Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Biabreakable

Dynasty Kareem Hunt Cleveland Browns

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, ryno1980 said:

He hasn't even played a single regugular season game in the NFL and he's already JAG?? 

Guys from blue chip schools crash and burn the same as those from mid-majors. If you'd seen him play at least a few regular-season games and thought that, I'd actually consider the opinion. 

I hope you're right!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ryno1980 said:

Sure but the difference between the lower end power 5 programs and the upper end MAC/Mountain West/AAC programs is not as enormous as many think it is.

 

So?  You play the hand you're dealt.  

Unless you're Andy Reid.  Then you trade your hand in for a better one to move up in the draft and grab this guy!

dont overthink this boys.  This is all day RB2 production. 

Edit:  quoted the wrong post.  I agree with you

Edited by zoonation
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the Rice-Hunt comp works at all- at least not based on combine metrics. Rice had a really high BMI, ran a 4.42 which is really really fast for a guy with an 89th percentile BMI. Rice shreded the agility drills. Rice's weakness was burst related drills. Rice is 81st percentile SPARQ. He's basically the opposite of Hunt. Hunt is average BMI. His strength is burst and his weaknesses are speed and agility. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

I don't think the Rice-Hunt comp works at all- at least not based on combine metrics. Rice had a really high BMI, ran a 4.42 which is really really fast for a guy with an 89th percentile BMI. Rice shreded the agility drills. Rice's weakness was burst related drills. Rice is 81st percentile SPARQ. He's basically the opposite of Hunt. Hunt is average BMI. His strength is burst and his weaknesses are speed and agility.

 

His weakness is agility?  Are you sure we're talking about the same guy?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Biabreakable said:

I don't think Hunt is an elite prospect.

He was a 3rd round pick. I think the guys who have really special speed or power tend to be 1st round picks. Or at least are one of the top 2 or 3 RB selected in any draft class. Some draft classes don't have any special players. Some of those players who were thought to be special turn out to be ordinary.

I don't know where that cut off point is. 

For some people it might be a once in a generation type talent. For other people it might be more common than that.

Pre NFL draft I ranked Hunt as tier 2b prospect. Meaning that even if he was drafted very high in the NFL, I would not rank him as a tier one prospect. Hunt was my 7th overall RB. 

He was drafted in the 3rd round and was the 6th RB selected in the NFL draft. That tells us that at least 5 other teams thought other RBs from the 2017 were better players than Hunt. 

A player I have seen some compare him to that makes sense to me is Kenneth Dixon. I ranked these two players pretty close to the same although from different draft classes. Matt Waldman has compared him to Chester Taylor, a player that I like a lot, but I think Hunt is better than Taylor was, more powerful than Taylor, but maybe not as good as a receiver (perhaps close?) I thought Taylor was a pretty good on screen plays.

could see Hunt being as good as Ray Rice but for Hunt to have a career this good, would be exceeding my expectations for him. Westbrrok is another player Hunt has been compared to, similar to Rice I think that is an optimistic expectation.

Based on things like combine metrics and athleticism I think a lot of people would not consider Westbrook or Rice to be special players either, they sure performed well for fantasy though, and not just for one good season.

In my research of RB performance history I found that the average number of RB one type seasons for a RBs career was two seasons. So for me special would be exceeding this threshold, a player capable of having 3 or more top 12 fantasy seasons based on the history. That would be above average.

I don't really see Hunt as that no. I think its possible he could do that, it just doesn't seem likely. Very few RB have accomplished this feat.

Some have stated in this thread that Hunt has been drafted over the top 4 RB in dynasty formats. I think that is a mistake even though it could work out for those who are doing that. I think Cook, McCaffrey, Fournette and Mixon all demonstrate traits that to me are more special than what I have seen from Hunt as far as pure talents. Odds are one or more of those top 4 will fail to deliver on the promise I see in them as prospects, and possible that Hunt has a better career than one or more of them. But just based on what I have seen of these players, I think those four are tier one prospects. While I still consider Hunt a tier two prospect.

It's all relative I think. I likely agree with what your saying. I am just not sure where to actually draw the line between special and good. Everyone likely has different criteria for that. 

I think Kareem Hunt is a good football player, but not a generational talent, or a player I would expect to be top 12 three or more times in his career. I see him as a tier two RB who is unlikely to have a top 12 finish and if he does it may only be for one or two seasons of his career and that is good, but not special.

