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!

RB sizes... (1 Viewer)

W

Weiner Dog

Footballguy
McFadden - 6'1" 211 lbs

Mendenhall - 5'10" 225 lbs

Stewart - 5'10" 235 lbs

F Jones - 5'10" 207 lbs

Rice - 5'8" 199 lbs

C Johnson - 5'11" 197 lbs

J Charles - 5'11" 200 lbs

Slaton - 5'9" 197 lbs

T Choice - 5'10" 215 lbs

Hart - 5'8" 206 lbs

Forte - na

K Smith - na

 
Weiner Dog said:
McFadden - 6'1" 211 lbsMendenhall - 5'10" 225 lbsStewart - 5'10" 235 lbsF Jones - 5'10" 207 lbsRice - 5'8" 199 lbsC Johnson - 5'11" 197 lbsJ Charles - 5'11" 200 lbsSlaton - 5'9" 197 lbsT Choice - 5'10" 215 lbsHart - 5'8" 206 lbsForte - naK Smith - na
Click to expand...
Slaton and Rice shorter than I thought, but Slaton has put on some weight. It's sort of comical that almost every back on that list in an inch or two shorter than their press guide height.
 
ConstruxBoy said:
Weiner Dog said:
McFadden - 6'1" 211 lbsMendenhall - 5'10" 225 lbsStewart - 5'10" 235 lbsF Jones - 5'10" 207 lbsRice - 5'8" 199 lbsC Johnson - 5'11" 197 lbsJ Charles - 5'11" 200 lbsSlaton - 5'9" 197 lbsT Choice - 5'10" 215 lbsHart - 5'8" 206 lbsForte - naK Smith - na
Click to expand...
Slaton and Rice shorter than I thought, but Slaton has put on some weight. It's sort of comical that almost every back on that list in an inch or two shorter than their press guide height.
Click to expand...
Actually, I thought rice was closer to 5'7ish by the eye ball test. Does look like the a couple of the guys are a litle heavier, though.
 
ConstruxBoy said:
Slaton and Rice shorter than I thought, but Slaton has put on some weight. It's sort of comical that almost every back on that list in an inch or two shorter than their press guide height.
Click to expand...
Not a bad thing for a RB. Mendenhall and Stewart anre the perfect size. Rice needs to add about 15 lbs. Good to see Chalres well under his listed 6'-1" too.Of course if you are a WR...DeSean Jackson....fizzle.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BMI numbers based on the above results:

Stewart - 33.7

Mendenhall - 32.3

Hart - 31.3

Choice - 30.8

Rice - 30.3

Felix - 29.7

Slaton - 29.1

Charles - 27.9

McFadden - 27.8

Johnson - 27.5

 
Last edited by a moderator:
EBF said:
BMI numbers based on the above results:Stewart - 33.7Mendenhall - 32.3Hart - 31.3Choice - 30.8Rice - 30.3Felix - 29.7Slaton - 29.1Charles - 27.9McFadden - 27.8Johnson - 27.5
Click to expand...
Stewart is just a little bit heavier than he should be. Based on numbers compiled by Chase Stuart, only 2 of the top 50 RBs to enter the league since 1970 have had a BMI of greater than 33 (Jamal Lewis and Jerome Bettis). So while there is some precedent of a back with Stewart's size succeeding, the results suggest that he may be a bit too big for his own good. On the flipside, Charles, McFadden, and Johnson are too thin. Only 8 of the top 50 RBs to enter the league since 1970 have had a BMI of less than 28. The good news for McFadden is that this group includes three Hall of Fame guys (Dickerson, Dorsett, and Allen). The bad news for McFadden is that those guys played in a different era. The only modern era RBs to crack the list are Robert Smith, Warrick Dunn, and Charlie Garner. They were all good players, but none of them were in the LT/Emmitt/Faulk class. If you believe in trends, these are the guys you should focus on:MendenhallHartChoiceRiceFelixSlatonThey all have BMI numbers in the ideal range.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
EBF said:
EBF said:
BMI numbers based on the above results:Stewart - 33.7Mendenhall - 32.3Hart - 31.3Choice - 30.8Rice - 30.3Felix - 29.7Slaton - 29.1Charles - 27.9McFadden - 27.8Johnson - 27.5
Click to expand...
Stewart is just a little bit heavier than he should be. Based on numbers compiled by Chase Stuart, only 2 of the top 50 RBs to enter the league since 1970 have had a BMI of greater than 33 (Jamal Lewis and Jerome Bettis). So while there is some precedent of a back with Stewart's size succeeding, the results suggest that he may be a bit too big for his own good.
Click to expand...
Interesting... Stewart was listed at 5'11.2" earlier. And getting these exact makes a big difference. At 5'11.2" and 235 pounds his BMI would be 32.6. That's lower than:Ricky Williams 34.4 (entered combine at 244?)Maurice Jones-Drew 33.6 LaMont Jordan 33.4 Rudi Johnson 33.0 Jamal Lewis 32.9 Travis Henry 32.8 I don't have McFadden's exact height yet, but have seen him listed at 6'2" before today. If you take 73.5" and 211 the BMI is 27.5. That's very low. Chris Brown low.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
wdcrob said:
EBF said:
EBF said:
BMI numbers based on the above results:Stewart - 33.7Mendenhall - 32.3Hart - 31.3Choice - 30.8Rice - 30.3Felix - 29.7Slaton - 29.1Charles - 27.9McFadden - 27.8Johnson - 27.5
Click to expand...
Stewart is just a little bit heavier than he should be. Based on numbers compiled by Chase Stuart, only 2 of the top 50 RBs to enter the league since 1970 have had a BMI of greater than 33 (Jamal Lewis and Jerome Bettis). So while there is some precedent of a back with Stewart's size succeeding, the results suggest that he may be a bit too big for his own good.
Click to expand...
Interesting... Stewart was listed at 5'11.2" earlier. And getting these exact makes a big difference. At 5'11.2" and 235 pounds his BMI would be 32.6. That's lower than:Ricky Williams 34.4 (entered combine at 244?)Maurice Jones-Drew 33.6 LaMont Jordan 33.4 Rudi Johnson 33.0 Jamal Lewis 32.9 Travis Henry 32.8 I don't have McFadden's exact height yet, but have seen him listed at 6'2" before today. If you take 73.5" and 211 the BMI is 27.5. That's very low. Chris Brown low.
Click to expand...
My numbers were based off the numbers in the initial post. I agree that fractions should be used wherever applicable.
 
