Dynasty Rankings (2 Viewers)

[Tau837]

The reason I feel Spiller will be so successful is that he gets to top speed SO quickly. He will be one of those rare RBs in the league that will only need 180 or so carries to be a 1000 yard rusher. His ypc will be outstanding as he'll be 3-4 yards down the field before defenses can even react to him. And it's not that he's so much faster than even NFL defenders (even though he is). It's that he's so much faster, so suddenly. As with Chris Johnson, if he gets a crease, he'll be gone.

So you are expecting Spiller to average 5.6 ypc? I'll take the under.

Did you miss the "or so"? I think you are confusing "expecting to" and "believing he can". So, yes, I fully believe he has the ability to average 5.6 ypc. For example, as talented as DeAngelo Williams is, he's not as "explosive" as Spiller IMO and he averaged 5.5 ypc in 2008. Granted it's behind a different O-line, but I feel confident enough in Spiller's talents to say he most certainly could hit that ypc.180 carries would be on the low range of what I think he'd need to hit 1000 yards. 180-200 is the range I'd feel comfortable consistently putting him as a 1000 yard guy.Do you disagree? What is your take on Spiller? Rather than simply grabbing a stat from my post and adding nothing to the conversation, why not give your opinion? TIA.

1. No, I didn't miss the "or so". If you really mean 200 carries, then say that... IMO "or so" does not imply up to 20+ more carries (more than 10% more). IMO saying "he will only need 180 or so" followed by "his ypc will be outstanding" does indeed suggest "expecting to" rather than "believing he can".2. Even now, your bolded statement seems to be saying you are confident he will average 5+ ypc for his career. If he is given a heavy workload (e.g., regularly getting 180+ carries), I don't see that happening.3. Given your Deangelo Williams example, perhaps you are just saying that at some point in his career, when the stars align for him, he may have a season where he averages 5.5 ypc on 180+ carries. I agree that possibility exists, though I think it's very unlikely that it will ever happen even once. But from your post I was led to believe you felt it would happen this season and/or throughout his career. No way IMO.4. My take on Spiller in a nutshell is as follows. First, his talent is a bit overrated by many around here. He is a good talent, but IMO to compare him to Chris Johnson or Deangelo Williams is premature... I don't see the same talent there. I'm not saying I predicted those guys would be as great as they have turned out, but that is irrelevant... we know about them now while Spiller is unproven at the NFL level. The fact is, it is very rare for a RB to turn out to be that good. Second, his opportunity is about as poor as it could possibly be. The team has issues with coaching, QB, OL, WR, and defense... and there are two other RBs currently on the roster who have proven they can carry a feature RB load in the NFL. :(Now, is that enough of a contribution to the conversation for you?

 

[doowain]

The reason I feel Spiller will be so successful is that he gets to top speed SO quickly. He will be one of those rare RBs in the league that will only need 180 or so carries to be a 1000 yard rusher. His ypc will be outstanding as he'll be 3-4 yards down the field before defenses can even react to him. And it's not that he's so much faster than even NFL defenders (even though he is). It's that he's so much faster, so suddenly. As with Chris Johnson, if he gets a crease, he'll be gone.

So you are expecting Spiller to average 5.6 ypc? I'll take the under.

Did you miss the "or so"? I think you are confusing "expecting to" and "believing he can". So, yes, I fully believe he has the ability to average 5.6 ypc. For example, as talented as DeAngelo Williams is, he's not as "explosive" as Spiller IMO and he averaged 5.5 ypc in 2008. Granted it's behind a different O-line, but I feel confident enough in Spiller's talents to say he most certainly could hit that ypc.180 carries would be on the low range of what I think he'd need to hit 1000 yards. 180-200 is the range I'd feel comfortable consistently putting him as a 1000 yard guy.Do you disagree? What is your take on Spiller? Rather than simply grabbing a stat from my post and adding nothing to the conversation, why not give your opinion? TIA.

1. No, I didn't miss the "or so". If you really mean 200 carries, then say that... IMO "or so" does not imply up to 20+ more carries (more than 10% more). IMO saying "he will only need 180 or so" followed by "his ypc will be outstanding" does indeed suggest "expecting to" rather than "believing he can".2. Even now, your bolded statement seems to be saying you are confident he will average 5+ ypc for his career. If he is given a heavy workload (e.g., regularly getting 180+ carries), I don't see that happening.3. Given your Deangelo Williams example, perhaps you are just saying that at some point in his career, when the stars align for him, he may have a season where he averages 5.5 ypc on 180+ carries. I agree that possibility exists, though I think it's very unlikely that it will ever happen even once. But from your post I was led to believe you felt it would happen this season and/or throughout his career. No way IMO.4. My take on Spiller in a nutshell is as follows. First, his talent is a bit overrated by many around here. He is a good talent, but IMO to compare him to Chris Johnson or Deangelo Williams is premature... I don't see the same talent there. I'm not saying I predicted those guys would be as great as they have turned out, but that is irrelevant... we know about them now while Spiller is unproven at the NFL level. The fact is, it is very rare for a RB to turn out to be that good. Second, his opportunity is about as poor as it could possibly be. The team has issues with coaching, QB, OL, WR, and defense... and there are two other RBs currently on the roster who have proven they can carry a feature RB load in the NFL. Now, is that enough of a contribution to the conversation for you?

#4 is all that was needed. Thanks for contributing.

 

[gianmarco]

Can we even find one instance where a guy had over 1000 yards with 180 carries or less?

1 Paul Lowe rb 1963 27 4 14 177 1010 5.71 8 180.1

 

[Instinctive]

Can we even find one instance where a guy had over 1000 yards with 180 carries or less?

Who said anything about less than 180? Instead of nitpicking, why not offer up an opinion of your own?

My opinion is this:1000 yards for Spiller on 180 carries is insane. The only guy in the past few years (I'm at 2006 right now as I search) to do close to that is Derrick Ward with 182 carries on the NYG. With another 1000 yard rusher on the team.Spiller's OLine is significantly worse, and he has not one, but two other RBs to split with, and Buffalo won't get to run all that much because they'll be behind so often.Back to 2003 now, still nobody else. I don't plan on goign back an farther, purely because I think I've made my point.There is no way in hell that Spiller goes for 180 and 1000. Probably not on any team (although possible) but definitely not on the team he plays for now.

 

[gianmarco]

If you increase it to 200 carries, you get:

1	Jamaal Charles	rb	2009	23	2	15	190	1120	5.89	7	189.72	Derrick Ward	rb	2008	28	5	16	182	1025	5.63	2	152.93	Gary Brown	rb	1993	24	3	16	195	1002	5.14	6	172.24	James Brooks	rb	1990	32	10	16	195	1004	5.15	5	181.35	Stump Mitchell	rb	1985	26	5	16	183	1006	5.50	7	212.46	Franco Harris	rb	1972	22	1	14	188	1055	5.61	10	189.57	Mercury Morris	rb	1972	25	4	14	190	1000	5.26	12	188.88	Larry Csonka	rb	1971	25	4	14	195	1051	5.39	7	164.49	Paul Lowe	rb	1963	27	4	14	177	1010	5.71	8	180.110	**** Bass	rb	1962	25	3	14	196	1033	5.27	6	177.511	John David Crow	rb	1960	25	3	12	183	1071	5.85	6	207.3

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Should I have said "I THINK he can be one of those rare RBs" instead of "he WILL be one of those rare RBs"? I mean, seriously, it's my OPINION. I'm not saying every year he's going to average ~5.6 ypc, but to say it isn't POSSIBLE given his ridiculous speed/acceleration is just absurd. And, for the record, I don't see his workload past this year being as low as 180 carries anyway. I see him more in the 220-240 range annually.

My prior comments still stand. Of course it's POSSIBLE.....it's just not terribly LIKELY since it has rarely happened. And no, I'm not a Spiller hater.

I hope you aren't agreeing it's possible on the basis that it's possible for anyone to do anything at any given time.For example, IMO it's not as possible for say, Cadillac Williams to average 5.6 as it is Spiller.As unlikely as you say it is for him to do it, my point is, given his skill set, it's more likely that he does it than a vast majority of the league.Again, JMO.

I agree that it is more likely Spiller will average 5.6 ypc than say Caddy Williams. Spiller might even be in the top-5 of all RBs in terms of "likelihood to avg 5.6 ypc on 200+ carries". Regardless, he has a very low likelihood of actually accomplishing that feat.

 

[thatguy]

Can we even find one instance where a guy had over 1000 yards with 180 carries or less?

Napolean Kaufman came pretty close in '96 with 874 yards on 150 carries for 5.8 YPC. When you asked the question, he was the first guy that came to my mind as a possibility as I knew he had a few seasons with very high YPC but less than 200 carries.

 

[thatguy]

Also, I'm sure we can find plenty of instances where players began the season by amassing over 1000 yards on less than 180 carries. I'm sure Chris Johnson did it last season. AP did it his rookie season, amassing 1036 yards in his first 158 carries, but of course it took him having games of 224 and 296 yards respectively to get there. Bottom line is that it is not easy.

 

[GreatLakesMike]

I have to say that all the Spiller or Best talk has me wondering why we anoint Mathews as number 1 just because he is in SD and bulkier... Seems like we thought Moreno was a lock to be successful although not that special, and he is falling very short of what we hoped. I think based on recent years, I'd maybe rather swing for the fences on Best due to situation, then Mathews, then Spiller. And if the Bills trade Lynch before the start of the season then Best/Spiller coin flip then Mathews...

I agree. Matthews reminds me of Forte, good at everything, but not particularly special at anything. That's not to say Matthews won't be a nice back, but when I'm using an early pick on a RB, I want to swing for the fences. Serviceable #2/Flex RB's can be picked up from the waiver or acquired at a decent price through trade. I acquired the 1.01 via trade last year and ended up moving down to the 1.04 so I could pick up a little extra and grab Best. Best has his issues, but he offers the most upside of any RB in this draft IMO. He has a decent enough frame and can run inside. He also cuts on a dime and accelerates quickly. For what it's worth, I do think Matthews is better than Moreno, but I didn't like Moreno coming out of college.

 

[thriftyrocker]

4. My take on Spiller in a nutshell is as follows. First, his talent is a bit overrated by many around here. He is a good talent, but IMO to compare him to Chris Johnson or Deangelo Williams is premature... I don't see the same talent there. I'm not saying I predicted those guys would be as great as they have turned out, but that is irrelevant... we know about them now while Spiller is unproven at the NFL level. The fact is, it is very rare for a RB to turn out to be that good. Second, his opportunity is about as poor as it could possibly be. The team has issues with coaching, QB, OL, WR, and defense... and there are two other RBs currently on the roster who have proven they can carry a feature RB load in the NFL.

