenny Irons. Most point to his injury-prone nature as the major reason not to draft him, but I disagree. I just don't think he is that talented. In the 2006 season 4 other Auburn Tigers averaged more yards per carry than did Irons (4.5), and he broke the 100 yard mark only 3 times this year despite 11 starts. Auburn's recent track record producing stud RB's is impressive, but I don't think Irons is the next to follow in those footsteps.

MacCoy: Tony Hunt. Don't get me wrong, I feel that Hunt has some 'upside' and has potential to be a good fit for the right team. I also feel that he is a solid 2nd round draft pick. That being said I do not feel that he is an adequate fit to be a full-time RB at the NFL level. I think he is best suited for spot duty, short yardage, and goal-line work. Many others view him as a player that can step in and take over full-time work, I just don't feel that this is the case. I think he would be best suited to mix in with a team, that already has a starting RB in place. Currently, I project Tony Hunt to be selected by the Pittsburgh Steelers, to help incumbent RB Willie Parker with the running game, with the 46th overall selection in the middle of Round 2.

Tribbett: Tony Hunt is the most overrated running back in the 2007 NFL Draft class. Hunt does not have elite speed or elusiveness. It seems the main attribute that scouts tout on Hunt is his durablity and ability to wear the other defense down. That is not a ringing endorsement of his athleticism. Hunt's inability to break a long run is going to limit his upside in the NFL. I think an apt comparison for Hunt is Ron Dayne...maybe the Houston Texans can waste carries on Hunt as well.

Otwell: Judging on the past 5 years of the NFL draft, I think that drafting a top prospect in the RB position early on is a smart move.  Next to LT, the leagues top RB's have been taken in the first round of the draft since 2002 (L. Johnson, S Jackson, R. Brown) with the lone exception of Frank Gore, taken in round 3, the 65th overall pick.  If you are going get a solid RB in the 2007 class, you almost have to take them in the first round, or risk having to play the diamond in the rough card.

Davis: I think the timing of any team drafting a RB depends on two factors: their opinion of the RB and their expectations for him. If a team already has a starting RB or at the least a RB that can split carries, they should not take a runner higher than the 3rd round, if the first day at all. Aside from the top tier RB's, there is not much difference in value in most draft classes, so in theory why take the 4th ranked RB in the 2nd round when you could probably get the 8th best in the 3rd or 4th and not lose much as far as talent level? However, with that said if a team evaluates a player and feels that they are an elite talent and could possibly be a playmaker and cornerstone of their offense for the next several years, take them whenever possible. There aren't many RB's that warrant that move, but if you have a chance at one that does, take it.

MacCoy: This question causes me to go through a mixture of emotions. First, one must come to the understanding that RBs in the NFL have a short shelf life. There are only so many hits that a body can take before it is time to hang up the cleats. Secondly, the RB position is one of the easier positions to translate from the collegiate level to the NFL, so in many occasions a RB can pick up the offense and succeed immediately, where as other players at more complex positions have added difficulty. So, that being said it would make sense to conclude that it does not make sense to take a RB early in the draft. However, one simple rule stands above the rational thinking above. When you can add a dynamic player that can change your offense, you take that player, and you do not look back. Bottom line: If you have a chance to add a LaDainian Tomlinson, Reggie Bush, and Adrian Peterson then you do it.

Tribbett: My first reaction is that teams should be able to find a running back in the streets. However, if you analyze the top running backs drafted in recent years, their level of success is higher than almost any position. Reggie Bush, Ronnie Brown, Steven Jackson, Willis McGahee, and LaDainian Tomlinson are among the top backs in the league, with only William Green in recent years being a bust. This bodes very well for Adrian Peterson.