Exact ht and wt #'s per FFliverwire:

McFadden 6' 1 1/4" 211

Mendenhall 5'11" 225

Stewart 5' 10 1/4" 235

Jones 5' 10 1/8" 207

Rice 5' 8" 199

Charles 5' 11" 200

Hart 5' 8 7/8" 206

Johnson 5' 11" 197

Slayton 5' 9" 197

Choice 5' 10 1/2" 215

No numbers available yet for Forte and Smith

I leave it to others to recalculate the BMIs. it does knock Mcfadden's BMI down even further than 27.8.

I was happy to see that Jones weighed in at 207 since I have been very high on him, but was concerned he might be closer to 6' and only at about 200. I doubt that the scouts will put as much emphasis on BMI as som of the Sharks here do. It does set off some more alarm bells about McFadden on one end of the spectrum, and Stewart on the other end.

Speaking of height/weight, I was amazed that Colt Brennan put on over 20lbs in less than a month. He weighed in at the senior bowl at only 186, but today he is 207. What's up with that? ......Not that it really matters. I guess it shows the extent that players can fluctuate (and/or manipulate) their weight in a short time frame, either dropping weight to add extra speed, or 'bulking up' to combat the perception that they are too light for their position. But 20# in less than a month is pretty 'fishy' to me.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
madd futher said:
Exact ht and wt #'s per FFliverwire:McFadden 6' 1 1/4" 211Mendenhall 5'11" 225Stewart 5' 10 1/4" 235Jones 5' 10 1/8" 207Rice 5' 8" 199Charles 5' 11" 200 Hart 5' 8 7/8" 206Johnson 5' 11" 197Slayton 5' 9" 197Choice 5' 10 1/2" 215No numbers available yet for Forte and SmithI leave it to others to recalculate the BMIs. it does knock Mcfadden's BMI down even further than 27.8.I was happy to see that Jones weighed in at 207 since I have been very high on him, but was concerned he might be closer to 6' and only at about 200. I doubt that the scouts will put as much emphasis on BMI as som of the Sharks here do. It does set off some more alarm bells about McFadden on one end of the spectrum, and Stewart on the other end.Speaking of height/weight, I was amazed that Colt Brennan put on over 20lbs in less than a month. He weighed in at the senior bowl at only 186, but today he is 207. What's up with that? ......Not that it really matters. I guess it shows the extent that players can fluctuate (and/or manipulate) their weight in a short time frame, either dropping weight to add extra speed, or 'bulking up' to combat the perception that they are too light for their position. But 20# in less than a month is pretty 'fishy' to me.
Click to expand...
supposedly Brennan was just getting over the flu prior to the senior bowl, so he had lost some weight.I did read that one GM stated brennan comes across as a jackass during the one on one interviews.....
 
EBF said:
EBF said:
BMI numbers based on the above results:Stewart - 33.7Mendenhall - 32.3Hart - 31.3Choice - 30.8Rice - 30.3Felix - 29.7Slaton - 29.1Charles - 27.9McFadden - 27.8Johnson - 27.5
Click to expand...
Stewart is just a little bit heavier than he should be. Based on numbers compiled by Chase Stuart, only 2 of the top 50 RBs to enter the league since 1970 have had a BMI of greater than 33 (Jamal Lewis and Jerome Bettis). So while there is some precedent of a back with Stewart's size succeeding, the results suggest that he may be a bit too big for his own good. On the flipside, Charles, McFadden, and Johnson are too thin. Only 8 of the top 50 RBs to enter the league since 1970 have had a BMI of less than 28. The good news for McFadden is that this group includes three Hall of Fame guys (Dickerson, Dorsett, and Allen). The bad news for McFadden is that those guys played in a different era. The only modern era RBs to crack the list are Robert Smith, Warrick Dunn, and Charlie Garner. They were all good players, but none of them were in the LT/Emmitt/Faulk class. If you believe in trends, these are the guys you should focus on:MendenhallHartChoiceRiceFelixSlatonThey all have BMI numbers in the ideal range.
Click to expand...
:mellow:
 
Just a funny side note. Technically speaking, anyone with a BMI over 30 is considered obese. I realize this is different in this case because muscle is more dense than fat, but still it's funny to think Jonathan Stewart is considered obese.