Fred Jackson averaged 4.5 YPC in Buffalo last year. As bad as the team may be, they are a cold weather team that will try to run the ball, especially in the fantasy playoffs. It's a team that will build a lot of its offense around Spiller. I understand the situation is not as golden as San Diego and doesn't offer the "Atlanta in 08" aura that Detroit is giving off right now, but I don't see Buffalo as a bad situation for a RB, let alone one that is "as poor as it possibly could be." I don't think Buffalo is any worse a position than some other landing spots that seemed possible in mid-April like Seattle and SF.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

If you increase it to 200 carries, you get:

1	Jamaal Charles	rb	2009	23	2	15	190	1120	5.89	7	189.7Charles is actually an interesting example, because unlike Ward, he did it on a team that people were talking about every bit as badly then as they're talking about Buffalo now.

Not that I think Spiller will do it (it's very, very unlikely), but he's an interesting name that most people hadn't thought of that fits the comparison pretty well.

 

[Glaven]

I have to say that all the Spiller or Best talk has me wondering why we anoint Mathews as number 1 just because he is in SD and bulkier... Seems like we thought Moreno was a lock to be successful although not that special, and he is falling very short of what we hoped. I think based on recent years, I'd maybe rather swing for the fences on Best due to situation, then Mathews, then Spiller. And if the Bills trade Lynch before the start of the season then Best/Spiller coin flip then Mathews...

I agree. Matthews reminds me of Forte, good at everything, but not particularly special at anything. That's not to say Matthews won't be a nice back, but when I'm using an early pick on a RB, I want to swing for the fences. Serviceable #2/Flex RB's can be picked up from the waiver or acquired at a decent price through trade. I acquired the 1.01 via trade last year and ended up moving down to the 1.04 so I could pick up a little extra and grab Best. Best has his issues, but he offers the most upside of any RB in this draft IMO. He has a decent enough frame and can run inside. He also cuts on a dime and accelerates quickly. For what it's worth, I do think Matthews is better than Moreno, but I didn't like Moreno coming out of college.

Mathews has burst, acceleration, and speed that Forte could only dream of having. I think people are sleeping on Mathews upside is this thread, probably because he is not as sexy of a fantasy prospect as Best or Spiller as small/fast RBs seem to be all the rage this year. Mathews has the skills to get 1200 rushing yards for the next 5+ years. And he may have seasons where he goes for over 1500+ rushing yards. A player who can give you that kind of consistency every year are the epitome of a stud. With the amount of carries Best and Spiller will be getting, they will need close to a 5.0 yards per carry every single season to get those kind of rushing yards, and to get a yards per carry that high every year is extremely difficult.And although Mathews probably won't get as many receptions as Best or Spiller, his head coach has already gone out and said he wants to get Mathews 40 receptions. If Mathews can even get 30+ receptions for the next 5+ years, it will be nearly impossible for Best or Spiller to outproduce him over that stretch barring a Mathews injury.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Matthews is an interesting case because prior to the draft this board was raving about him. It's like now that he ended up in a good situation people are going back and applying this "mediocre talent in a good situation" label to him as an excuse for why he's going 1.01 in most drafts.

Matthews was neck and neck with Spiller for the #1 rookie RB ranking even before the draft. And that was with some people voting with PPR in mind too. But now people are acting like Matthews was the consensus #3 RB before the draft and he only jumped up because of where he landed. That's just not true.

 

[PranksterJD]

I have to say that all the Spiller or Best talk has me wondering why we anoint Mathews as number 1 just because he is in SD and bulkier... Seems like we thought Moreno was a lock to be successful although not that special, and he is falling very short of what we hoped. I think based on recent years, I'd maybe rather swing for the fences on Best due to situation, then Mathews, then Spiller. And if the Bills trade Lynch before the start of the season then Best/Spiller coin flip then Mathews...

I agree. Matthews reminds me of Forte, good at everything, but not particularly special at anything. That's not to say Matthews won't be a nice back, but when I'm using an early pick on a RB, I want to swing for the fences. Serviceable #2/Flex RB's can be picked up from the waiver or acquired at a decent price through trade. I acquired the 1.01 via trade last year and ended up moving down to the 1.04 so I could pick up a little extra and grab Best. Best has his issues, but he offers the most upside of any RB in this draft IMO. He has a decent enough frame and can run inside. He also cuts on a dime and accelerates quickly. For what it's worth, I do think Matthews is better than Moreno, but I didn't like Moreno coming out of college.

Mathews has burst, acceleration, and speed that Forte could only dream of having. I think people are sleeping on Mathews upside is this thread, probably because he is not as sexy of a fantasy prospect as Best or Spiller as small/fast RBs seem to be all the rage this year. Mathews has the skills to get 1200 rushing yards for the next 5+ years. And he may have seasons where he goes for over 1500+ rushing yards. A player who can give you that kind of consistency every year are the epitome of a stud. With the amount of carries Best and Spiller will be getting, they will need close to a 5.0 yards per carry every single season to get those kind of rushing yards, and to get a yards per carry that high every year is extremely difficult.And although Mathews probably won't get as many receptions as Best or Spiller, his head coach has already gone out and said he wants to get Mathews 40 receptions. If Mathews can even get 30+ receptions for the next 5+ years, it will be nearly impossible for Best or Spiller to outproduce him over that stretch barring a Mathews injury.

This has been pretty interesting to me. Best and Spiller are getting the accolades in fantasy forums, but as soon as the Chargers drafted him, Mathews became the almost unanimous #1 non-PPR fantasy running back by fantasy experts. There is virtually no debate, he just **is**.As a guy who relies on scouting reports and doesn't watch much college football, it is really rather weird to me. Every other year seems to have some vocal contingency that is against the general opinion. Knowshon vs. Wells. McFadden vs. Stewart vs. Mendenhall. Even Peterson had some dissenters in favor of Lynch. Everyone just seems content to label Mathews as the king of this class and move along to 2nd place.I refuse to believe that Mathews is getting this kind of love because of his situation, especially since he had lots of love before he went to San Diego... but why is it so easily accepted that he's head-and-shoulders above the others? Is his bust potential just **that** much lower than Best or Spiller?

 

[gianmarco]

I have to say that all the Spiller or Best talk has me wondering why we anoint Mathews as number 1 just because he is in SD and bulkier...

Seems like we thought Moreno was a lock to be successful although not that special, and he is falling very short of what we hoped.

I think based on recent years, I'd maybe rather swing for the fences on Best due to situation, then Mathews, then Spiller.

And if the Bills trade Lynch before the start of the season then Best/Spiller coin flip then Mathews...

I agree. Matthews reminds me of Forte, good at everything, but not particularly special at anything. That's not to say Matthews won't be a nice back, but when I'm using an early pick on a RB, I want to swing for the fences. Serviceable #2/Flex RB's can be picked up from the waiver or acquired at a decent price through trade. I acquired the 1.01 via trade last year and ended up moving down to the 1.04 so I could pick up a little extra and grab Best. Best has his issues, but he offers the most upside of any RB in this draft IMO. He has a decent enough frame and can run inside. He also cuts on a dime and accelerates quickly. For what it's worth, I do think Matthews is better than Moreno, but I didn't like Moreno coming out of college.

Mathews has burst, acceleration, and speed that Forte could only dream of having. I think people are sleeping on Mathews upside is this thread, probably because he is not as sexy of a fantasy prospect as Best or Spiller as small/fast RBs seem to be all the rage this year. Mathews has the skills to get 1200 rushing yards for the next 5+ years. And he may have seasons where he goes for over 1500+ rushing yards. A player who can give you that kind of consistency every year are the epitome of a stud. With the amount of carries Best and Spiller will be getting, they will need close to a 5.0 yards per carry every single season to get those kind of rushing yards, and to get a yards per carry that high every year is extremely difficult.

And although Mathews probably won't get as many receptions as Best or Spiller, his head coach has already gone out and said he wants to get Mathews 40 receptions. If Mathews can even get 30+ receptions for the next 5+ years, it will be nearly impossible for Best or Spiller to outproduce him over that stretch barring a Mathews injury.

Ryan Mathews -- 4.53 40 time, 36 inch vertical, 10'1" broad jump

Matt Forte -- 4.46 40 time, 33 inch vertical, 9'10" broad jump

Based on those numbers, not only does Forte have the speed, but Mathews doesn't significantly beat him in any category. Not saying Mathews won't be better, but that statement makes it sound like physically they aren't close when they are pretty comparable.

As for the amount of carries that Spiller or Best will be getting, are you talking about this year or beyond? If you think Spiller's carries will be limited for his entire career, particularly because of either Lynch or FJax, then I think you are most definitely mistaken. The same is likely true for Best although how Kevin Smith factors in remains to be seen. Either way, I'm not convinced that Mathews will have significantly more touches than Spiller throughout their careers.

 

[moderated]

I have to say that all the Spiller or Best talk has me wondering why we anoint Mathews as number 1 just because he is in SD and bulkier... Seems like we thought Moreno was a lock to be successful although not that special, and he is falling very short of what we hoped. I think based on recent years, I'd maybe rather swing for the fences on Best due to situation, then Mathews, then Spiller. And if the Bills trade Lynch before the start of the season then Best/Spiller coin flip then Mathews...

I agree. Matthews reminds me of Forte, good at everything, but not particularly special at anything. That's not to say Matthews won't be a nice back, but when I'm using an early pick on a RB, I want to swing for the fences. Serviceable #2/Flex RB's can be picked up from the waiver or acquired at a decent price through trade. I acquired the 1.01 via trade last year and ended up moving down to the 1.04 so I could pick up a little extra and grab Best. Best has his issues, but he offers the most upside of any RB in this draft IMO. He has a decent enough frame and can run inside. He also cuts on a dime and accelerates quickly. For what it's worth, I do think Matthews is better than Moreno, but I didn't like Moreno coming out of college.

Mathews has burst, acceleration, and speed that Forte could only dream of having. I think people are sleeping on Mathews upside is this thread, probably because he is not as sexy of a fantasy prospect as Best or Spiller as small/fast RBs seem to be all the rage this year. Mathews has the skills to get 1200 rushing yards for the next 5+ years. And he may have seasons where he goes for over 1500+ rushing yards. A player who can give you that kind of consistency every year are the epitome of a stud. With the amount of carries Best and Spiller will be getting, they will need close to a 5.0 yards per carry every single season to get those kind of rushing yards, and to get a yards per carry that high every year is extremely difficult.And although Mathews probably won't get as many receptions as Best or Spiller, his head coach has already gone out and said he wants to get Mathews 40 receptions. If Mathews can even get 30+ receptions for the next 5+ years, it will be nearly impossible for Best or Spiller to outproduce him over that stretch barring a Mathews injury.