I didn't think LeVeon Bell was a special prospect either. I thought he was good, but not special. He became a special player in his second season in the league, and looked like a much different player than he was in college. 

Not to take away from your detailed well thought out post, but the sentence I highlighted is kind of silly in 2017.

abkut 3-5 years ago, NFL teams got wise to drafting 1st round RBs. It's a position that sustains a ton of injuries and NFL teams are less willing to invest in them as compared to elite DL, QB and other rare positions.

If Ladanian Tomlinson case out in 2018, he may well be a 2nd or 3rd round pick.

You simply can't diminish Hunt based on his perceived value in the NFL draft because no RB is a 1st rounder anymore.

that KC traded up for him seems to indicate they're very high on him. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Bronco Billy said:

 

His weakness is agility?  Are you sure we're talking about the same guy?

Based on the combined results, he scored  13th percentile for agility drills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

abkut 3-5 years ago, NFL teams got wise to drafting 1st round RBs. It's a position that sustains a ton of injuries and NFL teams are less willing to invest in them as compared to elite DL, QB and other rare positions.

If Ladanian Tomlinson case out in 2018, he may well be a 2nd or 3rd round pick.

 

True to a point, but not to the degree you're suggesting. LT as a 2nd-3rd round pick is honestly pretty laughable. Top 5 pick in his class. Insane college production. Insane combine numbers. Passes the eyeball test with flying colors. HoF talent. Versatile. Better prospect than Zeke or Fournette. He goes top 10 in any era.

As for Hunt, there's no shame in being a 3rd round pick or the 6th RB taken in your draft. Plenty of good backs have come from that range.

I don't want to come across as a hater, but some of the pro-Hunt brigade in here seems a bit over the top. He is a good talent, but he's not a first round back. Right guy in the right situation can still produce (like Ajayi and Howard), but he's not some flawless diamond. As I said before, I don't see him as an especially agile back. Early in the play he has good footwork and redirection, but his ability to cut at full speed is not comparable to Rice or other elite lateral backs like Mixon, McCaffrey, Abdullah, Peterson, McCoy, Lynch, Forte, etc.

Edited by EBF
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

Based on the combined results, he scored  13th percentile for agility drills.

 

Well yeah, if he's being chased and tackled by cones maybe.  Watch his highlight tapes and tell me he's not agile.  The kid is a joy to watch run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, EBF said:

True to a point, but not to the degree you're suggesting. LT as a 2nd-3rd round pick is honestly pretty laughable. Top 5 pick in his class. Insane college production. Insane combine numbers. Passes the eyeball test with flying colors. HoF talent. Versatile. Better prospect than Zeke or Fournette. He goes top 10 in any era.

As for Hunt, there's no shame in being a 3rd round pick or the 6th RB taken in your draft. Plenty of good backs have come from that range.

I don't want to come across as a hater, but some of the pro-Hunt brigade in here seems a bit over the top. He is a good talent, but he's not a first round back. Right guy in the right situation can still produce (like Ajayi and Howard), but he's not some flawless diamond. As I said before, I don't see him as an especially agile back. Early in the play he has good footwork and redirection, but his ability to cut at full speed is not comparable to Rice or other elite lateral backs like Mixon, McCaffrey, Abdullah, Peterson, McCoy, Lynch, Forte, etc.

Just making a point - extreme example. Would LT2 be top 5? 1st round even? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

Not to take away from your detailed well thought out post, but the sentence I highlighted is kind of silly in 2017.

abkut 3-5 years ago, NFL teams got wise to drafting 1st round RBs. It's a position that sustains a ton of injuries and NFL teams are less willing to invest in them as compared to elite DL, QB and other rare positions.

If Ladanian Tomlinson case out in 2018, he may well be a 2nd or 3rd round pick.

You simply can't diminish Hunt based on his perceived value in the NFL draft because no RB is a 1st rounder anymore.

that KC traded up for him seems to indicate they're very high on him. 

Of course they like Hunt he is a good player.

Jamal Charles was a 3rd round pick as well.