I've been paying a lot of attention to Stewart and McFadden because they've been on my college rosters for 2 years. I think they are both going to be awesome. And Mendenhall too. This is a great draft for RBs.

 
BMI numbers. :lmao:

So your the perfect HT and WT. Means zero.

Comes down to can you play.

Jerry Rice was too slow, Emmitt Smith was too slow, Marcus Allen was too slow.

Plus what were there BMI numbers. The first two have all the records at there position.

Now what do you think of the BMI numbers?

But I guess guys that can't see on tape how good someone is, has to go on some made up chart.

I'm 6'4" and can throw a football on my knees from the 50 yard line thru the Goal Post.

Thats makes me a Top QB.

Can you at least take a snap from the center?

Can you read a def.?

Get the point.

 
Gandalf said:
Just a funny side note. Technically speaking, anyone with a BMI over 30 is considered obese. I realize this is different in this case because muscle is more dense than fat, but still it's funny to think Jonathan Stewart is considered obese.I've been paying a lot of attention to Stewart and McFadden because they've been on my college rosters for 2 years. I think they are both going to be awesome. And Mendenhall too. This is a great draft for RBs.
Click to expand...
Please give me your top 6 at RB. Rooks of course.Thanks
 
Maroney=Speed said:
BMI numbers. :blackdot: So your the perfect HT and WT. Means zero.Comes down to can you play.Jerry Rice was too slow, Emmitt Smith was too slow, Marcus Allen was too slow.Plus what were there BMI numbers. The first two have all the records at there position.Now what do you think of the BMI numbers?But I guess guys that can't see on tape how good someone is, has to go on some made up chart.I'm 6'4" and can throw a football on my knees from the 50 yard line thru the Goal Post.Thats makes me a Top QB.Can you at least take a snap from the center?Can you read a def.?Get the point.
Click to expand...
Yea size and BMI mean NOTHING, thats why there's so many successful 6'4 180lb Rb's out there and all those 5'6 175lb Lb's
 
ThePittbully said:
Maroney=Speed said:
BMI numbers. :lmao: So your the perfect HT and WT. Means zero.Comes down to can you play.Jerry Rice was too slow, Emmitt Smith was too slow, Marcus Allen was too slow.Plus what were there BMI numbers. The first two have all the records at there position.Now what do you think of the BMI numbers?But I guess guys that can't see on tape how good someone is, has to go on some made up chart.I'm 6'4" and can throw a football on my knees from the 50 yard line thru the Goal Post.Thats makes me a Top QB.Can you at least take a snap from the center?Can you read a def.?Get the point.
Click to expand...
Yea size and BMI mean NOTHING, thats why there's so many successful 6'4 180lb Rb's out there and all those 5'6 175lb Lb's
Click to expand...
:goodposting: So you would have not drafted Jerry Rice or Emmitt Smith. Good Job. :unsure: But you would have drafted David Boston and Michael Pittman's of the world.Yep your building a Championship team. :lmao:
 
Maroney=Speed said:
BMI numbers. :thumbup: So your the perfect HT and WT. Means zero.Comes down to can you play.Jerry Rice was too slow, Emmitt Smith was too slow, Marcus Allen was too slow.Plus what were there BMI numbers. The first two have all the records at there position.Now what do you think of the BMI numbers?But I guess guys that can't see on tape how good someone is, has to go on some made up chart.I'm 6'4" and can throw a football on my knees from the 50 yard line thru the Goal Post.Thats makes me a Top QB.Can you at least take a snap from the center?Can you read a def.?Get the point.
Click to expand...
Are you so unhappy because Maroney splits time?
 
FavreCo said:
ConstruxBoy said:
Slaton and Rice shorter than I thought, but Slaton has put on some weight. It's sort of comical that almost every back on that list in an inch or two shorter than their press guide height.
Click to expand...
Not a bad thing for a RB. Mendenhall and Stewart anre the perfect size. Rice needs to add about 15 lbs. Good to see Chalres well under his listed 6'-1" too.Of course if you are a WR...DeSean Jackson....fizzle.
Click to expand...
FELIX JONES come on down your the next super star ffl running back. 207lbs with room to grow and all thoughs skills.
 