This has been pretty interesting to me. Best and Spiller are getting the accolades in fantasy forums, but as soon as the Chargers drafted him, Mathews became the almost unanimous #1 non-PPR fantasy running back by fantasy experts. There is virtually no debate, he just **is**.As a guy who relies on scouting reports and doesn't watch much college football, it is really rather weird to me. Every other year seems to have some vocal contingency that is against the general opinion. Knowshon vs. Wells. McFadden vs. Stewart vs. Mendenhall. Even Peterson had some dissenters in favor of Lynch. Everyone just seems content to label Mathews as the king of this class and move along to 2nd place.I refuse to believe that Mathews is getting this kind of love because of his situation, especially since he had lots of love before he went to San Diego... but why is it so easily accepted that he's head-and-shoulders above the others? Is his bust potential just **that** much lower than Best or Spiller?

A big part of FF is TD's, and neither Spiller or Best will be getting goal-line carries. Their skill sets don't translate to being used in short-yardage situations.

 

[Glaven]

I'm curious if that 4.27 or 4.28 was indeed accurate, what would Spiller's speed score be and would that change your opinion of him?

at 195 lbs and 4.27 = 117.3at 195 lbs and 4.28 = 116.2

Spiller's best asset is his instant-on acceleration. Couple that with his top end speed, and we will be seeing some eye-popping big plays from him.

And Spiller certainly carries more weight in his thighs than Best, it is obvious. I'm not saying this to promote Spiller at the expense of Best, they are similar prospects in terms of their possible NFL impact, imo. I like Best's situation more, but Spiller can do some things that few RBs can.... Spiller is underrated on this message board.

This.The reason I feel Spiller will be so successful is that he gets to top speed SO quickly.

Ditto, and that's one big difference between him and Best to me.I really don't like Best as a prospect for two major reasons that just compound when combined with each other. Firstly, I'm not impressed with his acceleration. It always looks like he's struggling to get up to top speed whereas Spiller looks like he's at top speed after a step or two, kind of like Percy Harvin.

Secondly, Best slows down *a lot* when he cuts, many times almost coming to a dead stop. Combine this with (what I perceive as) his poor acceleration, and it's a deadly combo.

I also see something completely different than EBF and co when looking at the same thing (body motion/fluidity). One of the first things that I noticed when watching Best is that his cuts look sloppy to me, like he's struggling not to fall over.

Lastly, Best gets slowed down by attempted arm tackles way too much. Players rip off big runs in the NFL not because they can break arm tackles, but because they can coast through arm tacklers bouncing off their thighs without losing any forward momentum.

I really dislike Best as a prospect. In my mind, he's more of a sure-thing to bust than any of the top 5 rookie runners this year, and the only guy I've been more convinced would be a bust in recent memory is McFadden. Of course, that probably means he's a future HOFer

I completely disagree with a lot of this post. When I watch Jahvid Best play, I don't see a player who struggles to get to top speed; I see a player who gets to top speed almost immediately. Also, by watching this highlight clip alone, you see many examples of Best running through arm tackles and not losing speed at all. And I most definitely disagree that Best stops when he cuts, I think that's a better description of Spiller when he cuts. When you see Spiller make a lateral cut, he usually does a jump from his right to his left (for example). This jumps causes him to lose all the momentum he had, which obviously slows him down. Jahvid Best on the other hand usually just puts one foot in the ground and is able to make his cut. Of all the players in this entire 2010 draft, Jahvid Best is the player that loses speed the least when he makes his cuts imo.

Although Spiller has good acceleration, the problem I see Spiller having is I don't think he has the skills necessary to use his acceleration to his advantage in the NFL, specifically for running the ball. He doesn't have many examples of running between the tackles for big gains in college, and he has even fewer where he runs between the tackles and he has to make cuts. I can probably count all of those examples on one hand despite him having over 600 carries in college. This makes me believe that Spiller's vision is below average, or that his cuts slow him down too much that it prevents him from getting big gains while running between the tackles. Although he will likely be able to get some big gains in the NFL by running straight to the outside or bouncing outside, a RB won't be able to rely on that in the NFL like they were able to in college.

One worry I have for both Jahvid Best and CJ Spiller is that they almost NEVER put their head down, run into a defender to fight for an extra few yards. Other small RBs (Chris Johnson, Jamaal Charles) did this at a much higher rate in college than Jahvid Best and CJ Spiller did. This makes it possible that Best and Spiller may struggle with short yardage carries, and most importantly from a fantasy perspective, goal line carries.

 

[gianmarco]

Matthews is an interesting case because prior to the draft this board was raving about him. It's like now that he ended up in a good situation people are going back and applying this "mediocre talent in a good situation" label to him as an excuse for why he's going 1.01 in most drafts.

Matthews was neck and neck with Spiller for the #1 rookie RB ranking even before the draft. And that was with some people voting with PPR in mind too. But now people are acting like Matthews was the consensus #3 RB before the draft and he only jumped up because of where he landed. That's just not true.

I don't see that as neck and neck at all. It's relatively close, yeah, but Spiller was the #1 guy per the majority. The funny thing that happened is the draft took place and not only did he overtake Spiller, now it's not even a consideration for the vast majority. Mathews is CLEARLY the #1 RB (for most) and then it's a debate as to who is #2. I think that's a mistake and I've said as much on more than one occasion. Buffalo RBs have fared better than SD RBs over the last 2 years, SD's O-line simply isn't as good as many people think, and FJax/Lynch aren't nearly the obstacle that many think. If Spiller is as good as some think he is, which is essentially what you need to be anyway to be a top RB, then it's just a matter of time until he TAKES the majority of the carries away from FJax/Lynch. Those 2 are only a short-term obstacle. And given how well FJax was able to run behind that "terrible" Buffalo O-line, then I just don't get why it should hold back Spiller so much. As pointed out above, look at what Charles was able to do behind a similarly bad KC O-line. If the talent is there, it will shine through the vast majority of the time.

I like Mathews

I like Spiller

I like Best

I think all 3 guys have the potential to do quite well. I just don't see their draft spots as a legitimate reason to go from having a pretty close tie to becoming an uncontested #1 guy, especially given how poorly RB's have performed behind that line the last 2 years. I also don't think Mathews upside is nearly as high as Spiller's. I think Best has pretty similar upside to Spiller and more than Mathews.

 

[Glaven]

I have to say that all the Spiller or Best talk has me wondering why we anoint Mathews as number 1 just because he is in SD and bulkier...

Seems like we thought Moreno was a lock to be successful although not that special, and he is falling very short of what we hoped.

I think based on recent years, I'd maybe rather swing for the fences on Best due to situation, then Mathews, then Spiller.

And if the Bills trade Lynch before the start of the season then Best/Spiller coin flip then Mathews...

I agree. Matthews reminds me of Forte, good at everything, but not particularly special at anything. That's not to say Matthews won't be a nice back, but when I'm using an early pick on a RB, I want to swing for the fences. Serviceable #2/Flex RB's can be picked up from the waiver or acquired at a decent price through trade. I acquired the 1.01 via trade last year and ended up moving down to the 1.04 so I could pick up a little extra and grab Best. Best has his issues, but he offers the most upside of any RB in this draft IMO. He has a decent enough frame and can run inside. He also cuts on a dime and accelerates quickly. For what it's worth, I do think Matthews is better than Moreno, but I didn't like Moreno coming out of college.

Mathews has burst, acceleration, and speed that Forte could only dream of having. I think people are sleeping on Mathews upside is this thread, probably because he is not as sexy of a fantasy prospect as Best or Spiller as small/fast RBs seem to be all the rage this year. Mathews has the skills to get 1200 rushing yards for the next 5+ years. And he may have seasons where he goes for over 1500+ rushing yards. A player who can give you that kind of consistency every year are the epitome of a stud. With the amount of carries Best and Spiller will be getting, they will need close to a 5.0 yards per carry every single season to get those kind of rushing yards, and to get a yards per carry that high every year is extremely difficult.

And although Mathews probably won't get as many receptions as Best or Spiller, his head coach has already gone out and said he wants to get Mathews 40 receptions. If Mathews can even get 30+ receptions for the next 5+ years, it will be nearly impossible for Best or Spiller to outproduce him over that stretch barring a Mathews injury.

Ryan Mathews -- 4.53 40 time, 36 inch vertical, 10'1" broad jump

Matt Forte -- 4.46 40 time, 33 inch vertical, 9'10" broad jump

Based on those numbers, not only does Forte have the speed, but Mathews doesn't significantly beat him in any category. Not saying Mathews won't be better, but that statement makes it sound like physically they aren't close when they are pretty comparable.

As for the amount of carries that Spiller or Best will be getting, are you talking about this year or beyond? If you think Spiller's carries will be limited for his entire career, particularly because of either Lynch or FJax, then I think you are most definitely mistaken. The same is likely true for Best although how Kevin Smith factors in remains to be seen. Either way, I'm not convinced that Mathews will have significantly more touches than Spiller throughout their careers.

NFL.com has Ryan Mathews' 40 time listed as 4.45, not 4.53. Having said that, personally I almost completely ignore the combine in regards to my impression on a player. How fast a guy is when they are in under armor clothing that is so tight they are practically nude doesn't tell me how fast a player will be in an actual game. If they made the runners put pads on and disallowed them from putting their hand on the ground, then maybe how fast a player runs a 40 will mean something. If you watch Forte and Mathews play, Mathews shows much more game speed than Forte does. When you watch Forte highlights he displays some of the worst acceleration of any starting RB in the league. Mathews on the other hand is flying as soon as he puts his hands on the ball.

In regard to Best and Spiller, I was referring to this year and beyond. Mathews will be a player who will get 250+ carries every single year. Spiller and Best will likely only reach that number 1-3 times in their entire career if that. In CJ Spiller's case, once Marshawn Lynch and Fred Jackson are gone they will be replaced by some other running back who will take carries away from Spiller. I just don't think Spiller has the skills to be a lead back, I think he will always be the "lightning" part of a RBBC in the NFL. Although I think Jahvid Best has the skills to be a lead back, his size will likely limit the amount of carries he will get. If absolutely everything goes right for Best, I see him getting between 200-240 carries a season for the forseeable future. Ryan Mathews on the other hand will likely be getting 250-300+ carries every season.

So if you exclude kick/punt returns from "touches" (seeing as they have no FF value except for return yardage leagues), over the next 5-7 years I think Mathews will have hundreds more touches than either Spiller or Best over that time frame.

