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!
BMI - invented in the 1800's, is it helpful or total junk? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter benm3218
- Start date
Weiner Dog
Footballguy
This ain't gonna be pretty.
Hoss_Cartwright
Footballguy
BMI is NOT junk. It is one of many tools to use when evaluating fantasy RBs. It should not be taken as the sole reason for drafting / not drafting a player, and it should not be thrown to the side and ignored either.
EBF
Footballguy
T Bell
Footballguy
EBF,In the other thread , I mentioned other characteristics which were all but glossed over like speed, vision, pad level etc. Here you're quoting a good post that it's one of many tools. Can you elaborate on this please?It did come across like BMI was the be all end all.
Keys Myaths
Pokerguy
You're way too emotional over this.The answer is probably in between. Like others said, it's a useful tool, but shouldn't be used in isolation. Why dismiss something that's not a bad idea to look at? The evidence so far is decent.
what could be improved about it? what "needs work"?
Keys Myaths
Pokerguy
coolnerd
Footballguy
The biggest benefit of BMI is to better describe a player in terms of height/Weight ratio. A lot of short players get tabbed as small even though they carry good bulk and thin tall players labeled as big. It is at best a tool to be used in consideration.
As a predictive tool it is questionable.
1) Accurate measurements. the closest we get are combine results, but this does not account for a guy gaining or losing weight pre-combine or later in his careeer. In other words, because the body changes BMI also changes.
2)Even if you can show that most RBs or WRs are in a certain range of BMI, that alone does not determine the success or failure of a prospect. There are exceptions (most not all) that fall outside of the range due to skill or playing circumstances. Also, this does not account for the numerous prospects who are perfect in this measurement, but lack the other skills to be successful.
As a predictive tool it is questionable.
1) Accurate measurements. the closest we get are combine results, but this does not account for a guy gaining or losing weight pre-combine or later in his careeer. In other words, because the body changes BMI also changes.
2)Even if you can show that most RBs or WRs are in a certain range of BMI, that alone does not determine the success or failure of a prospect. There are exceptions (most not all) that fall outside of the range due to skill or playing circumstances. Also, this does not account for the numerous prospects who are perfect in this measurement, but lack the other skills to be successful.
Last edited by a moderator:
not sure I followElite is a small size, best of the best.you mean a bigger overall group to find the best from?
Keys Myaths
Pokerguy
No.In statistical terms, you need a larger sample size to reduce the standard deviation enough to make it a useful predictive tool.For example, if a researcher was studying how rabid America is about fantasy football, but only happened to interview you and me, he'd get the wrong impression--simply because he only chose 2 people at random, rather than a large enough sampling of the US to get a good cross-section and data set.The problem with the BMI study is that there are simply too few 'elite' RBs to put together a meaningful sample size. That's a problem with this that isn't going to be fixed. Is it completely debunked? No, but it loses a lot of points based off of that--which is why you can't take it as gospel.It is interesting, though.
sholditch
Footballguy
Like our president, I believe that all that makes a good decider is the ability to listen to your gut. Always listen to other arguments and points of view, but ultimately go after the players that you believe are going to make a difference. Otherwise, there's not much point to playing.
Last edited by a moderator:
why use BMI vs % body fat?ORpretending we know what the NFL teams will or won't spend money on, what about some of those tests with MRIs and XRays to determine different things about muscles. There's a wide range, sorry to be vague. All I'm getting at is with all their money why not use some big fancy machines/technology vs such a simple ratio?
I don't know that I care for the combine #s anymore. I used to love reading them and all but now, I like the reactions. I'm sure it sounds odd but that's what I need from the combine. (Can't think of his name) Jets C wowed everyone, OK. Vernon Davis is a terrific athlete, that's good. Chris Johnson is blazing fast, OK. I'm not sure I need a hard # on it anymore like 4.24 or somesuch.
these prospects that I think you're alluding to bug me. I'd rather see a team take a FB(few do and they "always" pan out when they do) or some guy like David Ball that broke Rice's records. I'd rather see past success weighted more heavily than body mass I guess. I would be more OK with "my team" drafting Ball and cutting him, than drafting a 6-4, 220 pound(guess) 4.4 sprinter and cutting him.