King of the Jungle said:
Maroney=Speed said:
wdcrob said:
Maroney=Speed said:
Get the point.
Click to expand...
You've got your very own topic that the mods have left open just for you to be a tool in. How about limiting that activity to just one place.TIA
Click to expand...
So do you use BMI?
Click to expand...
This was turning into a good topic.
Click to expand...
Ok, back to topic.1.1 Stewart - 33.71.2 Mendenhall - 32.31.3 Hart - 31.31.4 Choice - 30.81.5 Rice - 30.31.6 Felix - 29.71.7 Slaton - 29.11.8 Charles - 27.91.9 McFadden - 27.81.10 Johnson - 27.5 Thats how the rook draft would go based on BMI.So McFadden would be the 9th best RB. Hart 3rd.OK, so I guess I don't have to trade up to get McFadden. :ph34r: All because McFadden is too tall, and has skinny legs.Ok, I get it. How much would McFadden have to gain to get a better BMI?
 
Maroney=Speed said:
King of the Jungle said:
Maroney=Speed said:
wdcrob said:
Maroney=Speed said:
Get the point.
Click to expand...
You've got your very own topic that the mods have left open just for you to be a tool in. How about limiting that activity to just one place.TIA
Click to expand...
So do you use BMI?
Click to expand...
This was turning into a good topic.
Click to expand...
Ok, back to topic.1.1 Stewart - 33.71.2 Mendenhall - 32.31.3 Hart - 31.31.4 Choice - 30.81.5 Rice - 30.31.6 Felix - 29.71.7 Slaton - 29.11.8 Charles - 27.91.9 McFadden - 27.81.10 Johnson - 27.5 Thats how the rook draft would go based on BMI.So McFadden would be the 9th best RB. Hart 3rd.OK, so I guess I don't have to trade up to get McFadden. :ph34r: All because McFadden is too tall, and has skinny legs.Ok, I get it. How much would McFadden have to gain to get a better BMI?
Click to expand...
Ok, we get it. You don't agree at all with using BMI when analyzing prospects. Let it go.
 
Maroney=Speed said:
BMI numbers. :goodposting:

So your the perfect HT and WT. Means zero.

Comes down to can you play.

Jerry Rice was too slow, Emmitt Smith was too slow, Marcus Allen was too slow.

Plus what were there BMI numbers. The first two have all the records at there position.

Now what do you think of the BMI numbers?

But I guess guys that can't see on tape how good someone is, has to go on some made up chart.

I'm 6'4" and can throw a football on my knees from the 50 yard line thru the Goal Post.

Thats makes me a Top QB.

Can you at least take a snap from the center?

Can you read a def.?

Get the point.
Click to expand...
The point wasn't that BMI is the only indicator of how good of a pro a RB will be.The thread was specifically designed to show the builds of the Rookie RBs. Since H/W is not a the best indicator of what kind of 'back the player will be or how effective they'd be, EBF was nice enough to calculate BMI, which is a good measure of how effective a RB will be, presumably their ability to carry the load.

FYI, Emmit Smith had an ideal BMI.

And nobody said the higher the BMI, the better. It's just LESS likely that outliers such as McFadden, Jamaal Charles, Chris Johnson will suceed as every down RBs and stay healthy. For every Marcus Allen and Eric Dickerson there are several RBs who do not succeed because their body size is not ideal.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maroney=Speed said:
ThePittbully said:
Maroney=Speed said:
BMI numbers. :lmao: So your the perfect HT and WT. Means zero.Comes down to can you play.Jerry Rice was too slow, Emmitt Smith was too slow, Marcus Allen was too slow.Plus what were there BMI numbers. The first two have all the records at there position.Now what do you think of the BMI numbers?But I guess guys that can't see on tape how good someone is, has to go on some made up chart.I'm 6'4" and can throw a football on my knees from the 50 yard line thru the Goal Post.Thats makes me a Top QB.Can you at least take a snap from the center?Can you read a def.?Get the point.
Click to expand...
Yea size and BMI mean NOTHING, thats why there's so many successful 6'4 180lb Rb's out there and all those 5'6 175lb Lb's
Click to expand...
:bag: So you would have not drafted Jerry Rice or Emmitt Smith. Good Job. :thumbup: But you would have drafted David Boston and Michael Pittman's of the world.Yep your building a Championship team. :lmao:
Click to expand...
The only person here claiming BMI is the end all be all of evaulating talent is you, go find someplace else to troll
 
aposulli said:
Maroney=Speed said:
BMI numbers. :lmao:

So your the perfect HT and WT. Means zero.

Comes down to can you play.

Jerry Rice was too slow, Emmitt Smith was too slow, Marcus Allen was too slow.

Plus what were there BMI numbers. The first two have all the records at there position.

Now what do you think of the BMI numbers?

But I guess guys that can't see on tape how good someone is, has to go on some made up chart.

I'm 6'4" and can throw a football on my knees from the 50 yard line thru the Goal Post.

Thats makes me a Top QB.

Can you at least take a snap from the center?

Can you read a def.?

Get the point.
Click to expand...
The point wasn't that BMI is the only indicator of how good of a pro a RB will be.The thread was specifically designed to show the builds of the Rookie RBs. Since H/W is not a the best indicator of what kind of 'back the player will be or how effective they'd be, EBF was nice enough to calculate BMI, which is a good measure of how effective a RB will be, presumably their ability to carry the load.

FYI, Emmit Smith had an ideal BMI.