 

[TitansFan10]

If you increase it to 200 carries, you get:

1	Jamaal Charles	rb	2009	23	2	15	190	1120	5.89	7	189.72	Derrick Ward	rb	2008	28	5	16	182	1025	5.63	2	152.93	Gary Brown	rb	1993	24	3	16	195	1002	5.14	6	172.24	James Brooks	rb	1990	32	10	16	195	1004	5.15	5	181.35	Stump Mitchell	rb	1985	26	5	16	183	1006	5.50	7	212.46	Franco Harris	rb	1972	22	1	14	188	1055	5.61	10	189.57	Mercury Morris	rb	1972	25	4	14	190	1000	5.26	12	188.88	Larry Csonka	rb	1971	25	4	14	195	1051	5.39	7	164.49	Paul Lowe	rb	1963	27	4	14	177	1010	5.71	8	180.110	**** Bass	rb	1962	25	3	14	196	1033	5.27	6	177.511	John David Crow	rb	1960	25	3	12	183	1071	5.85	6	207.3

Gary Brown?!?!?!1111!!Stumpy Mitchell????!?!!!??John David Crow???!!!!??!?!?!?!?Spiller can ONLY DREAMMMMMMMMMM of being as great as those guys were! Why I remember the time Stumpy took it to the house and I said, Golldarnit he's gonna gonna win me my darn championship!

 

[bonesman]

This is something that's supported by the facts. Shorter + heavier = more compact. Pretty simple.

OVERLY simple when discussing something as complex and dynamic as the human physique, IMO.

Best looks "top heavy" with his weight where as Spiller seems to be more evenly distributed.... particularly in the lower body, where I would guess is most important for a running back.

I looked up "compact" in the thesaurus and got results like: dense, solid, thick.

Sometimes words have different meanings... I think Best best fits the "short, brief" definition of compact (with synonymous such as "marrowy"; for those bony legs )... however the CONDENSED version of compact more fits Spiller, IMO.

... based solely on physique.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

A big part of FF is TD's, and neither Spiller or Best will be getting goal-line carries. Their skill sets don't translate to being used in short-yardage situations.

People didn't think CJ would get goalline carries either.

 

[EBF]

I'm surprised that people are so down on Mathews. I think he's an easy choice as the RB1 in most formats, not because he's the best talent with the most upside, but because he's the least likely to disappoint and the most likely to become an instant starter (especially in non-PPR).

The comparisons to Forte and Moreno are very pessimistic. Unlike Forte, Mathews was a top 15 pick, suggesting that at least one NFL team viewed him as an elite talent (and the fact that they traded up to get him means they didn't think he would fall much further). I think his speed is comparable to Forte's. Good, but not amazing. What sets him apart is actually his initial burst and power. He trumps Forte in the vertical jump and broad jump. Perhaps more significantly, he's the same weight despite being two inches shorter.

As for Moreno, he's similar to Mathews in the sense that both were top 15 picks, but he's different in the sense that he lacks the conventional athleticism of a first round RB prospect. He's very slow for his weight. He didn't put up particularly impressive numbers in the combine drills that I emphasize. He's a college overachiever who lacks the special physical traits to stand out in the NFL. I would actually argue that he's a worst case scenario for Mathews. If anything, this just illustrates why Mathews is such a solid pick because Moreno had a pretty poor rookie year and yet his trade value has only dipped very slightly.

I recommend Mathews over Best/Spiller/Tate/Hardesty for the same reason that I recommended Mendenhall over McFadden/Felix/CJ/Rice/Charles. A 220+ pound workhorse back with 4.4 speed, a first round pedigree, great production, and an ideal NFL situation is highly unlikely to bust. Some of the other backs in this draft might have more upside, but none of them represent such a no-brainer lock for good-to-great production. Unless he gets injured, Mathews will most likely finish as a top 15 RB this season and maintain elite trade value over the next 12 months. You can't ask for much more than that from a rookie pick.

 

[EBF]

I'm curious if that 4.27 or 4.28 was indeed accurate, what would Spiller's speed score be and would that change your opinion of him?

at 195 lbs and 4.27 = 117.3at 195 lbs and 4.28 = 116.2

Spiller's best asset is his instant-on acceleration. Couple that with his top end speed, and we will be seeing some eye-popping big plays from him.

And Spiller certainly carries more weight in his thighs than Best, it is obvious. I'm not saying this to promote Spiller at the expense of Best, they are similar prospects in terms of their possible NFL impact, imo. I like Best's situation more, but Spiller can do some things that few RBs can.... Spiller is underrated on this message board.

This.The reason I feel Spiller will be so successful is that he gets to top speed SO quickly.

Ditto, and that's one big difference between him and Best to me.I really don't like Best as a prospect for two major reasons that just compound when combined with each other. Firstly, I'm not impressed with his acceleration. It always looks like he's struggling to get up to top speed whereas Spiller looks like he's at top speed after a step or two, kind of like Percy Harvin.

Secondly, Best slows down *a lot* when he cuts, many times almost coming to a dead stop. Combine this with (what I perceive as) his poor acceleration, and it's a deadly combo.

I also see something completely different than EBF and co when looking at the same thing (body motion/fluidity). One of the first things that I noticed when watching Best is that his cuts look sloppy to me, like he's struggling not to fall over.

Lastly, Best gets slowed down by attempted arm tackles way too much. Players rip off big runs in the NFL not because they can break arm tackles, but because they can coast through arm tacklers bouncing off their thighs without losing any forward momentum.

I really dislike Best as a prospect. In my mind, he's more of a sure-thing to bust than any of the top 5 rookie runners this year, and the only guy I've been more convinced would be a bust in recent memory is McFadden. Of course, that probably means he's a future HOFer

Yea, we definitely see something different here. Best made a late surge up my board, but even before I became convinced about his prospects, I was willing to acknowledge that he had the best cutting skills of any RB in this draft. The only other guy in this class with comparable skills in this department was Noel Devine, and he opted to return to college. You might be right in noting that he sometimes comes to a complete stop when he makes a cut, but I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. In fact, the ability to instantly gear down can be an asset if used properly because it can cause defenders to miss tackles if it allows you to "not be" where they expected you to be when they lunged/dove. I've seen Best make a lot of tacklers look silly precisely because he can stop instantly.

Anyhow, one of the things I've been trying to emphasize in my pro Best posts is the fact that his value is largely tied to the passing game and the PPR format. While I think he's going to be an effective rusher who adds a dynamic element for Detroit, I also think that part of what separates him from the typical RB prospect is his immense potential in the passing game. He might be the best receiving back I have seen since I started following the draft.

Watch this video from 4:37 on. In addition to seeing some of his elite cutting skills on display, you will also see numerous examples of him making plays in the passing game. And they're not all simple fly patterns or screen passes.

If you read between the lines of the comments Jim Schwartz has made, it's pretty clear that he plans to use Best as a versatile, dynamic weapon who can make an impact in a wide variety of ways. I think that warrants a lot of excitement for those of us who play in PPR leagues. I've had Reggie Bush in one of my PPR dynasty leagues since his rookie season. Even though he has been a tremendous disappointment running the football, he still gave me two seasons of elite PPG production because he was catching so many passes. If you figure that Best will be used similarly and will most likely be more effective in the rushing game (it would be hard to be worse), you start to realize that he could be pretty special in the PPR format.

As for Spiller, he definitely has better game speed than Best. His "pull away" speed places him among the very elite that I've seen in this department: Ted Ginn, Chris Johnson, and Darren McFadden. I do think he has the potential to be a pretty effective weapon, but I value the skills that Best and Mathews offer more highly and I think they're easier projections.

 

[moderated]

You might be right in noting that he sometimes comes to a complete stop when he makes a cut, but I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. In fact, the ability to instantly gear down can be an asset if used properly because it can cause defenders to miss tackles if it allows you to "not be" where they expected you to be when they lunged/dove. I've seen Best make a lot of tacklers look silly precisely because he can stop instantly.

i agree for the most part with your take on Best, but he takes some big hits from very weird angles with his side to side juke/stop running style. He doesn't seem to be a very efficient runner due to his juking just for the sake of juking style that he sometimes displays.The one thing nice about Spiller is that he makes his cut and then goes, there isn't much wasted movements.I'm a fan of both of them but i worry about Best's health a lot more due to the kind of hits he takes with the jittery running style he has.

 

[GreatLakesMike]

I'm surprised that people are so down on Mathews. I think he's an easy choice as the RB1 in most formats, not because he's the best talent with the most upside, but because he's the least likely to disappoint and the most likely to become an instant starter (especially in non-PPR). The comparisons to Forte and Moreno are very pessimistic. Unlike Forte, Mathews was a top 15 pick, suggesting that at least one NFL team viewed him as an elite talent (and the fact that they traded up to get him means they didn't think he would fall much further). I think his speed is comparable to Forte's. Good, but not amazing. What sets him apart is actually his initial burst and power. He trumps Forte in the vertical jump and broad jump. Perhaps more significantly, he's the same weight despite being two inches shorter. As for Moreno, he's similar to Mathews in the sense that both were top 15 picks, but he's different in the sense that he lacks the conventional athleticism of a first round RB prospect. He's very slow for his weight. He didn't put up particularly impressive numbers in the combine drills that I emphasize. He's a college overachiever who lacks the special physical traits to stand out in the NFL. I would actually argue that he's a worst case scenario for Mathews. If anything, this just illustrates why Mathews is such a solid pick because Moreno had a pretty poor rookie year and yet his trade value has only dipped very slightly. I recommend Mathews over Best/Spiller/Tate/Hardesty for the same reason that I recommended Mendenhall over McFadden/Felix/CJ/Rice/Charles. A 220+ pound workhorse back with 4.4 speed, a first round pedigree, great production, and an ideal NFL situation is highly unlikely to bust. Some of the other backs in this draft might have more upside, but none of them represent such a no-brainer lock for good-to-great production. Unless he gets injured, Mathews will most likely finish as a top 15 RB this season and maintain elite trade value over the next 12 months. You can't ask for much more than that from a rookie pick.

Ok, to clear up a few things, because I think people are running with my Forte comparison. I think Forte is a good RB, but not a special RB. I feel the same way about Matthews and Mendenhall, and many other RB's. I'm not down on Matthews and understand why Matthews is the consensus #1 pick. My comment wasn't meant to be a ### for tat, just a general comparison. I was simply responding to a post concerning the idea of trading down. I like Best #1 overall, and I've explained my reasons why. The only guy I'd have issues drafting in the top 4 is Spiller.Some people like to swing for the fences, others don't. I do think there's a time and place for both, and drafting early in a rookie draft is a time to take chances .... without getting crazy of course.

 

[Lash]

i also want to clarify my Spiller > Best into saying it would be Spiller = Best if not for the concussionsi'd just about rather Best had an ACL in his past than the severe concussionsso the poster above who posted this about Best as a quality:

I would rather have a guy who is agile and shifty and can make people miss because I think that player is less likely to get hurt (since they avoid hard hits)

obviously he hasn't been able to avoid themand i have seen some devastating cuts from Spiller too, i think they both will be fine in that areaof course if Buffalo doesn't get a QB none of my opinion of him will matter and he could be a top5 talent that will be labeled a bust because he won't produce

 

[EBF]

Some people like to swing for the fences, others don't. I do think there's a time and place for both, and drafting early in a rookie draft is a time to take chances .... without getting crazy of course.

