What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Objective Measure of Talent in RBs: Applied in 2008 (1 Viewer)

Dinsy Ejotuz

Footballguy
All my drafts, initial WW moves, and etc are over - so it's time to put the hypotheticals aside and make some predictions. WR predictions to follow before the start of the season.

A few notes... these are mostly dynasty focused, and supersede any previous comments I may have made. 'Elite' means that the rookies' top three career season FF Points/Game scores result in a cumulative total of 50+ (PPR). 'Successful' would indicate a cumulative total of 35-50 across three best seasons.

Comments welcome, of course. But since I've gone out on some limbs, I'd love to see people taking the challenge of rating at least all 27 of the rookie RBs. Sniping at one or two is too easy - I'm sure you agree ;)

Rookies:

Elite, gold standard, can't miss unless injured: Mendenhall, Stewart

Elite, starter-quality back by 2nd year: Felix Jones (almost certain to gain 10+ pounds and improve dramatically after reaching NFL)

Successful, but probably not elite: Rice, Parmele (may have to wait for opportunity)

Weight gain or maintenance absolutely critical to success (min weight to be 'successful' - currently listed below that weight): Slaton (206/7), Forte (218/9), Hightower (226/7)

Longshot, but can't rule out: Ryan Torain (would 40-time/draft position have been much better without injury senior season?)

Career backups, role-players (including FBs) or flops: C Boyd, T Brown, J Charles, T Choice, J Felton, J Forsett, J Hester, M Hart, L Hilliard, P Hillis, X Omon, A Patrick, O Schmitt, K Smith, M Thomas, C Washington

Unknown: McFadden, Johnson (not enough data to make a prediction - could be elite, but high risk compared to Mendenhall and Stewart)

Players from earlier draft classes, and other uncertain situations:

Lions: there is no starter-quality RB on the roster today. Very unlikely that any of them turn into consistent NFL RBs.

Bears: Kevin Jones is a better RB than Matt Forte, and if he stays healthy will be a starting RB again in the NFL

Packers: There's no reason to believe Grant's not legit, but so is Brandon Jackson. Jackson will develop behind Grant, but will eventually start somewhere.

Seahawks: there is no starter-quality RB on the roster today. Very unlikely that any of them turn into consistent starting RBs.

Cardinals: Hightower could be good if he can stay at his combine weight of 226. And it's still too soon to write J.J. Arrington off. :bag:

Cowboys: Barber and Jones are both legit. True RBBC no later than 2009.

Eagles: no one behind Westbrook. Booker will prove to be a horrible signing. Moats should have been better than he's turned out to be (biggest system whiff).

Giants: Several decent role players, but no true long-term starter. Danny Ware is worth watching as a deeeeeep sleeper.

Saints: Bush will never be a #1 RB; and will lose touches over 2008 and 2009. Thomas is not the answer.

Panthers: Stewart is elite, but no reason De Will can't be successful as a starter. Panthers didn't need to draft another back.

Bucs: there is no long-term starting RB on the roster today. Very unlikely that any of them turn into consistent starting RBs.

Atlanta: Turner's stuck in O-line hell, but he's a legit NFL starter.

Bengals: If Rudi is back to 225 and healthy he might have one good season left (playing at 215 was a terrible idea). If Perry is really at 224+ and the injuries haven't robbed him of speed/quickness he's a legit NFL-quality starter (as it is, I suspect he's borderline).

Steelers: Mendenhall takes over as lead back from Parker by end of season or opening day 2009. Gary Russell worth watching as a deeeeeep sleeper.

Ravens: Rice could push McGahee sooner than expected, but I'm less confident about my prediction for him than anyone else.

Patriots: The question isn't whether or not Lamont Jordan will play the Sammy Morris role (a given - he's better than Morris) - it's whether or not he'll play the Corey Dillon role. He could be a better all-round back than Maroney in 2008. All 'if healthy' of course.

Jets: Thomas Jones had worst O-line luck of any RB drafted after 1997. Musa Smith probably done in by previous rash of injuries, but had talent at one time. Washington, et al will never rise above role players.

Dolphins: what a mess. Brown super-talented, but injured. Ricky super-talented, but also a 31 year old coming off long layoff. Parmele far more talented than getting credit for, but raw. Best 1-2-3 punch of any NFL team when healthy.