While part of what you are saying is true, that NFL teams have started to use lower draft capital on the RB position than they have in years past. Teams still are using 1st round picks on the RB position however for the past 3 years they have in fact, with the criteria that the player be special enough to justify doing so, otherwise they take players from other positions. Which also has happened several times recently. Two years in a row there were no 1st round picks used at RB. Which had not happened in decades prior to this. LeVeon Bell was one of these 2nd round picks on RB. Bell was the second RB selected that year. 

There have been some bad RB selected in the first round, but there is a difference in the estimation of the players talent compared to the entire player pool available to them in the NFL draft. So the RB does need to have something special about them, for a team to invest a 1st round pick in them.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

Top 13 or bottom 13??

I would assume bottom because he had a very slow shuttle time and 3 cone with also a slower 40 time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

Top 13 or bottom 13??

Bottom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

Just making a point - extreme example. Would LT2 be top 5? 1st round even? 

Fournette and Elliot were both top 5 backs in the last two drafts, respectively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dr. Octopus said:

Fournette and Elliot were both top 5 backs in the last two drafts, respectively.

Oh I know - I've been drinking all day (working the hot sauce booth at a BBQ festival) and went way too far with my example - point was that "3rd round pick" isn't as much of an insult as it may have been at one point. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

Oh I know - I've been drinking all day (working the hot sauce booth at a BBQ festival) and went way too far with my example - point was that "3rd round pick" isn't as much of an insult as it may have been at one point. 

It's not and wasn't intended to be.

I do think this draft class is very good. Likely comparable to the 2008 draft class. 

Quote

nd    Pick    Tm    Player    Pos
▲    Age    To    AP1    PB    St    CarAV    DrAV    G    Cmp    Att    Yds    TD    Int    Att    Yds    TD    Rec    Yds    TD    Tkl    Int    Sk    College/Univ

1    4    OAK    Darren McFadden    RB    21    2016    0    0    4    39    32    102    1    4    16    1    0    1301    5423    28    254    2114    5    12            Arkansas    College Stats
1    13    CAR    Jonathan Stewart    RB    21    2016    0    1    3    46    46    116    0    0    0    0    0    1501    6638    45    154    1243    6    8            Oregon    College Stats
1    22    DAL    Felix Jones    RB    21    2013    0    0    1    27    26    80    0    0    0    0    0    617    2912    11    136    1125    3    4            Arkansas    College Stats
1    23    PIT    Rashard Mendenhall    RB    21    2013    0    0    4    29    26    72    0    0    0    0    0    1081    4236    37    95    795    2    6            Illinois    College Stats
1    24    TEN    Chris Johnson    RB    23    2016    1    3    7    71    63    126    0    1    0    0    0    2118    9537    55    302    2212    9    8            East Carolina    College Stats
2    44    CHI    Matt Forte    RB    22    2016    0    2    9    78    75    134    0    1    0    0    0    2253    9415    52    517    4379    20    21            Tulane    College Stats
2    55    BAL    Ray Rice    RB    21    2013    0    3    5    64    64    92    1    2    1    1    0    1430    6180    37    369    3034    6    5            Rutgers    College Stats
3    64    DET    Kevin Smith    RB    21    2012    0    0    2    19    19    54    0    0    0    0    0    598    2346    17    123    1082    5    7            Central Florida    College Stats
3    73    KAN    Jamaal Charles    RB    21    2016    2    4    4    63    63    103    0    0    0    0    0    1332    7260    43    285    2457    20    12            Texas    College Stats
3    89    HOU    Steve Slaton    RB    22    2011    0    0    2    20    20    45    0    0    0    0    0    442    1896    13    100    808    5    3            West Virginia    College Stats
4    122    DAL    Tashard Choice    RB    23    2013    0    0    0    13    10    88    0    0    0    0    0    372    1579    10    81    574    0    6            Georgia Tech    College Stats
5    139    DEN    Ryan Torain    RB    22    2012    0    0    1    5    0    22    0    0    0    0    0    238    1011    6    24    148    2    3            Arizona St.    College Stats
5    149    ARI    Tim Hightower    RB    22    2016    0    0    2    25    17    77    0    0    0    0    0    752    2977    32    162    1208    2    11            Richmond    
5    166    SDG    Marcus Thomas    RB    24    2008    0    0    0    0        5    0    0    0    0    0    0    0    0    0    0    0                Texas-El Paso    College Stats
6    172    ATL    Thomas Brown    RB    22        0    0    0                                                                        Georgia    College Stats
6    176    MIA    Jalen Parmele    RB    22    2014    0    0    0    1        36    0    0    0    0    0    48    187    0    7    60    0    2            Toledo    College Stats
6    179    BUF    Xavier Omon    RB    23    2009    0    0    0    0    0    7    0    0    0    0    0    11    27    0    0    0    0                NW Missouri St.    
6    202    IND    Mike Hart    RB    22    2010    0    0    0    3    3    21    0    0    0    0    0    71    264    2    12    97    0    1            Michigan    College Stats
6    204    MIA    Lex Hilliard    RB    24    2012    0    0    1    3    3    62    0    0    0    0    0    48    163    2    30    233    2                Montana    
7    213    JAX    Chauncey Washington    RB    23    2011    0    0    0    0    0    11    0    0    0    0    0    5    8    0    3    22    0                USC    College Stats
7    233    SEA    Justin Forsett    RB    22    2016    0    1    2    31    12    122    0    0    0    0    0    820    3890    19    210    1351    1    5            California    College Stats
7    238    TAM    Cory Boyd    RB    23    2008    0    0    0    0        1    0    0    0    0    0    0    0    0    0    0    0                South Carolina    College Stats
7    240    BAL    Allen Patrick LInk