And nobody said the higher the BMI, the better. It's just LESS likely that outliers such as McFadden, Jamaal Charles, Chris Johnson will suceed as every down RBs and stay healthy. For every Marcus Allen and Eric Dickerson there are several RBs who do not succeed because their body size is not ideal.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Fair enough. Not sure why others have thin skin?

But I ask a question and get attack, nice. :goodposting:

How much would McFadden have to put on to see His BMI go up? 220? 215? 225?

Thanks

 
aposulli said:
And nobody said the higher the BMI, the better. It's just LESS likely that outliers such as McFadden, Jamaal Charles, Chris Johnson will suceed as every down RBs and stay healthy. For every Marcus Allen and Eric Dickerson there are several RBs who do not succeed because their body size is not ideal.
Click to expand...
For every Ladanian Tomlinson there are several RBs who do not succeeded even with "ideal" body size.
 
be interesting to see the BMI of some of the lineman, then compare the 'fit' lineman to the 'obese' and see how they faired in the league over the years. i may be speculating hear but i think Aaron Gibson(or Nate Newton) prolly was in the 60+ BMI range years ago.

 
CalBear said:
aposulli said:
And nobody said the higher the BMI, the better. It's just LESS likely that outliers such as McFadden, Jamaal Charles, Chris Johnson will suceed as every down RBs and stay healthy. For every Marcus Allen and Eric Dickerson there are several RBs who do not succeed because their body size is not ideal.
Click to expand...
For every Ladanian Tomlinson there are several RBs who do not succeeded even with "ideal" body size.
Click to expand...
:popcorn: I'm glad I didn't post this, there be a stoning at noon Sunday. :lmao:

 
Updated BMI to include fractions of height:

Stewart - 33.5

Mendenhall - 31.4

Hart - 30.5

Choice - 30.4

Rice - 30.3

Jones - 29.6

Slaton - 29.1

Charles - 27.9

McFadden - 27.6

Johnson - 27.5

No significant changes. Stewart is still a tad heavy. Charles, McFadden, and Johnson are still too light.

 
CalBear said:
aposulli said:
And nobody said the higher the BMI, the better. It's just LESS likely that outliers such as McFadden, Jamaal Charles, Chris Johnson will suceed as every down RBs and stay healthy. For every Marcus Allen and Eric Dickerson there are several RBs who do not succeed because their body size is not ideal.
Click to expand...
For every Ladanian Tomlinson there are several RBs who do not succeeded even with "ideal" body size.
Click to expand...
No one is saying that a perfect BMI score guarantees success. What we're saying is that a bad BMI score probably means the player in question will never be a workhorse in the NFL. Here's a post I made on the topic a while back:
I just compiled a quick list of BMI scores for the top 30 RBs in my PPR league. I got all of my heights and weights from NFL.com and used a BMI calculator from the following link: http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/.

The results:

Brian Westbrook - 29.1

LaDainian Tomlinson - 31.7

Clinton Portis - 31.1

Joseph Addai - 29.8

Adrian Peterson - 28.6

Jamal Lewis - 34.2

Frank Gore - 32.9

Marion Barber - 30.0

Willis McGahee - 31.5

Earnest Graham - 33.2

Reggie Bush - 27.5

Maurice Drew - 32.6

Edgerrin James - 29.8

Kenny Watson - 29.6

Steven Jackson - 29.7

Marshawn Lynch - 30.0

Ryan Grant - 29.6

LenDale White - 31.0

Chester Taylor - 29.7

Willie Parker - 30.0

Brandon Jacobs - 32.1

Thomas Jones - 30.8

Ronnie Brown - 31.5

Justin Fargas - 29.0

Adrian Peterson II - 30.1

Fred Taylor - 30.1

Kevin Jones - 30.9

Warrick Dunn - 27.6

DeShaun Foster - 30.1

DeAngelo Williams - 32.0

High: Jamal Lewis 34.2

Low: Reggie Bush 27.5

Average: 30.5

27 out of 30 RBs were between 28.6 and 33.2. That means 90% of the top 30 RBs in 2007 had a BMI between 28.6 and 33.2.
Click to expand...
The average top 30 NFL back has a BMI of 30.5. There are only two top 30 NFL backs with a BMI under 28. That's Warrick Dunn and Reggie Bush.

There is only one top 30 NFL back with a BMI over 33.5. That's Jamal Lewis.

I realize that each player in a unique event in history, but I also think it's significant that 90% of the top 30 RBs in the league have a BMI between 28.6 and 33.2. Not a single true "stud" RB has a BMI as low as McFadden's. Only two guys in the top 20 are within 1 point of him. Most of them are in the 29.5-31.5 range.

Based on recent history, McFadden does not physically fit the mold of a stud RB. This supports the assertion I've been offering for months: that he's a talented player, but that he's probably not the workhorse RB people are touting him as. He is probably a change of pace type guy at the next level. Ditto Jamaal Charles and Chris Johnson.