I don't agree with this. If anything, the early portion of a draft is where you need to be the most careful.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

of course if Buffalo doesn't get a QB none of my opinion of him will matter and he could be a top5 talent that will be labeled a bust because he won't produce

The one thing that the top RBs of the last few years have in common is they've pretty consistently not been teamed up with elite or sometimes even good QB play.Obviously I'm not saying they were great because of poor QB play or anything, but they just go to show that good QB play is not a requirement for a running back to produce at elite levels.MJD - GarrardCJ2k - Collins, YoungAD - Favre, Frerrote, JacksonSjax - Bulger, FitzpatrickGore - Hill, SmithTurner - RyanDeAngelo - Delhomme, Moore

 

[Instinctive]

One thign that's interesting is that the poeple higher on Best now are the same people who were high on him a year or more ago...

I'll have to go and find the "Next year's Prospects" thread from LAST year, but I think EBF and I were both extolling his virtues as far back as last year's rookie drafts.

The guy hasn't even been a football player that long. He only recently (last year) stopped running track and put some muscle on his frame. I think that by next year he'll be looking more like AD than CJ. (HYPERBOLE)

ETA: Went and checked the thread, EBF's actually done a complete 180 on his position as his big thing was how much skinnier than everyone Best was...in my mind, that shows a lot about how much weight Best has put on since then for it to change someone's mind that dramatically.

The people who pushed him early were me and Krem

ETA2: It's hilarious how much Jonathan Dwyer hype we all had too. Just go back and read through it...and now look. HAHA

 

[Lash]

does an NFL team trading up seem to add anything to anyone's dynasty rankings for rookies?

i tend to put maybe TOO much on that one small part of a player's pedigree, but in my mind there are two reasons to trade up:

1) you are desperate for that position

2) you like the player and have heard through the grapevine that teams ahead of you also like that player

i like reason #2 better obviously and especially in 1st/2nd rd and especially if the cost to move up was significant because it lends itself to the potential fact that more than one team had the player graded out highly and is less likely to bust because more than one decision maker liking a player is better than just one

 

[Lash]

of course if Buffalo doesn't get a QB none of my opinion of him will matter and he could be a top5 talent that will be labeled a bust because he won't produce

The one thing that the top RBs of the last few years have in common is they've pretty consistently not been teamed up with elite or sometimes even good QB play.Obviously I'm not saying they were great because of poor QB play or anything, but they just go to show that good QB play is not a requirement for a running back to produce at elite levels.MJD - GarrardCJ2k - Collins, YoungAD - Favre, Frerrote, JacksonSjax - Bulger, FitzpatrickGore - Hill, SmithTurner - RyanDeAngelo - Delhomme, Moore

yeah i probably was over the top there on my BUF QB worriesBUT, arguably their sitaution isn't even as good as any on your list above (other than maybe CAR)

 

[az_prof]

does an NFL team trading up seem to add anything to anyone's dynasty rankings for rookies?i tend to put maybe TOO much on that one small part of a player's pedigree, but in my mind there are two reasons to trade up:1) you are desperate for that position2) you like the player and have heard through the grapevine that teams ahead of you also like that playeri like reason #2 better obviously and especially in 1st/2nd rd and especially if the cost to move up was significant because it lends itself to the potential fact that more than one team had the player graded out highly and is less likely to bust because more than one decision maker liking a player is better than just one

I do. It is part of what makes me think that Tebow even has a shot--whereas I didn't think he had much of a chance of being a good NFl player at all. I think it is something to look at with the Vikings and Gerhart too--giving up a third round pick to trade up and get him is a lot of value. What I don't know and what would be interesting to see is if players where the teams does trade up to get him have a better track record of success than other players picked in a comparable place in draft without the trade up? That would be interesting.

 

[gheemony]

I'm curious if that 4.27 or 4.28 was indeed accurate, what would Spiller's speed score be and would that change your opinion of him?

at 195 lbs and 4.27 = 117.3at 195 lbs and 4.28 = 116.2

Spiller's best asset is his instant-on acceleration. Couple that with his top end speed, and we will be seeing some eye-popping big plays from him.

And Spiller certainly carries more weight in his thighs than Best, it is obvious. I'm not saying this to promote Spiller at the expense of Best, they are similar prospects in terms of their possible NFL impact, imo. I like Best's situation more, but Spiller can do some things that few RBs can.... Spiller is underrated on this message board.

This.The reason I feel Spiller will be so successful is that he gets to top speed SO quickly.

Ditto, and that's one big difference between him and Best to me.I really don't like Best as a prospect for two major reasons that just compound when combined with each other. Firstly, I'm not impressed with his acceleration. It always looks like he's struggling to get up to top speed whereas Spiller looks like he's at top speed after a step or two, kind of like Percy Harvin.

Secondly, Best slows down *a lot* when he cuts, many times almost coming to a dead stop. Combine this with (what I perceive as) his poor acceleration, and it's a deadly combo.

I also see something completely different than EBF and co when looking at the same thing (body motion/fluidity). One of the first things that I noticed when watching Best is that his cuts look sloppy to me, like he's struggling not to fall over.

Lastly, Best gets slowed down by attempted arm tackles way too much. Players rip off big runs in the NFL not because they can break arm tackles, but because they can coast through arm tacklers bouncing off their thighs without losing any forward momentum.

I really dislike Best as a prospect. In my mind, he's more of a sure-thing to bust than any of the top 5 rookie runners this year, and the only guy I've been more convinced would be a bust in recent memory is McFadden. Of course, that probably means he's a future HOFer

Someone posted a Sports Science link that shows Best running through several cuts while measuring his acceleration, force of his cuts, etc. I don't know for sure how it compares to other RBs, but after watching the video, I came away impressed with his acceleration and cutting ability. Certainly there was no "struggling not to fall over". I think EBF is spot on in calling him fluid.I can't comment on the arm tackles, but in the limited highlights I've seen I haven't seen that. Of course, one wouldn't expect to see that in highlights...

Look at this Sports Science Video:
Some of the facts:

1. Covers first 10 yards in 1.6 seconds (running in pads with ball in hands).

2. Reaches top speed of 18 MPH in only 2.7 seconds

3. In the slalom, he's compared to a skier because he keeps his hips and shoulders squared

4. In the slalom, can angle his legs as low as 27 degrees (very sharp cut)

5. 3 rapid stutter steps in .2 seconds

6. 650 lbs of force when he plants his foot to cut.

7. Can reach 70% of his quickest acceleration rate between cuts (he gets to top speed fast)

8. Complete 20 yard slalom course in 6.5 seconds (I'd rather see this drill at the combine than the 40). With six changes of directions, he actually covers 30 yards in that 6.5 seconds

9. Even though he comes to near complete stop on each cut, he still averages 9 MPH on the slalom.

10. Slalom at 50% of his top speed (shifty, anyone?)

11. .5 MPH faster than Darren Sproles

Wow. There is a similar video for Matthews. Matthews doesn't do as well at the slalom, but he shows his leaping ability (Which is relevant at the goal line) - he jumps as high as Payton's famous leap over the pile.

Too bad there's not a similar video for Spiller.

 

[Tau837]

The reason I feel Spiller will be so successful is that he gets to top speed SO quickly.

Ditto, and that's one big difference between him and Best to me.I really don't like Best as a prospect for two major reasons that just compound when combined with each other. Firstly, I'm not impressed with his acceleration. It always looks like he's struggling to get up to top speed whereas Spiller looks like he's at top speed after a step or two, kind of like Percy Harvin.

Secondly, Best slows down *a lot* when he cuts, many times almost coming to a dead stop. Combine this with (what I perceive as) his poor acceleration, and it's a deadly combo.

I also see something completely different than EBF and co when looking at the same thing (body motion/fluidity). One of the first things that I noticed when watching Best is that his cuts look sloppy to me, like he's struggling not to fall over.

Lastly, Best gets slowed down by attempted arm tackles way too much. Players rip off big runs in the NFL not because they can break arm tackles, but because they can coast through arm tacklers bouncing off their thighs without losing any forward momentum.

I really dislike Best as a prospect. In my mind, he's more of a sure-thing to bust than any of the top 5 rookie runners this year, and the only guy I've been more convinced would be a bust in recent memory is McFadden. Of course, that probably means he's a future HOFer

Someone posted a Sports Science link that shows Best running through several cuts while measuring his acceleration, force of his cuts, etc. I don't know for sure how it compares to other RBs, but after watching the video, I came away impressed with his acceleration and cutting ability. Certainly there was no "struggling not to fall over". I think EBF is spot on in calling him fluid.I can't comment on the arm tackles, but in the limited highlights I've seen I haven't seen that. Of course, one wouldn't expect to see that in highlights...

Look at this Sports Science Video:

This is the video I was talking about. I was quite impressed by it, and I think it shows some evidence that directly refutes the part of FreeBaGel's post that knocks Best's acceleration and cutting ability.

 

[gianmarco]

at 195 lbs and 4.27 = 117.3

at 195 lbs and 4.28 = 116.2

Spiller's best asset is his instant-on acceleration. Couple that with his top end speed, and we will be seeing some eye-popping big plays from him.

And Spiller certainly carries more weight in his thighs than Best, it is obvious. I'm not saying this to promote Spiller at the expense of Best, they are similar prospects in terms of their possible NFL impact, imo. I like Best's situation more, but Spiller can do some things that few RBs can.... Spiller is underrated on this message board.

This.The reason I feel Spiller will be so successful is that he gets to top speed SO quickly.

Ditto, and that's one big difference between him and Best to me.I really don't like Best as a prospect for two major reasons that just compound when combined with each other. Firstly, I'm not impressed with his acceleration. It always looks like he's struggling to get up to top speed whereas Spiller looks like he's at top speed after a step or two, kind of like Percy Harvin.

Secondly, Best slows down *a lot* when he cuts, many times almost coming to a dead stop. Combine this with (what I perceive as) his poor acceleration, and it's a deadly combo.

I also see something completely different than EBF and co when looking at the same thing (body motion/fluidity). One of the first things that I noticed when watching Best is that his cuts look sloppy to me, like he's struggling not to fall over.

Lastly, Best gets slowed down by attempted arm tackles way too much. Players rip off big runs in the NFL not because they can break arm tackles, but because they can coast through arm tacklers bouncing off their thighs without losing any forward momentum.