EBF
Footballguy
There's more to being a great RB prospect than an ideal BMI. DeAngelo Williams is built a lot like LaDainian Tomlinson, but he isn't as good because he isn't as athletic and his intangibles are probably little worse. I've never said that BMI is everything. I've only said that it's something. My basic thinking is not that every RB prospect with an ideal BMI will succeed, but rather that very few RB prospects with a less than ideal BMI will succeed. A quick look around the NFL reveals a very small number of elite pro backs with sub 29 BMI scores. Is this a supply issue?Doubtful. There are plenty of great athletes in the USA with sub 29 BMIs. Yet you don't see them playing RB in the NFL. This is because the unique demands of the RB position require a unique body type. It's the same reason why all shotputters tend to look similar and why all 1500m runners look similar and why all 400m runners look similar. Function follows form. Different functions require different forms. The functions associated with the RB position seem to require a sturdy build with good leg thickness. I don't believe that speed, vision, and pad level are sufficient for success as an NFL RB. Randy Moss is a great athlete. He's blazing fast with exceptional quickness and burst. He has great coordination and athletic instincts. He's an athletic dynamo. Yet he would almost certainly be a horrific NFL RB. He's tall and gangly. He's weak. He has a high center of gravity. He couldn't run hard or break tackles. He has a lot of the traits you look for in an elite RB prospect, but he doesn't have everything. When I evaluate RB prospects, I look for players who have EVERYTHING. The guys I favor are the guys who have vision, speed, quickness, instincts, and ideal body types. To me LaDainian Tomlinson the gold standard of what you look for in a RB prospect. Name a RB trait and LT has it. Speed? Power? Quickness? Burst? Vision? Instincts? Ideal size? The guy is flawless. That's why he's the best in the league and one of the best RBs to ever play football. Few people will match that standard, but in any given pool of RB talent you want to favor the "most perfect" players. BMI is an important part of the evaluation.EBF,In the other thread , I mentioned other characteristics which were all but glossed over like speed, vision, pad level etc. Here you're quoting a good post that it's one of many tools. Can you elaborate on this please?It did come across like BMI was the be all end all.
Last edited by a moderator:
First, for the sake of this discussion, what's Chris Johnson's BMI?what "other traits" doesn't Chris Johnson have for you to be "down on him" or skeptical of his future success.There's more to being a great RB prospect than an ideal BMI. DeAngelo Williams is built a lot like LaDainian Tomlinson, but he isn't as good because he isn't as athletic and his intangibles are probably little worse. I've never said that BMI is everything. I've only said that it's something. My basic thinking is not that every RB prospect with an ideal BMI will succeed, but rather that very few RB prospects with a less than ideal BMI will succeed. A quick look around the NFL reveals a very small number of elite pro backs with sub 29 BMI scores. Is this a supply issue?Doubtful. There are plenty of great athletes in the USA with sub 29 BMIs. Yet you don't see them playing RB in the NFL. This is because the unique demands of the RB position require a unique body type. It's the same reason why all shotputters tend to look similar and why all 1500m runners look similar and why all 400m runners look similar. Function follows form. Different functions require different forms. The functions associated with the RB position seem to require a sturdy build with good leg thickness. I don't believe that speed, vision, and pad level are sufficient for success as an NFL RB. Randy Moss is a great athlete. He's blazing fast with exceptional quickness and burst. He has great coordination and athletic instincts. He's an athletic dynamo. Yet he would almost certainly be a horrific NFL RB. He's tall and gangly. He's weak. He has a high center of gravity. He couldn't run hard or break tackles. He has a lot of the traits you look for in an elite RB prospect, but he doesn't have everything. When I evaluate RB prospects, I look for players who have EVERYTHING. The guys I favor are the guys who have vision, speed, quickness, instincts, and ideal body types. To me LaDainian Tomlinson the gold standard of what you look for in a RB prospect. Name a RB trait and LT has it. Speed? Power? Quickness? Burst? Vision? Instincts? Ideal size? The guy is flawless. That's why he's the best in the league and one of the best RBs to ever play football. Few people will match that standard, but in any given pool of RB talent you want to favor the "most perfect" players. BMI is an important part of the evaluation.EBF,In the other thread , I mentioned other characteristics which were all but glossed over like speed, vision, pad level etc. Here you're quoting a good post that it's one of many tools. Can you elaborate on this please?It did come across like BMI was the be all end all.