Stewart is also slightly outside the range. There is only one top 20 type back with a BMI above his (Jamal Lewis - 34.2). The good news is that unlike Dunn and Bush, Lewis is a true workhorse back. Stewart is also within one BMI point of Frank Gore and Ernest Graham. The numbers still suggest that he is too big, but I think a BMI of 33.5 is slightly less worrisome than a BMI or 27.5, although they're both 3 points from the average of 30.5.

No one is saying BMI should be the only factor you consider when evaluating RB prospects. But you'd be a fool to ignore it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
From Rotoworld:

Felix Jones-RB-Player Feb. 23 - 12:55 pm et

Arkansas RB Felix Jones measured 5'10/207 at the NFL Combine weigh-in.

Jones was listed at 6'0/207 in college, so this is somewhat disappointing. Plenty of short running backs have had success, but the lack of ideal height gives Jones less room to fill out. He is a third-year junior coming out.

I don't agree with the above, I look at this as a good thing. I would rather have an RB built solid and low to the ground, also it should be easier to fill out being 2 less inches, JMHO.

 
EBF said:
Stewart is also slightly outside the range. There is only one top 20 type back with a BMI above his (Jamal Lewis - 34.2). The good news is that unlike Dunn and Bush, Lewis is a true workhorse back. Stewart is also within one BMI point of Frank Gore and Ernest Graham. The numbers still suggest that he is too big, but I think a BMI of 33.5 is slightly less worrisome than a BMI or 27.5, although they're both 3 points from the average of 30.5.
Click to expand...
i think the real question with stewart is how fast he runs with the weight. if he's able to clock a good time with the BMI then it bodes well for him at the next level.
 
Comp players based on BMI (the three closest)

Stewart - Gore, Graham, Lewis

Mendenhall - Portis, McGahee, Ronnie, Tomlinson

Hart - Foster, ADP2, Fred Taylor, TJ, KJ

Choice - Barber, Lynch, Parker, ADP2, Foster, Fred Taylor, TJ

Rice - James, Addai, Barber, Lynch, Parker, ADP2, Foster, Fred Taylor

Jones - Grant, Chester, Jackson, James, Addai

Slaton - Peterson, Fargas, Wesbtrook, Grant

Charles - Dunn, Bush, Peterson

McFadden - Dunn, Bush, Peterson

Johnson - Dunn, Bush, Peterson

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dmac37 said:
From Rotoworld:Felix Jones-RB-Player Feb. 23 - 12:55 pm et Arkansas RB Felix Jones measured 5'10/207 at the NFL Combine weigh-in.Jones was listed at 6'0/207 in college, so this is somewhat disappointing. Plenty of short running backs have had success, but the lack of ideal height gives Jones less room to fill out. He is a third-year junior coming out. I don't agree with the above, I look at this as a good thing. I would rather have an RB built solid and low to the ground, also it should be easier to fill out being 2 less inches, JMHO.
Click to expand...
The draft community hasn't really caught on to the idea that height is a negative in RBs. 5'10" 207 is much better than 6'0" 207.
 
saintfool said:
EBF said:
Stewart is also slightly outside the range. There is only one top 20 type back with a BMI above his (Jamal Lewis - 34.2). The good news is that unlike Dunn and Bush, Lewis is a true workhorse back. Stewart is also within one BMI point of Frank Gore and Ernest Graham. The numbers still suggest that he is too big, but I think a BMI of 33.5 is slightly less worrisome than a BMI or 27.5, although they're both 3 points from the average of 30.5.
Click to expand...
i think the real question with stewart is how fast he runs with the weight. if he's able to clock a good time with the BMI then it bodes well for him at the next level.
Click to expand...
I'm still pretty optimistic about him. All this means to me is that he probably projects as more of a power back in the NFL and that he's a slight bust risk. But he does seem to have the quickness needed to survive at the next level, even if he is slightly larger than ideal. I find McFadden's data a little more troubling since the closest guys in terms of BMI are Bush and Dunn. Would you use your 1.01 rookie pick on a player if you knew the RBs he most resembled were Bush and Dunn? And I don't think he's nearly as quick laterally as either of those guys.
 
EBF said:
saintfool said:
EBF said:
Stewart is also slightly outside the range. There is only one top 20 type back with a BMI above his (Jamal Lewis - 34.2). The good news is that unlike Dunn and Bush, Lewis is a true workhorse back. Stewart is also within one BMI point of Frank Gore and Ernest Graham. The numbers still suggest that he is too big, but I think a BMI of 33.5 is slightly less worrisome than a BMI or 27.5, although they're both 3 points from the average of 30.5.
Click to expand...
i think the real question with stewart is how fast he runs with the weight. if he's able to clock a good time with the BMI then it bodes well for him at the next level.
Click to expand...
I'm still pretty optimistic about him. All this means to me is that he probably projects as more of a power back in the NFL and that he's a slight bust risk. But he does seem to have the quickness needed to survive at the next level, even if he is slightly larger than ideal. I find McFadden's data a little more troubling since the closest guys in terms of BMI are Bush and Dunn. Would you use your 1.01 rookie pick on a player if you knew the RBs he most resembled were Bush and Dunn? And I don't think he's nearly as quick laterally as either of those guys.
Click to expand...
this is my dilemma actually. this kind of info has helped me considerably. i was gung ho with mcfadden but as more info is provided i'm hesitant. now, i think i like stewart more than mendenhall or mcfadden. i just hope that stewart's times are competitive.
 