Chargers: no one behind LT now that Turner's gone.

Raiders: no one like McFadden drafted in last ten years. Suspect he'll be successful, maybe elite. But he's higher risk than you should take with the #4 pick.

Broncos: no multi-year starters on the roster today. Broncos will be searching for a RB again next year.

Jacksonville: MJD had misfortune of being stuck behind HOF-quality Taylor first two seasons. The next LT starting in 2008 or 2009. Buy.

Houston: Green is done. Chris Brown is decent when healthy, but his unique super tall/lean body frame may make him a rare exception to the rule that there's no such thing as an 'injury-prone' NFL RB. Chris Taylor is a better back than Walker and Slaton (unless Slaton goes over 205 pounds).

Indy: Addai is a bit above average back in a great situation. His career is 100% linked to Manning's.

Tennessee: White is talented, but motivation/fitness remain open questions. Johnson is super-talented, but size remains open question. Chris Henry being written off far too soon - could still be successful (watch his performance relative to White's this season).

Vikings, Rams, 49ers, Redskins, Browns, Bills, Chiefs - no one worth mentioning beyond obvious starters.

 
Im not quite sure what this is... you seem to presume you have to be a first round draft pick or have a thread on FBG knobslobbing him for a recommendation he will be good..

Once i read the Lions having no one capable of being good, I laughed and declared the thread null and void.

Addai is 100% linked to Manning, but ADP is otherworldly talent not linked to the best Oline in football..cause and effect issues IMO

 
wdcrob said:
Tennessee: Chris Henry being written off far too soon - could still be successful (watch his performance relative to White's this season).
:goodposting: Seriously though, interesting stuff. I actually agree with a lot of your conclusions.
 
There is one sure fire, cant miss way of determining a RB success. The higher the BMI, the better the RB will be.
Sorry to Hijack, but what is BMI? I've seen it in some posts recently and can't figure it out. A search of "BMI*" and BMI* doesn't work.
Body mass index. It can be used to indicate how bulky someone is. Most of the elite RBs in the NFL have a BMI score somewhere in the 29-33 range. That technically qualifies them as "obese" according to BMI standards, but those standards don't really apply to professional athletes who have extremely muscular builds and low body fat percentages. There has been some debate on the boards this year because some of the top RB prospects have very low BMI scores (McFadden, Johnson, Charles). Some people like myself believe this might limit their effectiveness and/or ability to handle a large workload in the NFL.
 
There is one sure fire, cant miss way of determining a RB success. The higher the BMI, the better the RB will be.
Sorry to Hijack, but what is BMI? I've seen it in some posts recently and can't figure it out. A search of "BMI*" and BMI* doesn't work.
It stands for Body Mass Index, a number is given based on your height and weight. It doesnt take into account BF%, strength, speed, or anything else. Some people on this board think it is the most important measure of a RB, and are willing to write off elite talents because they fall a few lbs. short of what they deem "ideal".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
wdcrob said:
Elite, starter-quality back by 2nd year: Felix Jones (almost certain to gain 10+ pounds and improve dramatically after reaching NFL)

Successful, but probably not elite: Rice, Parmele (may have to wait for opportunity)

Weight gain or maintenance absolutely critical to success (min weight to be 'successful' - currently listed below that weight): Slaton (206/7), Forte (218/9), Hightower (226/7)

Longshot, but can't rule out: Ryan Torain (would 40-time/draft position have been much better without injury senior season?)

Career backups, role-players (including FBs) or flops: C Boyd, T Brown, J Charles, T Choice, J Felton, J Forsett, J Hester, M Hart, L Hilliard, P Hillis, X Omon, A Patrick, O Schmitt, K Smith, M Thomas, C Washington

Lions: there is no starter-quality RB on the roster today. Very unlikely that any of them turn into consistent NFL RBs.

Bengals: If Rudi is back to 225 and healthy he might have one good season left (playing at 215 was a terrible idea).

Steelers: Mendenhall takes over as lead back from Parker by end of season or opening day 2009. Gary Russell worth watching as a deeeeeep sleeper.