EBF
Footballguy
Johnson's combine BMI was 27.5, which is lower than any top 30 RB in the NFL. The closest guys are Warrick Dunn and Reggie Bush. It's not really accurate to say that I'm down on Chris Johnson. I drafted him in one of my leagues, considered him in several others, and recommended him to other owners who asked me for advice in their dynasty drafts. I like his skills. I just don't envision him becoming a starter in the NFL. People will compare him to other versatile backs like Tiki Barber and Brian Westbrook. Those guys played in RBBC situations at various points in their career, but they eventually became THE RB for their teams. Tiki Barber was THE RB for the Giants. Brian Westbrook is THE RB for the Eagles. I don't see Chris Johnson ever reaching that level unless he adds significant bulk (which seems unlikely). I see him as a pure change of pace back. Somewhere along the lines of Reggie Bush and Charlie Garner if everything works out right. So it's not accurate to say I'm down on him. I think he has a lot of potential, but I don't think he's a starting type NFL RB. He's a hybrid WR/RB. A gadget player. What traits is he missing? He has good leg drive for his size and good balance, but he's built thin. He doesn't have the bulk to grind out tough yards at the pro level. I think he'll struggle to break tackles when people get a good hit on him. He's more of a sprinter than a pounder. I also have a hard time envisioning him surviving a high number of touches. I don't think his body could hold up to the rigors of 20+ touches per game. The two elite pro backs whose BMIs most closely resemble Johnson's, Reggie Bush and Warrick Dunn, have always had to share the rushing pie. I think that will also be the case with Chris.First, for the sake of this discussion, what's Chris Johnson's BMI?what "other traits" doesn't Chris Johnson have for you to be "down on him" or skeptical of his future success.There's more to being a great RB prospect than an ideal BMI. DeAngelo Williams is built a lot like LaDainian Tomlinson, but he isn't as good because he isn't as athletic and his intangibles are probably little worse. I've never said that BMI is everything. I've only said that it's something. My basic thinking is not that every RB prospect with an ideal BMI will succeed, but rather that very few RB prospects with a less than ideal BMI will succeed. A quick look around the NFL reveals a very small number of elite pro backs with sub 29 BMI scores. Is this a supply issue?Doubtful. There are plenty of great athletes in the USA with sub 29 BMIs. Yet you don't see them playing RB in the NFL. This is because the unique demands of the RB position require a unique body type. It's the same reason why all shotputters tend to look similar and why all 1500m runners look similar and why all 400m runners look similar. Function follows form. Different functions require different forms. The functions associated with the RB position seem to require a sturdy build with good leg thickness. I don't believe that speed, vision, and pad level are sufficient for success as an NFL RB. Randy Moss is a great athlete. He's blazing fast with exceptional quickness and burst. He has great coordination and athletic instincts. He's an athletic dynamo. Yet he would almost certainly be a horrific NFL RB. He's tall and gangly. He's weak. He has a high center of gravity. He couldn't run hard or break tackles. He has a lot of the traits you look for in an elite RB prospect, but he doesn't have everything. When I evaluate RB prospects, I look for players who have EVERYTHING. The guys I favor are the guys who have vision, speed, quickness, instincts, and ideal body types. To me LaDainian Tomlinson the gold standard of what you look for in a RB prospect. Name a RB trait and LT has it. Speed? Power? Quickness? Burst? Vision? Instincts? Ideal size? The guy is flawless. That's why he's the best in the league and one of the best RBs to ever play football. Few people will match that standard, but in any given pool of RB talent you want to favor the "most perfect" players. BMI is an important part of the evaluation.EBF,In the other thread , I mentioned other characteristics which were all but glossed over like speed, vision, pad level etc. Here you're quoting a good post that it's one of many tools. Can you elaborate on this please?It did come across like BMI was the be all end all.