Rice was the 7th RB selected (2nd round) and Charles was the 9th RB selected from this draft class that had 5 first round picks at RB.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

Top 13 or bottom 13??

When people talk about percentile the higher the better with 99 being the highest.

Speaking of which, Hunt tested as a 19th percentile SPARQ athlete. Matt Asiata, for instance, scored in the 20th percentile. It's not the end all be all but it has to be somewhat worrisome. The only other starters I can find with worse SPARQ scores are Rob Kelley and Jeremy Hill whose SPARQ scores mirror that of a mailbox.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt Forte would be a good fit. Green Bay has 2 rookie RBs (Williams and Aaron Jones) who've looked better on film. Any chance KC picks up or trades for someone?

Charcandrick West is definitely JAG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So here we are nullifying a whole lot of positive things including a very successful college career because of measurements at one moment of time.

Hunt must be especially skillful to be as good as he is despite low metrics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are the SPARQies again.  Would someone please provide some documentation that there is even a remotely positive correlation between SPARQ scores and NFL success?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not nullifying anything or saying SPARQ is everything. We know many players that look really good in college don't do well in the NFL. Stats and game film tell a large part of the story, but so do athletic abilities. Judging a prospect should involve trusting opinions on film, looking at stats and looking at athletic measurables. Hunt has a lot going for him but there is reasonable concern that he's not as athletic as he looked in college. I'm on board with Hunt but stepping in as a rookie into a lead back role is not easy and we've seen many fail or come along slowly.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For redraft I think people are overthinking this.  He's an above average Rb talent, hand picked by the head coach of a team that likes to run the ball and frequently checks down to the Rb, playing in a very Rb friendly system that has produced top 5 fantasy rbs many times.  His only real competition for touches is now gone.  His coach already announced that he's gonna be the guy.  You're looking at a 250-300 touch Rb with fresh legs in a great situation.  

What other rbs are there in the 3rd rd that give you that kind of upside?  If you go Rb in the 3Rd rd and hunt is there don't overthink it.  Take him.  And enjoy.  

Dynasty is a different story. He's not as talented as mixon, mccaffery, fournette, cook, Corey davis, and maybe even john ross, mike willliams, and the 3 big tight ends.  He also doesn't have high draft capital that assures him a feature role with his team.  It's foolish to draft him over those guys in a dynasty rookie draft.  It's short sighted.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

I'm not nullifying anything or saying SPARQ is everything. We know many players that look really good in college don't do well in the NFL. Stats and game film tell a large part of the story, but so do athletic abilities. Judging a prospect should involve trusting opinions on film, looking at stats and looking at athletic measurables. Hunt has a lot going for him but there is reasonable concern that he's not as athletic as he looked in college. I'm on board with Hunt but stepping in as a rookie into a lead back role is not easy and we've seen many fail or come along slowly.

Thats fair.

Leave no stone unturned. Some folks might not be aware of that information and like anything else it is something to consider in the evaluation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Biabreakable said:

So here we are nullifying a whole lot of positive things including a very successful college career because of measurements at one moment of time.

Hunt must be especially skillful to be as good as he is despite low metrics.