Dolphins: what a mess. Brown super-talented, but injured. Ricky super-talented, but also a 31 year old coming off long layoff. Parmele far more talented than getting credit for, but raw. Best 1-2-3 punch of any NFL team when healthy.

Broncos: no multi-year starters on the roster today. Broncos will be searching for a RB again next year.
I found a lot in the post with which I agreed.The items in red though raised my eyebrows.

I'm not sure what makes you think that 10 pounds added to Felix Jones's frame won't adversely affect his speed and quickness. Weight fluctuations in either direction are routinely heralded as panaceas for RB woes or shortcomings in one year and then just as often regarded as mistakes the very next. See Rudi Johnson most recently. So I'd lump Slaton, Forte, Hightower into this criticism as well. With the exception of someone like Lendale White losing some weight in fat, I'd say trying to add or lose 10 pounds is rather gimicky and just as likely to cause problems as it is to cure some shortcoming.

That said, I am a true believer in the 200-205 floor for RB weight in the NFL. A young Warrick Dunn excepted. Hard for me to get too excited about C.Johnson as a result.

I'd also put Kevin Smith in the successful but not elite group. I think he's largely going to be a product of his O-line...much like Emmitt Smith and Terrel Davis. Yeah, I said it. Moreso an evaluation of Emmitt's and TD's fortunes in the NFL draft than an endorsement of Kevin's talent.

I think it'll take an injury to Parker for Mendenhall to see significant carries this season. Mendenhall only gets the lions share of carries in 2009 if the Steelers part ways with FWP in the offseason. If FWP stays on, I think it's a truer RBBC in 2009.

I think Torain may stick for the Broncos. Shanny seemed pretty high on him this summer and there's little standing in the way for him. I think Carter and Young are the stop-gap measures until 2009.

You seem pretty up on Parmelee. I was a huge fan of his father's...the guy had heart. The interesting thing is that Parmelee is considered raw...which is what was said about both B.Jackson and T.Bell when drafted. "Raw" guys are just as likely, maybe even more likely, to never develop as they are to pan out.

A lot of stuff to mull over and you certainly had no qualms about running it up the flagpole to see who salutes it. Kudos. Good reading.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You seem pretty up on Parmelee. I was a huge fan of his father's...the guy had heart.
You mean, Bernie Parmalee (not Parmele) ? I don't think they're related...Parmele is an intriguing prospect. Ideal size, good combine numbers, and handpicked by the new regime.
 
just for conversations sake, what was the BMI of the following:

Curtis Martin

Tiki Barber

Fred Taylor

Cedric Benson

Curtis Enis

Ki-jana Carter

 
Isn't this subjective? And what is the measure of talent?

ETA: Not that I don't appreciate your shot at ranking the rookies. Good work. However, it just looks like a ranking and glance at team situations, not a measure of talent.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
wdcrob said:
All my drafts, initial WW moves, and etc are over - so it's time to put the hypotheticals aside and make some predictions. WR predictions to follow before the start of the season.

A few notes... these are mostly dynasty focused, and supersede any previous comments I may have made. 'Elite' means that the rookies' top three career season FF Points/Game scores result in a cumulative total of 50+ (PPR). 'Successful' would indicate a cumulative total of 35-50 across three best seasons.

Comments welcome, of course. But since I've gone out on some limbs, I'd love to see people taking the challenge of rating at least all 27 of the rookie RBs. Sniping at one or two is too easy - I'm sure you agree ;)

Rookies:

Elite, gold standard, can't miss unless injured: Mendenhall, Stewart

Elite, starter-quality back by 2nd year: Felix Jones (almost certain to gain 10+ pounds and improve dramatically after reaching NFL)

Successful, but probably not elite: Rice, Parmele (may have to wait for opportunity)

Weight gain or maintenance absolutely critical to success (min weight to be 'successful' - currently listed below that weight): Slaton (206/7), Forte (218/9), Hightower (226/7)

Longshot, but can't rule out: Ryan Torain (would 40-time/draft position have been much better without injury senior season?)

Career backups, role-players (including FBs) or flops: C Boyd, T Brown, J Charles, T Choice, J Felton, J Forsett, J Hester, M Hart, L Hilliard, P Hillis, X Omon, A Patrick, O Schmitt, K Smith, M Thomas, C Washington

Unknown: McFadden, Johnson (not enough data to make a prediction - could be elite, but high risk compared to Mendenhall and Stewart)

Players from earlier draft classes, and other uncertain situations:

Lions: there is no starter-quality RB on the roster today. Very unlikely that any of them turn into consistent NFL RBs.