Last edited by a moderator:
coolnerd
Footballguy
1) BMI and body fat are not that same thing. the 2nd measures amount of fat in the body and the 1st a ratio of mass contained in a body. there are always new methods developing, some using mechanical technology, some apply concepts in different ways than before. 2) Not sure how your liking to hear that Johnson is fast or Davis is a good athlete relates to the fact that at the combine a player's actual (as of that day) height and weight measurements. Apples and Oranges. 3) Most players in the NFL do fit into a range of athletic players, from large division 1 schools who were highly productive in college. Really good NFL personnel people are the ones better at seeing the frauds who fit the mold and find the gems who do not.
Last edited by a moderator:
EBF
Footballguy
Putting all the quantitative stuff aside, I think you can see a pretty clear qualitative difference when you look at these guys.
Watch these four short combine videos and ask yourself which of these guys are most likely to survive multiple collisions with Ray Lewis:
http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d8073cd8c
http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80738aad
http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80737544
http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d807373de
A video is worth a thousand words. You can see a clear difference in body mass between the two workhorses (Stewart and Mendenhall) and the two scat backs (Johnson and Charles).
Watch these four short combine videos and ask yourself which of these guys are most likely to survive multiple collisions with Ray Lewis:
http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d8073cd8c
http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80738aad
http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80737544
http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d807373de
A video is worth a thousand words. You can see a clear difference in body mass between the two workhorses (Stewart and Mendenhall) and the two scat backs (Johnson and Charles).
Last edited by a moderator:
Weiner Dog
Footballguy
Even though it's probably been posted multiple times over the past few months, I wanted to include Chase Stuart's research on BMI and RB's. I believe it'll really help with the "BMI" discussion.
link:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=489
The extreme range of BMI with the Top-50 RB's in NFL history really caught my eye. Jerome Bettis had a 35+ BMI, while James Brooks had a BMI under 26. Earl Campbell, Emmitt Smith and LT2 were within a few points points of Bettis, while Tony Dorsett, Marcus Allen and Eric Dickerson were within a few points of Brooks. The average BMI of the Top-50 RB's was 29.5. 38% of the Top-50 RB's in NFL history had a BMI 30.0 or higher, while 62% had a BMI obviously lower than 30.0.
Those who use BMI extensively when valuing RB's will probably adhere closely to the BMI average of 29.5. Those who oppose the BMI as a "end all" tool will most likely adhere to the 25.8-36.1 range. Both camps can (...and will) choose their own ammo.
With this year's crop of rookie RB's, one could argue there's more risk with Jonathan Stewart's 32.6 score than Chris Johnson's 27.2. While five of the NFL's Top-50 RB's had a BMI less than CJ's, only two had a BMI higher than Stewart's. I'm just saying...
link:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=489
The extreme range of BMI with the Top-50 RB's in NFL history really caught my eye. Jerome Bettis had a 35+ BMI, while James Brooks had a BMI under 26. Earl Campbell, Emmitt Smith and LT2 were within a few points points of Bettis, while Tony Dorsett, Marcus Allen and Eric Dickerson were within a few points of Brooks. The average BMI of the Top-50 RB's was 29.5. 38% of the Top-50 RB's in NFL history had a BMI 30.0 or higher, while 62% had a BMI obviously lower than 30.0.