I really dislike Best as a prospect. In my mind, he's more of a sure-thing to bust than any of the top 5 rookie runners this year, and the only guy I've been more convinced would be a bust in recent memory is McFadden. Of course, that probably means he's a future HOFer

Someone posted a Sports Science link that shows Best running through several cuts while measuring his acceleration, force of his cuts, etc. I don't know for sure how it compares to other RBs, but after watching the video, I came away impressed with his acceleration and cutting ability. Certainly there was no "struggling not to fall over". I think EBF is spot on in calling him fluid.I can't comment on the arm tackles, but in the limited highlights I've seen I haven't seen that. Of course, one wouldn't expect to see that in highlights...

Look at this Sports Science Video:

Interesting that CJ Spiller's top speed is 23 mph, almost 30% faster than Best.

 

[Tau837]

The reason I feel Spiller will be so successful is that he gets to top speed SO quickly.

Ditto, and that's one big difference between him and Best to me.I really don't like Best as a prospect for two major reasons that just compound when combined with each other. Firstly, I'm not impressed with his acceleration. It always looks like he's struggling to get up to top speed whereas Spiller looks like he's at top speed after a step or two, kind of like Percy Harvin.

Secondly, Best slows down *a lot* when he cuts, many times almost coming to a dead stop. Combine this with (what I perceive as) his poor acceleration, and it's a deadly combo.

I also see something completely different than EBF and co when looking at the same thing (body motion/fluidity). One of the first things that I noticed when watching Best is that his cuts look sloppy to me, like he's struggling not to fall over.

Lastly, Best gets slowed down by attempted arm tackles way too much. Players rip off big runs in the NFL not because they can break arm tackles, but because they can coast through arm tacklers bouncing off their thighs without losing any forward momentum.

I really dislike Best as a prospect. In my mind, he's more of a sure-thing to bust than any of the top 5 rookie runners this year, and the only guy I've been more convinced would be a bust in recent memory is McFadden. Of course, that probably means he's a future HOFer

Someone posted a Sports Science link that shows Best running through several cuts while measuring his acceleration, force of his cuts, etc. I don't know for sure how it compares to other RBs, but after watching the video, I came away impressed with his acceleration and cutting ability. Certainly there was no "struggling not to fall over". I think EBF is spot on in calling him fluid.I can't comment on the arm tackles, but in the limited highlights I've seen I haven't seen that. Of course, one wouldn't expect to see that in highlights...

Look at this Sports Science Video:

With pads and the ball? Do you have a link to these kinds of facts about Spiller?

 

[gheemony]

Interesting that CJ Spiller's top speed is 23 mph, almost 30% faster than Best.

1. What's your source for 23 MPH? Is it in the same conditions (with pads on, not traditional 40 yard start)? I've seen NFLN extract MPH based on the 40 yard dash at the combine. If this is your source, we should get the same number for Best to compare apples to apples.2. I don't think anyone is debating that Spiller is faster than Best. What we're missing is the comparison on accelaration and cutting ability. I think tests would show that Spiller has a great acceleration, but I think Best would win on cutting ability (i.e., the slalom test).

 

[gianmarco]

Ditto, and that's one big difference between him and Best to me.

I really don't like Best as a prospect for two major reasons that just compound when combined with each other. Firstly, I'm not impressed with his acceleration. It always looks like he's struggling to get up to top speed whereas Spiller looks like he's at top speed after a step or two, kind of like Percy Harvin.

Secondly, Best slows down *a lot* when he cuts, many times almost coming to a dead stop. Combine this with (what I perceive as) his poor acceleration, and it's a deadly combo.

I also see something completely different than EBF and co when looking at the same thing (body motion/fluidity). One of the first things that I noticed when watching Best is that his cuts look sloppy to me, like he's struggling not to fall over.

Lastly, Best gets slowed down by attempted arm tackles way too much. Players rip off big runs in the NFL not because they can break arm tackles, but because they can coast through arm tacklers bouncing off their thighs without losing any forward momentum.

I really dislike Best as a prospect. In my mind, he's more of a sure-thing to bust than any of the top 5 rookie runners this year, and the only guy I've been more convinced would be a bust in recent memory is McFadden. Of course, that probably means he's a future HOFer

Someone posted a Sports Science link that shows Best running through several cuts while measuring his acceleration, force of his cuts, etc. I don't know for sure how it compares to other RBs, but after watching the video, I came away impressed with his acceleration and cutting ability. Certainly there was no "struggling not to fall over". I think EBF is spot on in calling him fluid.I can't comment on the arm tackles, but in the limited highlights I've seen I haven't seen that. Of course, one wouldn't expect to see that in highlights...

Look at this Sports Science Video:

Nope, without pads. As mentioned below your post, it was at the NFL combine. I didn't see Best's speed at the combine.

 

[GreatLakesMike]

Some people like to swing for the fences, others don't. I do think there's a time and place for both, and drafting early in a rookie draft is a time to take chances .... without getting crazy of course.

I don't agree with this. If anything, the early portion of a draft is where you need to be the most careful.

Let's say that you have the 1.03 and Bryant/Spiller are the first two picks: If you think Best is the better talent, but viewed Matthews as the safer pick, then you're saying you'd take Matthews? I know you're probably not picking in the top 3 very often, and lord knows we all know you do homework, so I guess it just surprises me that you would go the safe route. Of course, if we were all the same, the world would be a boring place.

 

[GreatLakesMike]

does an NFL team trading up seem to add anything to anyone's dynasty rankings for rookies?i tend to put maybe TOO much on that one small part of a player's pedigree, but in my mind there are two reasons to trade up:1) you are desperate for that position2) you like the player and have heard through the grapevine that teams ahead of you also like that playeri like reason #2 better obviously and especially in 1st/2nd rd and especially if the cost to move up was significant because it lends itself to the potential fact that more than one team had the player graded out highly and is less likely to bust because more than one decision maker liking a player is better than just one

I do. It is part of what makes me think that Tebow even has a shot--whereas I didn't think he had much of a chance of being a good NFl player at all. I think it is something to look at with the Vikings and Gerhart too--giving up a third round pick to trade up and get him is a lot of value. What I don't know and what would be interesting to see is if players where the teams does trade up to get him have a better track record of success than other players picked in a comparable place in draft without the trade up? That would be interesting.

Homerism aside, one of the reasons why Hardesty moved up in my rankings was because once Tate went off the board, Holmgren was immediately getting on the phone and moving up to get Hardesty. If I'm undecided between a few players, then I normally put my trust in the guys who are getting paid to make these picks. I don't like Spiller, but if I'm stuck with the 1.04 and Matthews, Bryant, and Best are off the board, then I'm still taking Spiller. Tate and Hardesty were 2nd round picks. That's not to say that either player won't be successful, but Spiller was a consensus 1st round pick. That's a significant gap IMO, and I have to set my ego aside and trust that these guys know a bit more than me.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Some of the facts:1. Covers first 10 yards in 1.6 seconds (running in pads with ball in hands).2. Reaches top speed of 18 MPH in only 2.7 seconds3. In the slalom, he's compared to a skier because he keeps his hips and shoulders squared4. In the slalom, can angle his legs as low as 27 degrees (very sharp cut)5. 3 rapid stutter steps in .2 seconds6. 650 lbs of force when he plants his foot to cut.7. Can reach 70% of his quickest acceleration rate between cuts (he gets to top speed fast)8. Complete 20 yard slalom course in 6.5 seconds (I'd rather see this drill at the combine than the 40). With six changes of directions, he actually covers 30 yards in that 6.5 seconds9. Even though he comes to near complete stop on each cut, he still averages 9 MPH on the slalom.10. Slalom at 50% of his top speed (shifty, anyone?)11. .5 MPH faster than Darren SprolesWow. There is a similar video for Matthews. Matthews doesn't do as well at the slalom, but he shows his leaping ability (Which is relevant at the goal line) - he jumps as high as Payton's famous leap over the pile.Too bad there's not a similar video for Spiller.

This is the video I was talking about. I was quite impressed by it, and I think it shows some evidence that directly refutes the part of FreeBaGel's post that knocks Best's acceleration and cutting ability.

A) Are there any other comparables out there to put these into context? If no one had ever heard of the 40 yard dash before and someone said some guy ran it in 4.6 seconds, that would probably sound pretty fast. I have no idea what any of those "facts" mean, and they don't really tell us anything without some context.B) I think it's one thing to do these drills when you know going in exactly what you have to do, when you have to cut, etc. When you're running on reaction and instinct, and not planning your cuts two days ahead of time, it's very different. Jahvid's cuts in that "slalom drill" look absolutely nothing like his cuts on the field, from what I've seen of him, imo.Tim Tebow ran the 3-cone drill faster than Jahvid Best. Does that mean that Tebow is more agile than Best, when several respected posters on this board have said that Tebow has poor agility himself? If you say no, then it kind of throws out the whole idea of using these kind of tests as an argument.For kicks, Tebow also had a better broad jump than best, a better vertical jump than Best, a better 60 yard shuttle than Best, and an equivalent 20 yard shuttle to Best. So basically, Tebow beat Best in every combine measurable other than 40 time. Does that mean Tebow is more agile with better acceleration than Best? Either the answer is no and these tests are far from conclusive about anything, or the answer is yes and Best is less agile and has weaker acceleration than a quarterback that many posters here consider to be below average, even among just running quarterbacks, in those categories. Obviously, the answer is the former, which leaves us with what we see.When I was looking at him in uniform, carrying the ball, actually playing the game, I saw what I said I saw earlier. To make sure I wasn't just remembering wrong I went back and watched some youtube videos of Spiller and of Best. Maybe the mistake I made was watching the Spiller videos first, because they just made Best look slow. Spiller looked so much more explosive through the hole, and so much quicker out of his cuts. Spiller definitely cut a lot less than Best, I will concede that, but one-cut runners have had just as much success in the NFL as anyone else.Obviously, other people saw it differently, and I'm fine with that. That's why this message board exists. We're all presented with the same evidence about every question in fantasy football and we all interpret it differently. The game would be boring otherwise .

 

[gheemony]

Some of the facts:

1. Covers first 10 yards in 1.6 seconds (running in pads with ball in hands).

2. Reaches top speed of 18 MPH in only 2.7 seconds

3. In the slalom, he's compared to a skier because he keeps his hips and shoulders squared

4. In the slalom, can angle his legs as low as 27 degrees (very sharp cut)

5. 3 rapid stutter steps in .2 seconds

6. 650 lbs of force when he plants his foot to cut.

7. Can reach 70% of his quickest acceleration rate between cuts (he gets to top speed fast)

8. Complete 20 yard slalom course in 6.5 seconds (I'd rather see this drill at the combine than the 40). With six changes of directions, he actually covers 30 yards in that 6.5 seconds

9. Even though he comes to near complete stop on each cut, he still averages 9 MPH on the slalom.

10. Slalom at 50% of his top speed (shifty, anyone?)

11. .5 MPH faster than Darren Sproles

Wow. There is a similar video for Matthews. Matthews doesn't do as well at the slalom, but he shows his leaping ability (Which is relevant at the goal line) - he jumps as high as Payton's famous leap over the pile.