Bears: Kevin Jones is a better RB than Matt Forte, and if he stays healthy will be a starting RB again in the NFL

Packers: There's no reason to believe Grant's not legit, but so is Brandon Jackson. Jackson will develop behind Grant, but will eventually start somewhere.

Seahawks: there is no starter-quality RB on the roster today. Very unlikely that any of them turn into consistent starting RBs.

Cardinals: Hightower could be good if he can stay at his combine weight of 226. And it's still too soon to write J.J. Arrington off. :pickle:

Cowboys: Barber and Jones are both legit. True RBBC no later than 2009.

Eagles: no one behind Westbrook. Booker will prove to be a horrible signing. Moats should have been better than he's turned out to be (biggest system whiff).

Giants: Several decent role players, but no true long-term starter. Danny Ware is worth watching as a deeeeeep sleeper.

Saints: Bush will never be a #1 RB; and will lose touches over 2008 and 2009. Thomas is not the answer.

Panthers: Stewart is elite, but no reason De Will can't be successful as a starter. Panthers didn't need to draft another back.

Bucs: there is no long-term starting RB on the roster today. Very unlikely that any of them turn into consistent starting RBs.

Atlanta: Turner's stuck in O-line hell, but he's a legit NFL starter.

Bengals: If Rudi is back to 225 and healthy he might have one good season left (playing at 215 was a terrible idea). If Perry is really at 224+ and the injuries haven't robbed him of speed/quickness he's a legit NFL-quality starter (as it is, I suspect he's borderline).

Steelers: Mendenhall takes over as lead back from Parker by end of season or opening day 2009. Gary Russell worth watching as a deeeeeep sleeper.

Ravens: Rice could push McGahee sooner than expected, but I'm less confident about my prediction for him than anyone else.

Patriots: The question isn't whether or not Lamont Jordan will play the Sammy Morris role (a given - he's better than Morris) - it's whether or not he'll play the Corey Dillon role. He could be a better all-round back than Maroney in 2008. All 'if healthy' of course.

Jets: Thomas Jones had worst O-line luck of any RB drafted after 1997. Musa Smith probably done in by previous rash of injuries, but had talent at one time. Washington, et al will never rise above role players.

Dolphins: what a mess. Brown super-talented, but injured. Ricky super-talented, but also a 31 year old coming off long layoff. Parmele far more talented than getting credit for, but raw. Best 1-2-3 punch of any NFL team when healthy.

Chargers: no one behind LT now that Turner's gone.

Raiders: no one like McFadden drafted in last ten years. Suspect he'll be successful, maybe elite. But he's higher risk than you should take with the #4 pick.

Broncos: no multi-year starters on the roster today. Broncos will be searching for a RB again next year.

Jacksonville: MJD had misfortune of being stuck behind HOF-quality Taylor first two seasons. The next LT starting in 2008 or 2009. Buy.

Houston: Green is done. Chris Brown is decent when healthy, but his unique super tall/lean body frame may make him a rare exception to the rule that there's no such thing as an 'injury-prone' NFL RB. Chris Taylor is a better back than Walker and Slaton (unless Slaton goes over 205 pounds).

Indy: Addai is a bit above average back in a great situation. His career is 100% linked to Manning's.

Tennessee: White is talented, but motivation/fitness remain open questions. Johnson is super-talented, but size remains open question. Chris Henry being written off far too soon - could still be successful (watch his performance relative to White's this season).

Vikings, Rams, 49ers, Redskins, Browns, Bills, Chiefs - no one worth mentioning beyond obvious starters.
Although I disagree with a few things, that's to be expected. What matters most is the effort and the fact that it made for an interesting and informative read. :thumbup:

 
Seriously though, interesting stuff. I actually agree with a lot of your conclusions.
Well, there's no way all of them will be right, but I wanted to put data-based judgments out there for all the players who are unknowns. If I had to make a short list of guys I may be wrong about Henry would be on it.
 
James the Scot... I'll try to explain why I believe the things in red...