I'm not discounting his college career.

5 minutes ago, Bronco Billy said:

Here are the SPARQies again. Would someone please provide some documentation that there is even a remotely positive correlation between SPARQ scores and NFL success?

I'm sure the correlation isn't absolutely 0. It's just another variable to take into account. Of course there are intangibles that are immeasurable and unaccounted for in SPARQ scores.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question I ask about SPARQ scores and never get answered is should it have any impact?  I've done extensive searches about z scores for SPARQ and NFL productivity and have yet to find there there is even the smallest positive correlation.  If there isn't a positive correlation then there isn't any support for SPARQ scores having any predictive value in evaluating players' futures.  You may as well be discussing eye color if so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SameSongNDance said:

I'm not discounting his college career.

I'm sure the correlation isn't absolutely 0. It's just another variable to take into account. Of course there are intangibles that are immeasurable and unaccounted for in SPARQ scores.

It could very well be negative.  I don't know.  I can't find anything, and I find it hard to believe the way some people throw them around as though they have some great impact that someone doesn't have a study that supports it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bronco Billy said:

The question I ask about SPARQ scores and never get answered is should it have any impact?  I've done extensive searches about z scores for SPARQ and NFL productivity and have yet to find there there is even the smallest positive correlation.  If there isn't a positive correlation then there isn't any support for SPARQ scores having any predictive value in evaluating players' futures.  You may as well be discussing eye color if so.

How do you evaluate NFL rookies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bronco Billy said:

It could very well be negative. I don't know. I can't find anything, and I find it hard to believe the way some people throw them around as though they have some great impact that someone doesn't have a study that supports it.

It's not going to be negative. Come on man, it's just common sense that you'd prefer a RB to be more athletic than not. It doesn't have to be the variable weighted most heavily but I think it's part of the equation.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There doesn't have to be a correlation for athletic testing to be relevant. There could be thresholds for example like we've seen people lay out for BMI and RBs. The idea in my mind is creating a full profile for a player. If we have a player with a great athletic measurables but they aren't very productive, that's a huge red flag. If a player is super productive and looks very fast/quick but then tests poorly, it raises some questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, SameSongNDance said:

It's not going to be negative. Come on man, it's just common sense that you'd prefer a RB to be more athletic than not. It doesn't have to be the variable weighted most heavily but I think it's part of the equation.

 

Of course it could be negative.  There are plenty of superb athletes who have shown they aren't successful NFL caliber players.  And vice versa, there are plenty of stories of guys who didn't run near a 4.4 40 and were mediocre in the rest of the SPARQ events but were able to have strong NFL careers.

 

I've found that I've had a lot more success in FF when I worried about drafting football players and didn't even bother considering their combine measurables.

 

.

Edited by Bronco Billy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bronco Billy said:

 

Of course it could be negative.  There are plenty of superb athletes who have shown they aren't successful NFL caliber players.  And vice versa, there are plenty of stories of guys who didn't run near a 4.4 40 and were mediocre in the rest of the SPARQ events but were able to have strong NFL careers.

 

I've found that I've had a lot more success in FF when I worried about drafting football players and didn't even bother considering their combine measurables.

 

.

It could be a zero correlation but no way on earth it's a negative correlation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't describe Hunt as agile. Tarik Cohen is agile. Hunt has a nice cut move at full speed. I'd say he's a classic one cut back, which works in this offense. He doesn't have the top end speed to house that, but it's still interesting. I think his pass catching could be the most impressive part of his game, but he's got to master pass blocking to own that spot.

I find the guy really interesting, not that I think he'll be great, but he's a unique case. I don't like his value where he's going right now, but I'm interested to see how it plays out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Bronco Billy said:

The question I ask about SPARQ scores and never get answered is should it have any impact?  I've done extensive searches about z scores for SPARQ and NFL productivity and have yet to find there there is even the smallest positive correlation.  If there isn't a positive correlation then there isn't any support for SPARQ scores having any predictive value in evaluating players' futures.  You may as well be discussing eye color if so.

I can't speak for football coaches but as a couch myself in a different sport a better athlete is easier to coach because of a couple of things:

1.  There is a distinct understanding when something is explained of how the body might work in a specific position and athletes tend to understand and translate that into progress in their form/technique

2.  Someone who can make things look effortless while they do it, are the great athletes and that's what helps them succeed even further or at least faster than a poor athlete.  Think Randy Moss.  