Too bad there's not a similar video for Spiller.

This is the video I was talking about. I was quite impressed by it, and I think it shows some evidence that directly refutes the part of FreeBaGel's post that knocks Best's acceleration and cutting ability.

A) Are there any other comparables out there to put these into context? If no one had ever heard of the 40 yard dash before and someone said some guy ran it in 4.6 seconds, that would probably sound pretty fast. I have no idea what any of those "facts" mean, and they don't really tell us anything without some context.B) I think it's one thing to do these drills when you know going in exactly what you have to do, when you have to cut, etc. When you're running on reaction and instinct, and not planning your cuts two days ahead of time, it's very different. Jahvid's cuts in that "slalom drill" look absolutely nothing like his cuts on the field, from what I've seen of him, imo.

Tim Tebow ran the 3-cone drill faster than Jahvid Best. Does that mean that Tebow is more agile than Best, when several respected posters on this board have said that Tebow has poor agility himself? If you say no, then it kind of throws out the whole idea of using these kind of tests as an argument.

For kicks, Tebow also had a better broad jump than best, a better vertical jump than Best, a better 60 yard shuttle than Best, and an equivalent 20 yard shuttle to Best. So basically, Tebow beat Best in every combine measurable other than 40 time. Does that mean Tebow is more agile with better acceleration than Best? Either the answer is no and these tests are far from conclusive about anything, or the answer is yes and Best is less agile and has weaker acceleration than a quarterback that many posters here consider to be below average, even among just running quarterbacks, in those categories. Obviously, the answer is the former, which leaves us with what we see.

When I was looking at him in uniform, carrying the ball, actually playing the game, I saw what I said I saw earlier. To make sure I wasn't just remembering wrong I went back and watched some youtube videos of Spiller and of Best. Maybe the mistake I made was watching the Spiller videos first, because they just made Best look slow. Spiller looked so much more explosive through the hole, and so much quicker out of his cuts. Spiller definitely cut a lot less than Best, I will concede that, but one-cut runners have had just as much success in the NFL as anyone else.

Obviously, other people saw it differently, and I'm fine with that. That's why this message board exists. We're all presented with the same evidence about every question in fantasy football and we all interpret it differently. The game would be boring otherwise .

Well you can compare to Ryan Matthews on the same test:

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Some of the facts:

1. Covers first 10 yards in 1.6 seconds (running in pads with ball in hands).

2. Reaches top speed of 18 MPH in only 2.7 seconds

3. In the slalom, he's compared to a skier because he keeps his hips and shoulders squared

4. In the slalom, can angle his legs as low as 27 degrees (very sharp cut)

5. 3 rapid stutter steps in .2 seconds

6. 650 lbs of force when he plants his foot to cut.

7. Can reach 70% of his quickest acceleration rate between cuts (he gets to top speed fast)

8. Complete 20 yard slalom course in 6.5 seconds (I'd rather see this drill at the combine than the 40). With six changes of directions, he actually covers 30 yards in that 6.5 seconds

9. Even though he comes to near complete stop on each cut, he still averages 9 MPH on the slalom.

10. Slalom at 50% of his top speed (shifty, anyone?)

11. .5 MPH faster than Darren Sproles

Wow. There is a similar video for Matthews. Matthews doesn't do as well at the slalom, but he shows his leaping ability (Which is relevant at the goal line) - he jumps as high as Payton's famous leap over the pile.

Too bad there's not a similar video for Spiller.

This is the video I was talking about. I was quite impressed by it, and I think it shows some evidence that directly refutes the part of FreeBaGel's post that knocks Best's acceleration and cutting ability.

A) Are there any other comparables out there to put these into context? If no one had ever heard of the 40 yard dash before and someone said some guy ran it in 4.6 seconds, that would probably sound pretty fast. I have no idea what any of those "facts" mean, and they don't really tell us anything without some context.B) I think it's one thing to do these drills when you know going in exactly what you have to do, when you have to cut, etc. When you're running on reaction and instinct, and not planning your cuts two days ahead of time, it's very different. Jahvid's cuts in that "slalom drill" look absolutely nothing like his cuts on the field, from what I've seen of him, imo.

Tim Tebow ran the 3-cone drill faster than Jahvid Best. Does that mean that Tebow is more agile than Best, when several respected posters on this board have said that Tebow has poor agility himself? If you say no, then it kind of throws out the whole idea of using these kind of tests as an argument.

For kicks, Tebow also had a better broad jump than best, a better vertical jump than Best, a better 60 yard shuttle than Best, and an equivalent 20 yard shuttle to Best. So basically, Tebow beat Best in every combine measurable other than 40 time. Does that mean Tebow is more agile with better acceleration than Best? Either the answer is no and these tests are far from conclusive about anything, or the answer is yes and Best is less agile and has weaker acceleration than a quarterback that many posters here consider to be below average, even among just running quarterbacks, in those categories. Obviously, the answer is the former, which leaves us with what we see.

When I was looking at him in uniform, carrying the ball, actually playing the game, I saw what I said I saw earlier. To make sure I wasn't just remembering wrong I went back and watched some youtube videos of Spiller and of Best. Maybe the mistake I made was watching the Spiller videos first, because they just made Best look slow. Spiller looked so much more explosive through the hole, and so much quicker out of his cuts. Spiller definitely cut a lot less than Best, I will concede that, but one-cut runners have had just as much success in the NFL as anyone else.

Obviously, other people saw it differently, and I'm fine with that. That's why this message board exists. We're all presented with the same evidence about every question in fantasy football and we all interpret it differently. The game would be boring otherwise .

Well you can compare to Ryan Matthews on the same test:

Unfortunately, they used some different tests for Matthews and only gave the actual numbers results of one of the same tests they did for Jahvid, time to top speed (and even that wasn't a direct comparison).Ryan Matthews reached his top speed in 7 yards. They said Jahvid covered 10 yards in 1.6 seconds, and reached his top speed in 2.7 seconds. There's no way to know exactly how many yards it took him to get to top speed (the only comparable we have to Matthews), but based on those numbers we can guesstimate that it was around 18 yards (obviously no less than 10, and he was running for another 1.1 seconds even after he got that far. He ran the first 10 yards in 1.6 seconds and was starting at a faster speed for the last 1.1 seconds so probably ran almost as far if not as far).

To look at it another way, they said Matthews hit top speed after 7 yards, so I watched the video and timed (with a stopwatch) how long it took from the light saying "go" to Matthews getting to the 7 yard mark and it came in at 1.5-1.6 seconds. Obviously this isn't an accurate way to measure it, but we're talking plus or minus a few tenths here, and the times are separated by well over a second (they said it took Best 2.7 seconds to get to top speed).

Anyway, that doesn't compare favorably for Best at all. ~18 yards to get to top speed vs. 7 yards to get to top speed. 2.7 seconds to get to top speed vs. ~1.5 seconds to get to top speed. And this is when comparing him to a guy that many are saying does not have good acceleration.

Best is accelerating to a higher top speed (18mph vs 16mph), but I don't think that comes anywhere close to covering the disparity.

 

[az_prof]

Some of the facts:1. Covers first 10 yards in 1.6 seconds (running in pads with ball in hands).2. Reaches top speed of 18 MPH in only 2.7 seconds3. In the slalom, he's compared to a skier because he keeps his hips and shoulders squared4. In the slalom, can angle his legs as low as 27 degrees (very sharp cut)5. 3 rapid stutter steps in .2 seconds6. 650 lbs of force when he plants his foot to cut.7. Can reach 70% of his quickest acceleration rate between cuts (he gets to top speed fast)8. Complete 20 yard slalom course in 6.5 seconds (I'd rather see this drill at the combine than the 40). With six changes of directions, he actually covers 30 yards in that 6.5 seconds9. Even though he comes to near complete stop on each cut, he still averages 9 MPH on the slalom.10. Slalom at 50% of his top speed (shifty, anyone?)11. .5 MPH faster than Darren SprolesWow. There is a similar video for Matthews. Matthews doesn't do as well at the slalom, but he shows his leaping ability (Which is relevant at the goal line) - he jumps as high as Payton's famous leap over the pile.Too bad there's not a similar video for Spiller.

This is the video I was talking about. I was quite impressed by it, and I think it shows some evidence that directly refutes the part of FreeBaGel's post that knocks Best's acceleration and cutting ability.

A) Are there any other comparables out there to put these into context? If no one had ever heard of the 40 yard dash before and someone said some guy ran it in 4.6 seconds, that would probably sound pretty fast. I have no idea what any of those "facts" mean, and they don't really tell us anything without some context.B) I think it's one thing to do these drills when you know going in exactly what you have to do, when you have to cut, etc. When you're running on reaction and instinct, and not planning your cuts two days ahead of time, it's very different. Jahvid's cuts in that "slalom drill" look absolutely nothing like his cuts on the field, from what I've seen of him, imo.Tim Tebow ran the 3-cone drill faster than Jahvid Best. Does that mean that Tebow is more agile than Best, when several respected posters on this board have said that Tebow has poor agility himself? If you say no, then it kind of throws out the whole idea of using these kind of tests as an argument.For kicks, Tebow also had a better broad jump than best, a better vertical jump than Best, a better 60 yard shuttle than Best, and an equivalent 20 yard shuttle to Best. So basically, Tebow beat Best in every combine measurable other than 40 time. Does that mean Tebow is more agile with better acceleration than Best? Either the answer is no and these tests are far from conclusive about anything, or the answer is yes and Best is less agile and has weaker acceleration than a quarterback that many posters here consider to be below average, even among just running quarterbacks, in those categories. Obviously, the answer is the former, which leaves us with what we see.When I was looking at him in uniform, carrying the ball, actually playing the game, I saw what I said I saw earlier. To make sure I wasn't just remembering wrong I went back and watched some youtube videos of Spiller and of Best. Maybe the mistake I made was watching the Spiller videos first, because they just made Best look slow. Spiller looked so much more explosive through the hole, and so much quicker out of his cuts. Spiller definitely cut a lot less than Best, I will concede that, but one-cut runners have had just as much success in the NFL as anyone else.Obviously, other people saw it differently, and I'm fine with that. That's why this message board exists. We're all presented with the same evidence about every question in fantasy football and we all interpret it differently. The game would be boring otherwise .

FreeBa, you ask you some legitimate questions about the Combine. I don't have the answers but I would love to hear from some folks who study these things more than I do. I will say this: I tend to use Combine numbers more as a range to decide if a guy just is not likely to cut it. You don't need to be in the 4.4 range in the 40 for a HB to be good; but if he isn't at least under 4.6 then you don't find too many guys who have been successful. So I am hoping a guy is at least in the 4.55 range. I think you can look at some of these skills that way--as sort of minimum thresholds of whether a player has a chance of success.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Some people like to swing for the fences, others don't. I do think there's a time and place for both, and drafting early in a rookie draft is a time to take chances .... without getting crazy of course.