Ryan Torain:

He actually fits the profile of a later-drafted back from a BCS school that goes on to be successful - EXCEPT that he's too slow at his listed size. So if you think he would have run a 4.5 40-yard dash and been a top 100 draft pick had he not been injured he'd be worth keeping an eye on. I doubt that's the case, but can't rule it out.

Kevin Smith:

I knew this one would raise eyebrows, but unless Smith's 40-time is off by a lot he's simply not an NFL-caliber back. Undersized backs (which is what Smith is at his weight/BMI combo) need to run better than a 4.53 to matter. Someone I respect suggested there was some controversy around Smith's forty yard time at the combine, but I'm sticking with official times where possible.

"Starter quality" and "multi-year starter" - just means a guy that's likely to hold down an NFL starting job for more than a year or two. There aren't really very many of them. And none of them are wearing blue shirts with Frenchie-looking lions, or orange ones with horsie heads on them.

Rudi Johnson:

He's simply not fast enough to play at 215. I can't back this up, but after looking at size/speed scores for a long time I think that intended weight gain in the NFL is almost always a good thing - and adds significantly more power to a RB than he loses due to a concurrent drop in speed. Unless you're pushing 240+ or are flat out unfit losing weight is almost never a good idea for an NFL RB.

Mendenhall/Parker:

By this system Mendenhall is insanely talented. Parker is not. And talent virtually ALWAYS wins out in the NFL. Unless you're the Lions. Cutting Kevin Jones was hopelessly moronic.

Parmele and Rice:

After messing with a very small and specific piece of this stuff again today I've got both of them back on the fence. I just don't know what to make of them. But Parmele's dirt cheap and could pan out - so why not grab him?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Isn't this subjective? And what is the measure of talent?ETA: Not that I don't appreciate your shot at ranking the rookies. Good work. However, it just looks like a ranking and glance at team situations, not a measure of talent.
No, almost none of this is my opinion. It's all data driven. I've made no effort to watch film, or see any of these backs play in pre-season. If you really wanted to you could do some searching and find a lot of what ended up in my final model, but there's quite a bit of error-filled, work-in-progress stuff posted here too - and I think it's pretty confusing in hindsight.
 