Those who use BMI extensively when valuing RB's will probably adhere closely to the BMI average of 29.5. Those who oppose the BMI as a "end all" tool will most likely adhere to the 25.8-36.1 range. Both camps can (...and will) choose their own ammo.
With this year's crop of rookie RB's, one could argue there's more risk with Jonathan Stewart's 32.6 score than Chris Johnson's 27.2. While five of the NFL's Top-50 RB's had a BMI less than CJ's, only two had a BMI higher than Stewart's. I'm just saying...
EBF
Footballguy
If you look at the elite NFL backs of the past 5-6 years (the guys who played at a high level for a long time) you get the following numbers using heights and weights from NFL.com:Jamal Lewis - 34.2Shaun Alexander - 31.8LaDainian Tomlinson - 31.7Clinton Portis - 31.1Marshall Faulk - 30.3Brian Westbrook - 30.1Fred Taylor - 30.1Edgerrin James - 29.8Ahman Green - 29.6Tiki Barber - 29.4As you can see, the range is pretty narrow. Mostly between 29.5-32.0. Here's the BMI info for this year's top rookie backs using actual combine heights and weights:Jonathan Stewart - 33.5Rashard Mendenhall - 32.2Tashard Choice - 30.5Ray Rice - 30.3Ryan Torain - 29.9Felix Jones - 29.6Steve Slaton - 29.0Kevin Smith - 28.5Matt Forte - 28.4Jamaal Charles - 27.9Darren McFadden - 27.7Chris Johnson - 27.5 Jones, Torain, Rice, and Choice are all comfortably within the ideal range. Mendenhall and Stewart are actually slightly oversized, but they're pretty close to some very good modern backs (MJD - 32.6, Gore - 32.9, Lewis - 34.2).
here's thisTiki 5-10 200 28.7 BMIBush 6-0 200 27.1Dunn 5-9 180 26.6Garner 5-10 190 27.3Westbrook 5-8 200 30.4above Chris 5-11 197 27.5I gotta read this again, needed those "to digest" so I figured I'd post em'EBF said:Johnson's combine BMI was 27.5, which is lower than any top 30 RB in the NFL. The closest guys are Warrick Dunn and Reggie Bush. It's not really accurate to say that I'm down on Chris Johnson. I drafted him in one of my leagues, considered him in several others, and recommended him to other owners who asked me for advice in their dynasty drafts. I like his skills. I just don't envision him becoming a starter in the NFL. People will compare him to other versatile backs like Tiki Barber and Brian Westbrook. Those guys played in RBBC situations at various points in their career, but they eventually became THE RB for their teams. Tiki Barber was THE RB for the Giants. Brian Westbrook is THE RB for the Eagles. I don't see Chris Johnson ever reaching that level unless he adds significant bulk (which seems unlikely). I see him as a pure change of pace back. Somewhere along the lines of Reggie Bush and Charlie Garner if everything works out right. So it's not accurate to say I'm down on him. I think he has a lot of potential, but I don't think he's a starting type NFL RB. He's a hybrid WR/RB. A gadget player. What traits is he missing? He has good leg drive for his size and good balance, but he's built thin. He doesn't have the bulk to grind out tough yards at the pro level. I think he'll struggle to break tackles when people get a good hit on him. He's more of a sprinter than a pounder. I also have a hard time envisioning him surviving a high number of touches. I don't think his body could hold up to the rigors of 20+ touches per game. The two elite pro backs whose BMIs most closely resemble Johnson's, Reggie Bush and Warrick Dunn, have always had to share the rushing pie. I think that will also be the case with Chris.Bri said:First, for the sake of this discussion, what's Chris Johnson's BMI?what "other traits" doesn't Chris Johnson have for you to be "down on him" or skeptical of his future success.EBF said:There's more to being a great RB prospect than an ideal BMI. DeAngelo Williams is built a lot like LaDainian Tomlinson, but he isn't as good because he isn't as athletic and his intangibles are probably little