I don't agree with this. If anything, the early portion of a draft is where you need to be the most careful.

Let's say that you have the 1.03 and Bryant/Spiller are the first two picks: If you think Best is the better talent, but viewed Matthews as the safer pick, then you're saying you'd take Matthews? I know you're probably not picking in the top 3 very often, and lord knows we all know you do homework, so I guess it just surprises me that you would go the safe route. Of course, if we were all the same, the world would be a boring place.

FWIW - I had that same choice in HA 1 and took Mathews over Best. But I think you also need to look at the composition of your team when you are making those choices. My RBs are Charles, Ronnie Brown and Justin Forsett. With thoughts about Charles being a one year wonder, Brown coming off injury and Forsett just not being that good, I wanted the RB more likely to start for me in 2010. Maybe other people don't take team makeup into account when drafting, but I do.

 

[gianmarco]

Some of the facts:

1. Covers first 10 yards in 1.6 seconds (running in pads with ball in hands).

2. Reaches top speed of 18 MPH in only 2.7 seconds

3. In the slalom, he's compared to a skier because he keeps his hips and shoulders squared

4. In the slalom, can angle his legs as low as 27 degrees (very sharp cut)

5. 3 rapid stutter steps in .2 seconds

6. 650 lbs of force when he plants his foot to cut.

7. Can reach 70% of his quickest acceleration rate between cuts (he gets to top speed fast)

8. Complete 20 yard slalom course in 6.5 seconds (I'd rather see this drill at the combine than the 40). With six changes of directions, he actually covers 30 yards in that 6.5 seconds

9. Even though he comes to near complete stop on each cut, he still averages 9 MPH on the slalom.

10. Slalom at 50% of his top speed (shifty, anyone?)

11. .5 MPH faster than Darren Sproles

Wow. There is a similar video for Matthews. Matthews doesn't do as well at the slalom, but he shows his leaping ability (Which is relevant at the goal line) - he jumps as high as Payton's famous leap over the pile.

Too bad there's not a similar video for Spiller.

This is the video I was talking about. I was quite impressed by it, and I think it shows some evidence that directly refutes the part of FreeBaGel's post that knocks Best's acceleration and cutting ability.

A) Are there any other comparables out there to put these into context? If no one had ever heard of the 40 yard dash before and someone said some guy ran it in 4.6 seconds, that would probably sound pretty fast. I have no idea what any of those "facts" mean, and they don't really tell us anything without some context.B) I think it's one thing to do these drills when you know going in exactly what you have to do, when you have to cut, etc. When you're running on reaction and instinct, and not planning your cuts two days ahead of time, it's very different. Jahvid's cuts in that "slalom drill" look absolutely nothing like his cuts on the field, from what I've seen of him, imo.

Tim Tebow ran the 3-cone drill faster than Jahvid Best. Does that mean that Tebow is more agile than Best, when several respected posters on this board have said that Tebow has poor agility himself? If you say no, then it kind of throws out the whole idea of using these kind of tests as an argument.

For kicks, Tebow also had a better broad jump than best, a better vertical jump than Best, a better 60 yard shuttle than Best, and an equivalent 20 yard shuttle to Best. So basically, Tebow beat Best in every combine measurable other than 40 time. Does that mean Tebow is more agile with better acceleration than Best? Either the answer is no and these tests are far from conclusive about anything, or the answer is yes and Best is less agile and has weaker acceleration than a quarterback that many posters here consider to be below average, even among just running quarterbacks, in those categories. Obviously, the answer is the former, which leaves us with what we see.

When I was looking at him in uniform, carrying the ball, actually playing the game, I saw what I said I saw earlier. To make sure I wasn't just remembering wrong I went back and watched some youtube videos of Spiller and of Best. Maybe the mistake I made was watching the Spiller videos first, because they just made Best look slow. Spiller looked so much more explosive through the hole, and so much quicker out of his cuts. Spiller definitely cut a lot less than Best, I will concede that, but one-cut runners have had just as much success in the NFL as anyone else.

Obviously, other people saw it differently, and I'm fine with that. That's why this message board exists. We're all presented with the same evidence about every question in fantasy football and we all interpret it differently. The game would be boring otherwise .

Well you can compare to Ryan Matthews on the same test:

Two great posts. I saw many of the same things you've seen although I think overall I'm a good bit higher on Best than you. I still think he's got a good shot to be a very good RB. But I don't see him as elite at all. I think Spiller has that potential.

 

[Lash]

does an NFL team trading up seem to add anything to anyone's dynasty rankings for rookies?

i tend to put maybe TOO much on that one small part of a player's pedigree, but in my mind there are two reasons to trade up:

1) you are desperate for that position

2) you like the player and have heard through the grapevine that teams ahead of you also like that player

i like reason #2 better obviously and especially in 1st/2nd rd and especially if the cost to move up was significant because it lends itself to the potential fact that more than one team had the player graded out highly and is less likely to bust because more than one decision maker liking a player is better than just one

I do. It is part of what makes me think that Tebow even has a shot--whereas I didn't think he had much of a chance of being a good NFl player at all. I think it is something to look at with the Vikings and Gerhart too--giving up a third round pick to trade up and get him is a lot of value. What I don't know and what would be interesting to see is if players where the teams does trade up to get him have a better track record of success than other players picked in a comparable place in draft without the trade up? That would be interesting.

Homerism aside, one of the reasons why Hardesty moved up in my rankings was because once Tate went off the board, Holmgren was immediately getting on the phone and moving up to get Hardesty. If I'm undecided between a few players, then I normally put my trust in the guys who are getting paid to make these picks. I don't like Spiller, but if I'm stuck with the 1.04 and Matthews, Bryant, and Best are off the board, then I'm still taking Spiller. Tate and Hardesty were 2nd round picks. That's not to say that either player won't be successful, but Spiller was a consensus 1st round pick. That's a significant gap IMO, and I have to set my ego aside and trust that these guys know a bit more than me.

aye, but that's getting closer to #1 reason to trade up - desperation, which is along the line of thinking of filling a need with the last guy in a tier like us redraft fantasy guys draft

i'd rather it be that Holmgren traded up because he was in love with Hardesty and knew that NYJ or NE was high on him and ahead of them in draft order (i've heard that reason also)

 

[EBF]

Some people like to swing for the fences, others don't. I do think there's a time and place for both, and drafting early in a rookie draft is a time to take chances .... without getting crazy of course.

I don't agree with this. If anything, the early portion of a draft is where you need to be the most careful.

Let's say that you have the 1.03 and Bryant/Spiller are the first two picks: If you think Best is the better talent, but viewed Matthews as the safer pick, then you're saying you'd take Matthews? I know you're probably not picking in the top 3 very often, and lord knows we all know you do homework, so I guess it just surprises me that you would go the safe route. Of course, if we were all the same, the world would be a boring place.

I don't draft based solely on upside or the player's likelihood to bust. You have to weigh both variables and make an educated guess. If I think Mathews is an 80% chance to become Rashard Mendenhall and Spiller is a 50% chance to become Chris Johnson, I think the equation favors the "safer" pick. When two players have comparable upside, I'll go with the safer talent. I don't think Spiller's ceiling is significantly higher than Mathews' and I think he's more likely to bust/disappoint. Hence he is lower in my rankings. If I viewed Best as the better talent, I would rank him ahead of Mathews (which I don't). Mathews is the only surefire franchise back in this draft. Best and Spiller lack prototypical size. Gerhart, Tate, and Hardesty lack first round ability.

I rank them:

1. Mathews

2. Best

3. Spiller

In PPR leagues, the gap between Mathews and the other two is smaller (almost to the point where I like Best as much as Mathews). I don't view Mathews as a superstar talent. I do view him as a slam dunk lock for 250-300 carries and a top 15 finish if healthy. That makes him one of the most valuable commodities in this rookie class. As much as I like Dez Bryant (I think he's the only bulletproof elite talent in the draft), I don't expect him to help FF teams as much in 2010 as Mathews.

Mathews is probably the only rookie in this class who's obviously an instant plug-and-play starter for every FF team in every format. That doesn't mean 2-3 years down the road (or even 5-6 months from now) he will look like the best pick. In fact, it's pretty likely that a couple of the lesser heralded guys will become better pro players. But if you want to talk about the value of these rookie RBs right this moment, I would say he's the safest investment. The only thing that worries me with him is durability.

 

[GreatLakesMike]

does an NFL team trading up seem to add anything to anyone's dynasty rankings for rookies?

i tend to put maybe TOO much on that one small part of a player's pedigree, but in my mind there are two reasons to trade up:

1) you are desperate for that position

2) you like the player and have heard through the grapevine that teams ahead of you also like that player

i like reason #2 better obviously and especially in 1st/2nd rd and especially if the cost to move up was significant because it lends itself to the potential fact that more than one team had the player graded out highly and is less likely to bust because more than one decision maker liking a player is better than just one

I do. It is part of what makes me think that Tebow even has a shot--whereas I didn't think he had much of a chance of being a good NFl player at all. I think it is something to look at with the Vikings and Gerhart too--giving up a third round pick to trade up and get him is a lot of value. What I don't know and what would be interesting to see is if players where the teams does trade up to get him have a better track record of success than other players picked in a comparable place in draft without the trade up? That would be interesting.

Homerism aside, one of the reasons why Hardesty moved up in my rankings was because once Tate went off the board, Holmgren was immediately getting on the phone and moving up to get Hardesty. If I'm undecided between a few players, then I normally put my trust in the guys who are getting paid to make these picks. I don't like Spiller, but if I'm stuck with the 1.04 and Matthews, Bryant, and Best are off the board, then I'm still taking Spiller. Tate and Hardesty were 2nd round picks. That's not to say that either player won't be successful, but Spiller was a consensus 1st round pick. That's a significant gap IMO, and I have to set my ego aside and trust that these guys know a bit more than me.

aye, but that's getting closer to #1 reason to trade up - desperation, which is along the line of thinking of filling a need with the last guy in a tier like us redraft fantasy guys draft

i'd rather it be that Holmgren traded up because he was in love with Hardesty and knew that NYJ or NE was high on him and ahead of them in draft order (i've heard that reason also)

Edit: I had a comment, but after reading your post again, I'm not exactly sure what you're saying. I said that "if I'm stuck" with the 1.04 that I'd still take Spiller because IMO, there's a huge difference in a consensus 1st round pick and a middle to late 2nd round pick. In the 2nd tier, I like Hardesty. Holmgren moving up to take him made me take a 2nd look.