just for conversations sake, what was the BMI of the following:Curtis MartinTiki BarberFred TaylorCedric BensonCurtis EnisKi-jana Carter
I don't think anyone has ever implied that a high BMI guarantees success. The argument people have been making is that it might be necessary, but not sufficient for success. Basically, a high BMI might be necessary for a prospect to become a steady 300+ carry workhorse. This is not the same thing as saying "BMI is everything," "BMI is the most important thing," or "every prospect with a high BMI = stud." No one has ever argued in support of those points. Regarding your list, it's tough to give a satisfying answer since most of those guys entered the league before accurate combine numbers were available to the public. So I don't think there's any way to know exactly how big those guys were. However, I do think it's helpful to look at the body type of recent successful backs. Here's a list of BMI scores for the top 20 career rushers who played a game in 2000 or later. These numbers were obtained using listed sizes from NFL.com, so they're not 100% accurate. It's probably a decent approximation though:Emmitt Smith - 31.9Curtis Martin - 29.3Jerome Bettis - 35.6Marshall Faulk - 30.3Thurman Thomas - 29.6Edgerrin James - 29.8Corey Dillon - 29.7Fred Taylor - 30.1LaDainian Tomlinson - 31.7Ricky Watters - 27.8Tiki Barber - 29.4Eddie George - 29.4Warrick Dunn - 27.6Shaun Alexander - 31.8Jamal Lewis - 34.2Ahman Green - 29.6Terry Allen - 29.0Priest Holmes - 31.5Stephen Davis - 31.2Garrison Hearst - 30.0There are a couple outliers on both sides of the curve, but the results are pretty uniform overall. 29-32 seems to be the sweet spot. Critics will say these numbers don't mean anything because the percentage of low/high BMI RB prospects entering the league is lower than the percentage of ideal BMI RB prospects, so you would expect the percentage of successful low/high BMI RBs to be lower as well. I still maintain that BMI is relevant. No doubt there are lots of great athletes in the world with BMIs outside the ideal NFL RB range. Yet these elite non-ideal BMI athletes become elite pro running backs far less frequently than their ideal BMI counterparts. This cannot be arbitrary. I believe that there are functional benefits to the 29-32 range that help a RB achieve sustained success in the NFL. In all likelihood, this body type is most conducive to the ideal combination of power/speed/mobility/durability required by the RB position. So I'm naturally wary of players who lack this body type.This year's class is funky because some of the elite prospects fall well below the ideal BMI range (McFadden, C. Johnson) whereas others are actually slightly too big (Stewart, Mendenhall). I favor the high BMI backs over the low BMI backs because there have been several high BMI RBs performing at an elite level in recent years (Ricky, MJD, Lewis) compared to virtually no successful low BMI backs (Dunn, possibly Bush and Peterson depending on how much you want to lower the bar). Also, Chase Stuart did a study showing that players are getting heavier overall, so I think it's reasonable to expect the "ideal" BMI range to creep upwards. Anyhow, I find it very compelling most productive backs have similar builds and that the four super elite backs of the past decade all had very similar builds (Emmitt, Barry, Faulk, Tomlinson). I highly, highly doubt that it's a coincidence and I suspect we'll continue to see this hybrid speed/power type dominate the league. That doesn't mean there won't be another Dunn, Garner, or Bettis. It just means body type is one more factor to consider in your analysis. All else being equal (or even relatively equal), it's probably best to favor the prospects who most closely resemble the position's archetype.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anyhow, I find it very compelling most productive backs have similar builds and that the four super elite backs of the past decade all had very similar builds (Emmitt, Barry, Faulk, Tomlinson). I highly, highly doubt that it's a coincidence and I suspect we'll continue to see this hybrid speed/power type dominate the league. That doesn't mean there won't be another Dunn, Garner, or Bettis. It just means body type is one more factor to consider in your analysis. All else being equal (or even relatively equal), it's probably best to favor the prospects who most closely resemble the position's archetype.
I'll say more about BMI later, but maybe we could keep most of the BMI-Yea-or-Nay chat in the many 'BMI' threads we've already got kicking around? TIA :rolleyes:
 
Also, I often find that BMI merely confirms what my first hand observations already told me. Watching this year's rookie backs in college, I was almost immediately impressed by Rice, Stewart, and Mendenhall. I've pretty much been high on those guys from the get-go. I was sold from the first time I saw them run. To me, they just looked like an NFL RB should look. Well guess what? They're all 30+ BMI guys.

On the flipside, I've never been as high on McFadden as the consensus. It's been suggested that I've written him off simply because he has a low BMI. Not the case. Qualitatively, he never looked like an elite NFL workhorse RB prospect to me. I was never blown away by what I saw. That he has a low BMI is just a quantitative piece of evidence which probably describes what it was about his game that didn't look "right" to me.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't afford yourself some flexibility. Peterson was #1 on my board last year despite the availability of Lynch, a back who fits the "ideal" mold to a t. Body type isn't everything. In the case of Peterson, I saw enough talent and enough power to alleviate my concerns about his build. In the case of McFadden, I don't see the moves or the power and his body type problem is more severe. This time when I add up all the variables, he gets stamped with a big fat REJECT. Maybe I'm wrong. It will be fun to find out.

Either way, I think you ignore BMI at your own peril. Like combine results, it's an important data point to include in your overall analysis of a RB prospect.

 
Isn't this subjective? And what is the measure of talent?ETA: Not that I don't appreciate your shot at ranking the rookies. Good work. However, it just looks like a ranking and glance at team situations, not a measure of talent.
No, almost none of this is my opinion. It's all data driven. I've made no effort to watch film, or see any of these backs play in pre-season. If you really wanted to you could do some searching and find a lot of what ended up in my final model, but there's quite a bit of error-filled, work-in-progress stuff posted here too - and I think it's pretty confusing in hindsight.
Data driven is good, I want to see the data is all. Based on the first post, I have no idea what the data is or how you are figuring the rankings. Is it based on weight, bmi, speed score, college stats, draft position, similarity scores? A combination of all? If it's a combination, how is each one weighted? Further posts have shed some light, but I would appreciate it if you would spell it out. It seems to be youth, weight increase and # of carries? I love the work, I just wanted more explanation
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top