worse. I've never said that BMI is everything. I've only said that it's something. My basic thinking is not that every RB prospect with an ideal BMI will succeed, but rather that very few RB prospects with a less than ideal BMI will succeed. A quick look around the NFL reveals a very small number of elite pro backs with sub 29 BMI scores. Is this a supply issue?Doubtful. There are plenty of great athletes in the USA with sub 29 BMIs. Yet you don't see them playing RB in the NFL. This is because the unique demands of the RB position require a unique body type. It's the same reason why all shotputters tend to look similar and why all 1500m runners look similar and why all 400m runners look similar. Function follows form. Different functions require different forms. The functions associated with the RB position seem to require a sturdy build with good leg thickness. I don't believe that speed, vision, and pad level are sufficient for success as an NFL RB. Randy Moss is a great athlete. He's blazing fast with exceptional quickness and burst. He has great coordination and athletic instincts. He's an athletic dynamo. Yet he would almost certainly be a horrific NFL RB. He's tall and gangly. He's weak. He has a high center of gravity. He couldn't run hard or break tackles. He has a lot of the traits you look for in an elite RB prospect, but he doesn't have everything. When I evaluate RB prospects, I look for players who have EVERYTHING. The guys I favor are the guys who have vision, speed, quickness, instincts, and ideal body types. To me LaDainian Tomlinson the gold standard of what you look for in a RB prospect. Name a RB trait and LT has it. Speed? Power? Quickness? Burst? Vision? Instincts? Ideal size? The guy is flawless. That's why he's the best in the league and one of the best RBs to ever play football. Few people will match that standard, but in any given pool of RB talent you want to favor the "most perfect" players. BMI is an important part of the evaluation.Bri said:EBF,In the other thread , I mentioned other characteristics which were all but glossed over like speed, vision, pad level etc. Here you're quoting a good post that it's one of many tools. Can you elaborate on this please?It did come across like BMI was the be all end all.EBF said:Hoss_Cartwright said:
Last edited by a moderator:
EBF
Footballguy
BMI seems like a better indicator of "body thickness" than weight alone, so I use BMI.Regarding the players you listed, it's important to realize that there's a difference between listed size and actual size. People round up and it's pretty common for short players to give themselve an extra inch or two. I know Reggie has a higher BMI than your numbers would indicate and I suspect that the same would be true of Tiki and Dunn if you were able to obtain accurate measurements. Unfortunately, I don't have accurate height/weight info available for any players before the 1999 draft class.
EBF
Footballguy
True, but you're talking about a pretty small sample size and college carries are not the same as NFL carries. Brian Calhoun had 348 carries in his last season at Wisconsin. Chris Perry had 51 carries in a single college game at Michigan. College is a different ball game. What matters is how the various body types perform in the NFL. I don't think a RB with a sub 29 BMI had had 300+ NFL carries in a season in the past decade. It's certainly not common. By and large, the guys who demonstrate the ability to handle a full NFL workload are ideal BMI guys. That doesn't mean every ideal BMI player is going to be Mr. Durability. Obviously that's not the case (Kevin Jones, Fred Taylor, Deuce McAllister).
However, take a look at the above list of recent RBs who achieved sustained elite production. They all had high BMI numbers. The low BMI workhorse RB does not exist in the NFL, which leads me to believe that it might not be possible.