3.  A great athlete vs a poor athlete conquers that effortlessness much quicker and in the NFL it seems that would help a lot more since the league average for an NFL player is like 3 years.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Bronco Billy said:

 

Of course it could be negative. There are plenty of superb athletes who have shown they aren't successful NFL caliber players. And vice versa, there are plenty of stories of guys who didn't run near a 4.4 40 and were mediocre in the rest of the SPARQ events but were able to have strong NFL careers.

 

I've found that I've had a lot more success in FF when I worried about drafting football players and didn't even bother considering their combine measurables.

 

.

If you were evaluating two RBs in which there was no discernible difference between them aside from their SPARQ scores, where one was clearly more athletic than the other, which would you assign more value to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't get a chance to load them into a spreadsheet but just skimming over the SPARQ scores of the top 15 ranked dynasty RBs, Hunt's SPARQ score comes in somewhere around 9th.

So not really some outlier or anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

It could be a zero correlation but no way on earth it's a negative correlation.

It's extremely unlikely that there is a negative correlation but there is a reasonable hypothesis for it.  The same reason that for a long time elite athletes at QB weren't (and really, usually still aren't) great passers.  Because at lower levels their elite athleticism gives them such an advantage they can just run around until they find someone open, so they never learn how to throw from the pocket at an elite level.

Likewise it's possible that elite athletes at RB are so physically dominant at a lower level that they don't have to worry about developing vision to find holes, setting up defenders, reading defenses, etc.

Unlikely, but at least an unlikely possibility.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, FreeBaGeL said:

I didn't get a chance to load them into a spreadsheet but just skimming over the SPARQ scores of the top 15 ranked dynasty RBs, Hunt's SPARQ score comes in somewhere around 9th.

So not really some outlier or anything.

You sure? Here's some quick SPARQX percentiles from Playerprofiler.com

Hunt: 19th         Howard: 32nd

DJ: 96th             Murray: 85th

Bell: 70th           Freeman: 42nd

McCoy: 24th      Fournette: didn't do all the tests

Ajayi: 81st          Gurley: didn't do all the tests

Miller: 86th        Crowell: 62nd

Mixon: 73rd       CMc: 27  there needs to be a note here and it's that his score is heavily being weight down by a 0% score in the bench

Cook: 33rd        Zeke: didn't do all the tests 

Ingram: 13th     Ameer: 98th 

Lacy: 54th        Hyde: didn't do all the tests

Henry: 78th      Martin: 98th   tested really really well but he benches more than most OL so his bench score inflates this a bit 

Montgomery: 64th    

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

You sure? Here's some quick SPARQX percentiles from Playerprofiler.com

Hunt: 19th         Howard: 32nd

DJ: 96th             Murray: 85th

Bell: 70th           Freeman: 42nd

McCoy: 24th      Fournette: didn't do all the tests

Ajayi: 81st          Gurley: didn't do all the tests

Miller: 86th        Crowell: 62nd

Mixon: 73rd       CMc: 27  there needs to be a note here and it's that his score is heavily being weight down by a 0% score in the bench

Cook: 33rd        Zeke: didn't do all the tests 

Ingram: 13th     Ameer: 98th 

Lacy: 54th        Hyde: didn't do all the tests

Henry: 78th      Martin: 98th   tested really really well but he benches more than most OL so his bench score inflates this a bit 

Montgomery: 64th    

OK maybe I don't know what I'm looking for here.  When I googled SPARQ scores it brought up zSparq.  There are a bunch of different SPARQs.  zSPARQ is the one that had Dalvin Cook really low and Cook's low score is all anyone was talking about with regards to SPARQ this offseason so I figured that was the right one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, FreeBaGeL said:

OK maybe I don't know what I'm looking for here.  When I googled SPARQ scores it brought up zSparq.  There are a bunch of different SPARQs.  zSPARQ is the one that had Dalvin Cook really low and Cook's low score is all anyone was talking about with regards to SPARQ this offseason so I figured that was the right one.

SPARQ is a Nike created formula for rating an athlete based on their performance in drills that rate their speed, power, agility, reaction and quickness. They don't release their formula so SPARQx is a reverse engineered formula that uses the combine. It's not a perfect 1:1 to the Nike SPARQ but it accomplishes the same thing. 

I'm not sure what the zSPARQ is. Is it a zscore? Do you have a link?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ilov80s said:

SPARQ is a Nike created formula for rating an athlete based on their performance in drills that rate their speed, power, agility, reaction and quickness. They don't release their formula so SPARQx is a reverse engineered formula that uses the combine. It's not a perfect 1:1 to the Nike SPARQ but it accomplishes the same thing. 

I'm not sure what the zSPARQ is. Is it a zscore? Do you have a link?

Sorry, I remembered it wrong.  It was pSparq, not z.

This was the site: https://3sigmaathlete.com/rankings/

It was the first one that came up when I googled "sparq scores"

Edited by FreeBaGeL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to make my position clear, I am not stating that anyone can be a NFL player.  These guys are all great athletes.  What I am stating is that there is certainly enough empirical evidence to question whether the difference in running a timed 4.5 40 as opposed to running a timed 4.6  40 is a critical element in determining whether a RB will be successful.  

 

What we have seen is that a player clearly does not have to be in the elite tier of all these great athletes to be successful, and that there are plenty of examples of players being below the 50th percentile in measured non-football events and still having superb careers while many others in the upper 10th percentile have crapped out.  To deny that is simply foolish.

 

I have now asked several times to see any documented positive correlation between the z scores of SPARQ measurements and success at the NFL level and as to date no one has provided a thing to corroborate.  There is a lot more to being a successful pro football player than to be one of the fastest guys in tees and shorts to run between 3 cones, and perhaps being .3 seconds slower in doing so just doesn't make that much of an impact in predicting how a player does when the pads are on and the hitting starts.

 

I know some guys just love timed numbers from events that are not taken under conditions anywhere close to being game conditions as to thinking they can determine whether a player will be good in the NFL, but I'm going to have to disagree that these are such critical elements until someone can prove to me otherwise.  It should be easy if there is a positive correlation - there is definitely tons of data available.  Stats guys love to do their regressions and in-depth analysis.  

 

.

Edited by Bronco Billy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Bronco Billy said:

Here are the SPARQies again.  Would someone please provide some documentation that there is even a remotely positive correlation between SPARQ scores and NFL success?

Jerrick McKinnon and Christine Michael have torn up the league.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bronco Billy said:

Just to make my position clear, I am not stating that anyone can be a NFL player.  These guys are all great athletes.  What I am stating is that there is certainly enough empirical evidence to question whether the difference in running a timed 4.5 40 as opposed to running a timed 4.6  40 is a critical element in determining whether a RB will be successful.  

 

What we have seen is that a player clearly does not have to be in the elite tier of all these great athletes to be successful, and that there are plenty of examples of players being below the 50th percentile in measured non-football events and still having superb careers while many others in the upper 10th percentile have crapped out.  To deny that is simply foolish.

 

I have now asked several times to see any documented positive correlation between the z scores of SPARQ measurements and success at the NFL level and as to date no one has provided a thing to corroborate.  There is a lot more to being a successful pro football player than to be one of the fastest guys in tees and shorts to run between 3 cones, and perhaps being .3 seconds slower in doing so just doesn't make that much of an impact in predicting how a player does when the pads are on and the hitting starts.

 

I know some guys just love timed numbers from events that are not taken under conditions anywhere close to being game conditions as to thinking they can determine whether a player will be good in the NFL, but I'm going to have to disagree that these are such critical elements until someone can prove to me otherwise.  It should be easy if there is a positive correlation - there is definitely tons of data available.  Stats guys love to do their regressions and in-depth analysis.  

 

.

How do you evaluate players? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dr. Dan said:

FWIW Aaron Jones was #2 in this year's RB draft class for SPARQ scores ;)

 

Where are you getting that? I see him as being 50th percentile on playerprofiler. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hype train is out of control - was just taken at 3.03 in a $600 league O_O.

Before Dalvin Cook, Mcaffrey, ton of good WR on the board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Phenomena said:

Hype train is out of control - was just taken at 3.03 in a $600 league O_O.

Before Dalvin Cook, Mcaffrey, ton of good WR on the board.

That's kinda crazy, but the heart wants what the heart wants.  FWIW I had a roster crunch and offered either Hunt or Cook to another owner for Baldwin and he took Hunt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.