saintfool said:
EBF said:
saintfool said:
EBF said:
Stewart is also slightly outside the range. There is only one top 20 type back with a BMI above his (Jamal Lewis - 34.2). The good news is that unlike Dunn and Bush, Lewis is a true workhorse back. Stewart is also within one BMI point of Frank Gore and Ernest Graham. The numbers still suggest that he is too big, but I think a BMI of 33.5 is slightly less worrisome than a BMI or 27.5, although they're both 3 points from the average of 30.5.
Click to expand...
i think the real question with stewart is how fast he runs with the weight. if he's able to clock a good time with the BMI then it bodes well for him at the next level.
Click to expand...
I'm still pretty optimistic about him. All this means to me is that he probably projects as more of a power back in the NFL and that he's a slight bust risk. But he does seem to have the quickness needed to survive at the next level, even if he is slightly larger than ideal. I find McFadden's data a little more troubling since the closest guys in terms of BMI are Bush and Dunn. Would you use your 1.01 rookie pick on a player if you knew the RBs he most resembled were Bush and Dunn? And I don't think he's nearly as quick laterally as either of those guys.
Click to expand...
this is my dilemma actually. this kind of info has helped me considerably. i was gung ho with mcfadden but as more info is provided i'm hesitant. now, i think i like stewart more than mendenhall or mcfadden. i just hope that stewart's times are competitive.
Click to expand...
Knowing what we know, I think I would have to take either Mendenhall or Stewart above McFadden. I might even take both of them before him. There's still some important data points though. We need to see how they do in their workouts and we need to see who drafts them.
 
EBF said:
I realize that each player in a unique event in history, but I also think it's significant that 90% of the top 30 RBs in the league have a BMI between 28.6 and 33.2.
Click to expand...
You're cherry-picking, which should be obvious given the false precision of your boundaries. What's magical about 28.6 or 33.2? They're just curve-fit to the current population; that doesn't make those numbers useful as predictions. Especially considering how much junk there is in the source data (heights and weights).
 
CalBear said:
EBF said:
I realize that each player in a unique event in history, but I also think it's significant that 90% of the top 30 RBs in the league have a BMI between 28.6 and 33.2.
Click to expand...
You're cherry-picking, which should be obvious given the false precision of your boundaries. What's magical about 28.6 or 33.2? They're just curve-fit to the current population; that doesn't make those numbers useful as predictions. Especially considering how much junk there is in the source data (heights and weights).
Click to expand...
So you disagree that an overwhelming majority of the top 30 RBs in the NFL have BMI scores between 28.6 or 33.2?Expand the boundaries to 28 and 33 and you get the same results. I'm not saying 28.6 and 33.2 are magical numbers. But I do think it's significant that the vast majority of elite NFL RB fall somewhere in this rough range.
 
EBF said:
CalBear said:
EBF said:
I realize that each player in a unique event in history, but I also think it's significant that 90% of the top 30 RBs in the league have a BMI between 28.6 and 33.2.
Click to expand...
You're cherry-picking, which should be obvious given the false precision of your boundaries. What's magical about 28.6 or 33.2? They're just curve-fit to the current population; that doesn't make those numbers useful as predictions. Especially considering how much junk there is in the source data (heights and weights).
Click to expand...
So you disagree that an overwhelming majority of the top 30 RBs in the NFL have BMI scores between 28.6 or 33.2?Expand the boundaries to 28 and 33 and you get the same results. I'm not saying 28.6 and 33.2 are magical numbers. But I do think it's significant that the vast majority of elite NFL RB fall somewhere in this rough range.
Click to expand...
I disagree that the finding is meaningful. First of all, people's BMI changes; some of this population isn't even old enough to drink yet, and all of their bodies will change once they're in NFL training problems. But more fundamentally, you're mapping a correlation and not a causation.
 
CalBear said:
EBF said:
CalBear said:
EBF said:
I realize that each player in a unique event in history, but I also think it's significant that 90% of the top 30 RBs in the league have a BMI between 28.6 and 33.2.
Click to expand...
You're cherry-picking, which should be obvious given the false precision of your boundaries. What's magical about 28.6 or 33.2? They're just curve-fit to the current population; that doesn't make those numbers useful as predictions. Especially considering how much junk there is in the source data (heights and weights).
Click to expand...
So you disagree that an overwhelming majority of the top 30 RBs in the NFL have BMI scores between 28.6 or 33.2?Expand the boundaries to 28 and 33 and you get the same results. I'm not saying 28.6 and 33.2 are magical numbers. But I do think it's significant that the vast majority of elite NFL RB fall somewhere in this rough range.
Click to expand...
I disagree that the finding is meaningful. First of all, people's BMI changes; some of this population isn't even old enough to drink yet, and all of their bodies will change once they're in NFL training problems. But more fundamentally, you're mapping a correlation and not a causation.
Click to expand...
I don't know if I buy the idea that all of their bodies will change. Yea, they might put on a few pounds as they get older, but these guys are coming out of big time college programs. It's not like they aren't already lifting weights. As for the correlation vs. causation thing, if 90% of the successful RBs in the league fit a particular mold then I'm going always going to check to see which RB prospects fit that mold. I generally don't want to be the guy betting my money on the player who has to beat the odds. This is why I harp on draft position, body type, and workout numbers. They are relevant and they can help you predict who has the best chance of success.
 
EBF said:
I don't know if I buy the idea that all of their bodies will change. Yea, they might put on a few pounds as they get older, but these guys are coming out of big time college programs. It's not like they aren't already lifting weights. As for the correlation vs. causation thing, if 90% of the successful RBs in the league fit a particular mold then I'm going always going to check to see which RB prospects fit that mold. I generally don't want to be the guy betting my money on the player who has to beat the odds. This is why I harp on draft position, body type, and workout numbers. They are relevant and they can help you predict who has the best chance of success.
Click to expand...
I don't think you've shown that the odds are better for RBs who have the "correct" size at the combine; among other things, I haven't seen any analysis of the population size. If most of the serious RB prospects at the combine tend to be within the "ideal" parameters, it follows that most of the successful RBs in the NFL will be within those parameters.I also suspect that your analysis of the current NFL RBs is based on their current reported weights and heights, not what was reported at the combine.
 
There is no data that will guarantee success. However I find this data pertinent in evaluating the prospects of an RB. I will certainly throw this into consideration when evaluating a player.

 
CalBear said:
EBF said:
I don't know if I buy the idea that all of their bodies will change. Yea, they might put on a few pounds as they get older, but these guys are coming out of big time college programs. It's not like they aren't already lifting weights. As for the correlation vs. causation thing, if 90% of the successful RBs in the league fit a particular mold then I'm going always going to check to see which RB prospects fit that mold. I generally don't want to be the guy betting my money on the player who has to beat the odds. This is why I harp on draft position, body type, and workout numbers. They are relevant and they can help you predict who has the best chance of success.
Click to expand...
I don't think you've shown that the odds are better for RBs who have the "correct" size at the combine; among other things, I haven't seen any analysis of the population size. If most of the serious RB prospects at the combine tend to be within the "ideal" parameters, it follows that most of the successful RBs in the NFL will be within those parameters.I also suspect that your analysis of the current NFL RBs is based on their current reported weights and heights, not what was reported at the combine.
Click to expand...
I see what you're saying. In order to show that BMI matters you would have to actually show the percentage odds for each BMI. So if you had the following breakdown:BMI between 28-33: 50 players enter the league, 10 succeed - 20% success rateBMI over 33: 10 players enter the league, 2 succeed - 20% success rateBMI under 28: 10 players enter the league, 2 succeed - 20% success rateIn such an example, the odds for each BMI would be identical. The only reason it looks like the ideal BMI range has better odds is because it's a bigger range that includes more players (and thus more success stories). I understand your argument, but I suspect that a thorough investigation of the success percentage for the various BMI range would reveal that certain BMI ranges have a better odds of succeeding. Intuitively, I think there's merit to the idea that stockier RBs do better in the NFL than thin RBs of a similar pedigree. There are plenty of elite athletes outside the ideal BMI range. But these guys tend to play cornerback, linebacker, and wide receiver because their body type pulls them towards the unique demands of those positions. I suspect we will never see an elite NFL RB who is 6'2" and 180 pounds or 5'8" and 270 pounds. Function follows form. The reason marathon runners are all short and slender is because that's what their event demands. The reason NFL running backs are built sturdy is because that's what their event demands. Without having a full data set at my disposal, I believe there's merit to the idea that the ideal BMI for an NFL RB is somewhere between 29-33. This belief is something I will continue to implement when evaluating RB prospects.
 
EBF said:
I see what you're saying. In order to show that BMI matters you would have to actually show the percentage odds for each BMI. So if you had the following breakdown:BMI between 28-33: 50 players enter the league, 10 succeed - 20% success rateBMI over 33: 10 players enter the league, 2 succeed - 20% success rateBMI under 28: 10 players enter the league, 2 succeed - 20% success rateIn such an example, the odds for each BMI would be identical. The only reason it looks like the ideal BMI range has better odds is because it's a bigger range that includes more players (and thus more success stories).
Click to expand...
Right, that's one factor. Another is that combine numbers are not equivalent to team-reported weights and heights; teams are not required to be honest, the measurements are not handled in controlled conditions, and they're measuring people who are older, in some cases many years older than the kids at the combine. If you want to come up with a meaningful measurements, you have to use the original combine numbers for the existing NFL RBs, not their current reported numbers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JohnnyU
[DEVY] 2021 NFL Draft Prospects
2 3
Replies
133
Views
9K
Andy Dufresne
Andy Dufresne
Zyphros
2020 NFL Combine Questions I Have For RB's
Replies
11
Views
1K
JohnnyU
JohnnyU
socrates
Crazy Early Dynasty Rookie PPR Draft Board (2023 Updated Rankings Page 5)
3 4 5
Replies
213
Views
23K
socrates
socrates

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top