Last edited by a moderator:
EBF
Footballguy
To me the best proof of the importance of BMI for NFL RBs is the fact that very few low BMI RBs have achieved sustained success. Meanwhile there are plenty of low weight guys doing well (MJD, Westbrook, Tiki).
jurb26
Footballguy
It's all relative. If that body type is more capable to withstand the rigors and punishment in the NFL, then by all means it should also be the case in college where the rigors and punishment are less demanding. I think the correlation you are trying to make here is a bit of a reach. There are cons to having more mass just as there are pros.
yeah apparentlyhttp://www.google.com/search?hl=en&pws...art=10&sa=N
chris is 5-11 or 6-0 and 190-200
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Saying a guy won't be an every-down back in the NFL is different than saying he won't be successful. I love his prospects as a gimmick/tweener type guy. He's an insane physical talent.Bri said:
EBF
Footballguy
Like any prospect, he has a floor and a ceiling. I can't say with any certainty where he'll end up in that spectrum of possibilities. I don't have a great read on him since he's such an abnormal player. He could be a dynamic Charlie Garner type or he could be chronically injured. Neither seems unlikely to me. My only firm statement about him is that I don't think he'll ever be a true NFL starting RB.
TheArchitect
Footballguy
EBF said:There's more to being a great RB prospect than an ideal BMI. DeAngelo Williams is built a lot like LaDainian Tomlinson, but he isn't as good because he isn't as athletic and his intangibles are probably little worse. I've never said that BMI is everything. I've only said that it's something. My basic thinking is not that every RB prospect with an ideal BMI will succeed, but rather that very few RB prospects with a less than ideal BMI will succeed. A quick look around the NFL reveals a very small number of elite pro backs with sub 29 BMI scores. Is this a supply issue?Doubtful. There are plenty of great athletes in the USA with sub 29 BMIs. Yet you don't see them playing RB in the NFL. This is because the unique demands of the RB position require a unique body type. It's the same reason why all shotputters tend to look similar and why all 1500m runners look similar and why all 400m runners look similar. Function follows form. Different functions require different forms. The functions associated with the RB position seem to require a sturdy build with good leg thickness. I don't believe that speed, vision, and pad level are sufficient for success as an NFL RB. Randy Moss is a great athlete. He's blazing fast with exceptional quickness and burst. He has great coordination and athletic instincts. He's an athletic dynamo. Yet he would almost certainly be a horrific NFL RB. He's tall and gangly. He's weak. He has a high center of gravity. He couldn't run hard or break tackles. He has a lot of the traits you look for in an elite RB prospect, but he doesn't have everything. When I evaluate RB prospects, I look for players who have EVERYTHING. The guys I favor are the guys who have vision, speed, quickness, instincts, and ideal body types. To me LaDainian Tomlinson the gold standard of what you look for in a RB prospect. Name a RB trait and LT has it. Speed? Power? Quickness? Burst? Vision? Instincts? Ideal size? The guy is flawless. That's why he's the best in the league and one of the best RBs to ever play football. Few people will match that standard, but in any given pool of RB talent you want to favor the "most perfect" players. BMI is an important part of the evaluation.Bri said:EBF,In the other thread , I mentioned other characteristics which were all but glossed over like speed, vision, pad level etc. Here you're quoting a good post that it's one of many tools. Can you elaborate on this please?It did come across like BMI was the be all end all.EBF said:Hoss_Cartwright said:
can you give another "gimmick/tweener type" for discussion(understood it's not the same person as Chris,just to clarify)
EBF
Footballguy
If it's possible for low BMI backs to withstand the rigors of being a workhorse NFL RB then why aren't there any low BMI backs doing it? I don't believe that every RB prospect with an ideal build can handle a full workload over multiple seasons, but I certainly think they have a better chance of doing it than low BMI RB prospects do. The numbers seem to support this conclusion.
Last edited by a moderator:
EBF
Footballguy
This is easy. Most people don't understand how to measure size. We all thought MJD was small. We were wrong. When you look at BMI, you'll quickly realize that MJD is the opposite of small. He's a tank. Fauk and Priest have ideal BMI scores. Tiki was probably pretty close to ideal when he was having his best seasons. Dunn is a tough guy to peg. I don't think he's as tall as the 5'9" he's listed at, but I don't know exactly how short he really is. Either way, he probably has a lower BMI than the rest and that's probably part of the reason why he never really achieved the stud status of the others (despite having a fine career overall). It will be interesting to follow Ray Rice for this reason since he's another "small" back with a high BMI.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
I forget where I finally found this, but IIRC Barber was 5'8" 5/8 at the combine. And the ten pounds he put on after he turned pro nudged him just over what I'm working with as a minimum size for an NFL back.
McFadden will ultimately prove or disprove this whole BMI/min size idea, IMO. He's the ONLY major prospect in 11 years to meet the minimum power requirement (a tweaked version of Barnwell's 40- formula) who does NOT meet what appears to be the minimum size requirement.
It's entirely possible that there is no minimum size requirement and that it's simply very rare for a truly undersized back to have enough power to compete.
And this year's draft class includes a historically strange set of players that will actually help move all of this research along. It's totally possible that I'm wrong, but even if so I'm really looking forward to seeing the answers!
And it's worth noting that I think Chris Johnson could really help a team. I just don't believe he'll be a four-down/all-yardage back in the NFL. Which is what I was trying to find when I started all this.
McFadden will ultimately prove or disprove this whole BMI/min size idea, IMO. He's the ONLY major prospect in 11 years to meet the minimum power requirement (a tweaked version of Barnwell's 40- formula) who does NOT meet what appears to be the minimum size requirement.
It's entirely possible that there is no minimum size requirement and that it's simply very rare for a truly undersized back to have enough power to compete.
And this year's draft class includes a historically strange set of players that will actually help move all of this research along. It's totally possible that I'm wrong, but even if so I'm really looking forward to seeing the answers!
And it's worth noting that I think Chris Johnson could really help a team. I just don't believe he'll be a four-down/all-yardage back in the NFL. Which is what I was trying to find when I started all this.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Peterson
Footballguy
I have been waiting for someone to call this out. BMI is total junk. I don't think certain people have any idea that it is pretty much meaningless.There is a reason they don't use BMI at the combine and they use this fancy little egg like machine.benm3218 said:
jurb26
Footballguy
I doubt that. McFadden was only 20 years old at the time this data for his BMI was collected. He will realistically gain at least 10-15 lbs in the next 2 years IMO.
EBF
Footballguy
FWIW, there's no need to "use BMI at the combine" since all of the information needed to calculate BMI is obtained.
Mr. Peterson
Footballguy
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
If he does then this whole question is unanswered. But I don't believe he will. And the fact that he was listed at 211 at the combine, and is down to 210 currently isn't a good sign for him (if it turns out that size, and not just power, does matter).Felix Jones on the other hand is a fantastic bet to put on at least 8-10 pounds. It's no surprise that he's already up five pounds from his combine weight of 207.
EBF
Footballguy
That may be true for the population as a whole, but I think it's a somewhat different story when you're talking about a group of fine-tuned professional athletes. It's a given that these guys have very low body fat percentages. That being the case, BMI offers a pretty good measure of muscle mass. A guy with a very low body fat and a very high BMI is probably jacked up. A guy with a very low body fat and a relatively low BMI is probably not nearly as muscular. This doesn't seem meaningless to me.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Peterson
Footballguy
EBF
Footballguy
And here's another question for those who think BMI is meaningless:
If BMI is meaningless for RB prospects, then why aren't there any athletes with low BMI scores doing well at RB in the NFL?
There's no shortage of great athletes with low BMI scores. The fact that you don't find these guys in NFL backfields is significant.
If BMI is meaningless for RB prospects, then why aren't there any athletes with low BMI scores doing well at RB in the NFL?
There's no shortage of great athletes with low BMI scores. The fact that you don't find these guys in NFL backfields is significant.
switz
Footballguy
It's not a guarantee, but it is one of the components to look at in evaluating RBs. I don't think EBF ever said McFadden is going to fail, but rather that between a guy like Stewart or McFadden, it's more likely Stewart will be the STUD RB... merely because he has less chance of breaking down, since his BMI is more in line with successful RBs.McFadden could go on to have a great career, but he will be the exception, not the rule.benm3218 said:
