Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Dr. Dan

Aaron Jones - Green Bay RB

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Football Jones said:

I think you were looking for some kind of quantitive analysis & the vast majority of my evaluations are subjective, but as I mentioned earlier, that's the core of scouting. I'm not exactly sure what you were looking for when wanting me to describe why I was fairly high on Williams at 212 pounds, but I did give a general overview.

I believe that's why you & some others are a little irritated, LOL You're wanting me to describe an exact process or system, but it simply doesn't exist. I've outlined my general thoughts on vetting out smaller RBs, which to me is key. In short, if you eliminate the guys who CAN'T be long-term feature backs, you're a leg up on finding RBs who CAN be long-term feature backs.

Also, I'm totally aware of the kind of FFers who frequent these boards. That said, I'm not going to change what has been very successful for me. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

Feel free to give your opinions...

Bia's response was a painful read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Football Jones said:

I think you were looking for some kind of quantitive analysis & the vast majority of my evaluations are subjective, but as I mentioned earlier, that's the core of scouting. I'm not exactly sure what you were looking for when wanting me to describe why I was fairly high on Williams at 212 pounds, but I did give a general overview.

I believe that's why you & some others are a little irritated, LOL You're wanting me to describe an exact process or system, but it simply doesn't exist. I've outlined my general thoughts on vetting out smaller RBs, which to me is key. If you eliminate the guys who CAN'T be long-term feature backs, you're a leg up on finding RBs who CAN be long-term feature backs.

Also, I'm totally aware of the kind of FFers who frequent these boards. That said, I'm not going to change what has been very successful for me. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

Well you did say that a smaller RB requires special traits to be successful. So that statement does suggest that you are doing some sort of quantitative analysis. You need to quantify smaller at least, which you did by stating a RB under 220lbs.

The rebuttals you have received are showing that this analysis does not bear fruit and can easily be disproven. Which contradicts your claim that it has been successful for you in the past.

I think that is something you could learn from and that is my intent as far as discussing this. That is entirely up to you though if you would like to improve your evaluation process, or continue to use faith in your evaluations that clearly have some truck size holes in them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, even at RB, where it's typically the easiest position to make an impact early in your career, players can improve tremendously. 

I'm sure there are plenty of examples, but two that come to mind are Le'Veon Bell & LaDainian Tomlinson. Both had mediocre rookie seasons.

I believe Williams' game definitely translates, but something isn't clicking. I think he just needs to loosen up & quit playing so tight, but we'll see what happens. Some guys never get it.

Share this post


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

Well you did say that a smaller RB requires special traits to be successful. So that statement does suggest that you are doing some sort of quantitative analysis. You need to quantify smaller at least, which you did by stating a RB under 220lbs.

The rebuttals you have received are showing that this analysis does not bear fruit and can easily be disproven. Which contradicts your claim that it has been successful for you in the past.

I think that is something you could learn from and that is my intent as far as discussing this. That is entirely up to you though if you would like to improve your evaluation process, or continue to use faith in your evaluations that clearly have some truck size holes in them.

What can be disproven in general? Take a look at last year's RB rankings in regards to smaller RBs. You're also making too much of 220. It's not 220 or bust. 

If I had truck size holes in my evaluations, it wouldn't bare the fruit it has. Maybe there's something you're not understanding, but then again, as I've mentioned numerous times, it's mostly subjective.

I'm always learning. That's not the issue. I think this looks a lot more mysterious than it actually is. Like I said, it's not rocket science. I'm simply discussing my success in vetting out smaller RBs who don't have an extraordinary package of specific traits. I'm trying the best I can to give a good overview because it's not a system, per sey.

Edited by Football Jones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Football Jones said:

What can be disproven in general? Take a look at last year's RB rankings in regards to smaller RBs. You're also making too much of 220. It's not 220 or bust. 

If I had truck size holes in my evaluations, it wouldn't bare the fruit it has. Maybe there's something you're not understanding, but then again, like I said, it's mostly subjective.

I'm always learning. That's not the issue. I think this looks a lot more mysterious than it actually is. Like I said, it's not rocket science. I'm simply discussing my success in vetting out smaller RBs who don't have an extraordinary package of specific traits. I'm trying the best I can to give a good overview because it's not a system, per sey.

Your statement that a smaller RB require special traits to become a featured RB has been proven false. Many times over during this discussion and prior to this discussion.

The only way you might see this as true through your subjective analysis is through the use of selective memory.

I asked you to define the term smaller. You chose to define this as less than 220lbs then moved the bar more recently to 2010 lbs (this fits the 4lbs difference between Willaims and Jones I suppose.)

I would agree that there may be something I am not understanding about your process. That is why I asked.

When someone brags about their process being very successful I would like them to support this claim with some sort of evidence, preferably evidence that can be tested and verified for its validity. If found valid then anyone could apply that process.

If it is just subjective, thats fine, we all have subjective opinions about things. Those opinions can also be very inaccurate. Your statements make me wonder if you knew Aaron Jones was only 4lbs lighter than Jamaal Williams. That might be new information for you. Based on watching the players I think Williams looks like a bigger RB than he tested. His play style fits that of a larger RB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Football Jones said:

What I'm getting at is this isn't a scientific approach. Far from it. 

Lots of subjective scouting based on some simple principles.

Which you can’t even explain to Bia who scouts players way more extensively than 98% of this board. So you do not have a qualitative argument, you do not have a quantitative argument and you’ve choosen to die on the hill of a player whose BMI makes Chris Thompson look like Jerome Bettis.

Edited by Bojang0301

Share this post


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

Your statement that a smaller RB require special traits to become a featured RB has been proven false. Many times over during this discussion and prior to this discussion.

The only way you might see this as true through your subjective analysis is through the use of selective memory.

I asked you to define the term smaller. You chose to define this as less than 220lbs then moved the bar more recently to 2010 lbs (this fits the 4lbs difference between Willaims and Jones I suppose.)

I would agree that there may be something I am not understanding about your process. That is why I asked.

When someone brags about their process being very successful I would like them to support this claim with some sort of evidence, preferably evidence that can be tested and verified for its validity. If found valid then anyone could apply that process.

If it is just subjective, thats fine, we all have subjective opinions about things. Those opinions can also be very inaccurate. Your statements make me wonder if you knew Aaron Jones was only 4lbs lighter than Jamaal Williams. That might be new information for you. Based on watching the players I think Williams looks like a bigger RB than he tested. His play style fits that of a larger RB.

Smaller RBs do require specific traits to be effective in today's NFL. At this point, it's just common sense. I used 210 as an example of the alarmingly low number of smaller RBs who were in the top 20 of PPR RBs last year. A RB under 210 is definitely a smaller RB. I think we could agree on that. I use 220 as more or less a base for taking a more critical look at certain traits.

It had nothing to do with Jones vs. Williams (yes, I know Williams is just 4 pounds heavier than Jones). They have different traits. If they had the same traits you would have a point. Come on, LOL.

Edited by Football Jones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bojang0301 said:

Which you can’t even explain to Bia who scouts players way more extensively then 98% of this board. So you do not have a qualitative argument, you do not have a quantitative argument and you’ve choosen to die on the hill of a player whose BMI makes Chris Thompson look like Jerome Bettis.

I'm sure you're trying to make a good point, but to be honest, you've lost me.

Sorry.

 

 

Edited by Football Jones

Share this post


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

Your statement that a smaller RB require special traits to become a featured RB has been proven false. Many times over during this discussion and prior to this discussion.

The only way you might see this as true through your subjective analysis is through the use of selective memory.

I asked you to define the term smaller. You chose to define this as less than 220lbs then moved the bar more recently to 2010 lbs (this fits the 4lbs difference between Willaims and Jones I suppose.)

I would agree that there may be something I am not understanding about your process. That is why I asked.

When someone brags about their process being very successful I would like them to support this claim with some sort of evidence, preferably evidence that can be tested and verified for its validity. If found valid then anyone could apply that process.

If it is just subjective, thats fine, we all have subjective opinions about things. Those opinions can also be very inaccurate. Your statements make me wonder if you knew Aaron Jones was only 4lbs lighter than Jamaal Williams. That might be new information for you. Based on watching the players I think Williams looks like a bigger RB than he tested. His play style fits that of a larger RB.

Also, I take offense to the bragging comment. So it's bragging if I say I've had success vetting out smaller RBs?

I only mentioned that because it validates what I'm saying. I had no intention of bringing attention to myself or patting myself on the back.

Jeez. Sometimes you just can't win.

Edited by Football Jones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was shocked when I received the amount of criticism I did when I claimed I wasn't high on Abdullah when he came out. Talk about getting people pissed, LOL. Looks like I've hit another nerve with Jones. It's ok, it just kind of surprises me because the book isn't even written yet on those guys. I simply gave my opinions like everyone else.

People telling me Williams sucks doesn't bother me at all. And it's not like I've said Abdullah or Jones sucks. I don't quite understand it. :shrug:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry that you were offended by me interpreting your statement as bragging. That is not my intent. That is how I interpreted your statement however.

My intent is bust some pretty commonly shared opinions that are myths, such as a RB being smaller (however that is defined) as needing to have other special traits to be a featured RB.

There are coaches who share that view with you, it isn't uncommon, but when putting that to a test the idea turns out to be false, even though many coaches do think this way and therefore through their decision process help that view produce the results.

FWIW weight is the 3rd most predictive combine measurement. Being heavier is good.

In terms of its predictive value however its correlation is pretty weak. This is beyond the problem of weight being something that changes for a player throughout their career.

Very possible that Jamaal Williams played at a higher weight that he measured at the combine and pro day. He may have dropped weight to help him perform other drills with a faster time.

The power he shows at the college level may be due to the lack of strength and tackling ability of the defenders he is facing that does not exist at the NFL level. Otherwise I don't see why it isn't translating to the NFL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Football Jones said:

I was shocked when I received the amount of criticism I did when I claimed I wasn't high on Abdullah when he came out. Talk about getting people pissed, LOL. Looks like I've hit another nerve with Jones. It's ok, it just kind of surprises me because the book isn't even written yet on those guys. I simply gave my opinions like everyone else.

People telling me Williams sucks doesn't bother me at all. And it's not like I've said Abdullah or Jones sucks. I don't quite understand it. :shrug:

 

 

FWIW I am not pissed or irritated at all.

I just think your perspective is incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll have to agree to disagree. To me, stating it's proven false that smaller RBs don't need certain high end traits to be successful in today's NFL is way out there.

The game has changed in recent years. The players on the defensive side of the ball are so big & fast now it negates some of what smaller RBs used to get away with. 

Edited by Football Jones

Share this post


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

What I'm getting at is this isn't a scientific approach. Far from it.

So the majority of this thread that cites BMI is worthless reading?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, JetMaxx said:

So the majority of this thread that cites BMI is worthless reading?

I don't use BMI. Never have. If you paid too much attention to it, you lost out on RBs like Matt Forte & Chris Johnson to name two guys off the top of my head. I don't particularly like it as a tool.

Only you can decide if it's worthless reading.

Edited by Football Jones

Share this post


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

I don't use BMI. Never have. If you paid too much attention to it, you lost out on RBs like Matt Forte & Chris Johnson to name two guys off the top of my head. I don't particularly like it as a tool.

Only you can decide if it's worthless reading.

No you don’t because it’s only a tool. When you look at the complete picture CJ and Forte are supreme athletes with major production and target share in college. You don’t know how to use advanced metrics, you don’t know how to eyeball scout because you’ve offered nothing to suggest you can other than your secret process that you can’t compare to someone (Biabreakable) who has proven they can scout players ten times over. Stop trying to justify your ludicrousness in this thread.

Edited by Bojang0301

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bojang0301 said:

No you don’t because it’s only a tool. When you look at the complete picture CJ and Forte are supreme athletes with major production and target share in college. You don’t know how to use advanced metrics, you don’t know how to eyeball scout because you’ve offered nothing to suggest you can other than your secret process that you can’t compare to someone (Biabreakable) who has proven they can scout players ten times over. Stop trying to justify your ludicrousness in this thread.

Secret process. LOL. The vast majority of what I do is the exact definition of eyeball scouting. 

Sure, I use metrics. Some of them I don't use because they're vastly overrated, IMO. I'm not going go into which ones because your head might explode. Something about me describing how I vette out smaller RBs really gets your goat. I've never seen anything like it.

As complicated as it might seem to you, there are a ton of ways to configure your scouting profile. If you follow Biabreakable's methods, that's great. I'm sure he does fine work.

It sounds like I do things a little differently than what you're used to & you just can't deal with it. I'm not sure I've ever called anyone out, but you, my friend, have added absolutely nothing to this thread.

 

Edited by Football Jones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, I only mentioned Matt Forte & Chris Johnson because it magnifies the potential problems of putting too much weight into BMI.

Rewind to early 2008. BMI was beginning to gain a lot of steam if I remember correctly. I had a lot of spirited discussions with people who thought Forte & CJ could not be productive due to low BMI. It was quite a show, LOL. I don't remember anyone getting disrespectful, but they let me know how important BMI was.

That said, I'm not trashing BMI or any metric. I can respect them all to some degree. It really depends on how much weight you put into them, how they correlate to your other scouting methods, & if you're flexible.

Edited by Football Jones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I don't care how you go about things, you're going to miss. It happens. I've had good success with my methods, but everyone misses. However, if you get the vast majority of your evaluations right, you're way ahead of the pack.

I'm open to the possibility of being wrong about Jones, but in this particular case, I'm pretty confident he won't be a long-term feature back. That said, my evaluation is far from a lock.

Edited by Football Jones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope we don't overreact to one nice game against a DAL front 7 that's been getting gashed by every RB they face. Make no mistake about it,  this was plus-matchup for Jones. 

Having said that,  I've seen enough from Jones to at least say that he passes the eyeball test to me much more than the other GB RBs. Jones has much more burst than the other two RBs, and he looks like he's being shot out of a cannon compared to what little bit I've seen from Williams in preseason and his few carries in-season. Montgomery has not been good as a rusher either, and I think it's pretty clear that he's not built to be a workhorse RB. What I think maintains value for Montgomery and caps Jones ' (ot maybe even Williams ') upside is that Montgomery possesses skills as a receiver and a gadget-play RB that the other two don't.

What I fear from a fantasy perspective is that Jones may very well become the lead back and get 15-18 carries per game,  but Montgomery will still be used as the passing back and be in the game when GB goes up tempo or in the "2min offense". If that's the case then I think Jones will be another RB that you'll need a TD from to have a solid game,  and conversely we can forget about the usage Montgomery had over the first few weeks too.  Honestly I'd like to see one of these RBs take over as a 3-down RB, but then again that's what we fantasy owners always want with our RBs and very rarely do we ever get it unless it's truly special RB talents. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Football Jones said:

Look, it's obvious we use different methods to determine future success.

It's ok. Maybe it's as simple as there being more than one way to skin a cat (which I mentioned previously).

I guess I can only speak for myself, but IMO the big disconnect here is that you've repeatedly mentioned that your evaluation relies on "specific traits", and requires that smaller backs be "exceptional" at these specific traits.

Yet to date I have no idea what this list of specific traits is, or what constitutes exceptional, and in the context of this thread, which specific traits you rate Jones as exceptional and which ones you don't.

Or in other words, if you had said you don't like Jones long term for these five reasons, and reason #1 was his weight, and the other 4 were deficits in specific traits you identified and elaborated on on Jones specifically, maybe folks would understand your evaluation better.

Just my $0.02.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, branch0095 said:

I hope we don't overreact to one nice game against a DAL front 7 that's been getting gashed by every RB they face. Make no mistake about it,  this was plus-matchup for Jones. 

Having said that,  I've seen enough from Jones to at least say that he passes the eyeball test to me much more than the other GB RBs. Jones has much more burst than the other two RBs, and he looks like he's being shot out of a cannon compared to what little bit I've seen from Williams in preseason and his few carries in-season. Montgomery has not been good as a rusher either, and I think it's pretty clear that he's not built to be a workhorse RB. What I think maintains value for Montgomery and caps Jones ' (ot maybe even Williams ') upside is that Montgomery possesses skills as a receiver and a gadget-play RB that the other two don't.

What I fear from a fantasy perspective is that Jones may very well become the lead back and get 15-18 carries per game,  but Montgomery will still be used as the passing back and be in the game when GB goes up tempo or in the "2min offense". If that's the case then I think Jones will be another RB that you'll need a TD from to have a solid game,  and conversely we can forget about the usage Montgomery had over the first few weeks too.  Honestly I'd like to see one of these RBs take over as a 3-down RB, but then again that's what we fantasy owners always want with our RBs and very rarely do we ever get it unless it's truly special RB talents. 

Unfortunately for the fantasy-world this looks like it may turn into a far better "real" footbal situation then fantasy situation...right now you gotta believe Jones is going to get more opportunities but Montgomery is not going to become an afterthought...you also have Williams lingering around even though he hasn't showed much to date...one question becomes are you good having both or will you just be frustrated because they trade-off points on a week-to-week basis...real interesting situation here...I have Jones and currently talking to the Montgomery owner about trading for him or trading Jones to him...not sure what the right move here is...

Edited by Boston
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bojang0301 please don't talk me up as some scouting savant. I am not. I make bad calls just like anyone else. 

I do think I have gotten a better over the last few years and I have put in some time to improve my evaluations of college players, but I still have a lot to learn.

Thanks for the kind words but I don't think I deserve them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Football Jones said:

That's funny. I think yours is incorrect. ;)

:shrug:

A lot of people think bigger is better when it comes to RB, including NFL coaches. It is a pretty common opinion to have but one I have often disagreed with.

Like anything else the results are mixed bag.

I would like to hear more about what exceptional traits a smaller RB needs to be a featured RB. Have had this discussion several times over the years and I have never been convinced that this is the case. There are always exceptions to axioms such as this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

@Bojang0301 please don't talk me up as some scouting savant. I am not. I make bad calls just like anyone else. 

I do think I have gotten a better over the last few years and I have put in some time to improve my evaluations of college players, but I still have a lot to learn.

Thanks for the kind words but I don't think I deserve them.

Sorry to put you in the middle. I’ve just never seen anything like this. Guy actually thinks people are arguing with him over Jones and not that he can’t articulate one tangible argument or describe a super secret, ultra elite formula that is massively successful.

This is fantasy football, he said it himself: it’s not rocket science. There is no end all be all complete formula and that’s why real experts like Evan Silva will come out and drum up a 3 page analysis for all the weekends games and have that out there as free content. The only people offering up analysis I’d be curious to see in a pay format is PFF and they usually have great articles and weekly grades for free as well. Player profiler has advanced metrics that is moving the fantasy game much more toward the predictability of baseball, where patterns in athletic ability, collegiate production, and NFL efficiency all meet at a crossroads and we can really see who is what. He made a ridiculous statement out the gate, whatever that #### happens, I’ve said way more idiotic things on this board then backs should be 220. I showed him that the top 5 RB’s in rushing yards all-time were below that weight and he has still written paragraph after paragraph trying to justify that position and then insinuating everyone else around him is being the dramatic ones. It’s not even about Jones anymore and I’m sorry this has gone so far off course.

I’m not sure what Jones is yet, no one can predict that but I can look at his metrics and see that he certainly has the ability to be a feature back much in the same vein as Lesean McCoy, if I had to give him a ceiling. Now that’s a pretty damn high one but that is what his skill set is reflective of. It will be interesting to see how much he is on the field when Ty Mont gets back because I think he’s become a pretty good RB in his own right.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, davearm said:

I guess I can only speak for myself, but IMO the big disconnect here is that you've repeatedly mentioned that your evaluation relies on "specific traits", and requires that smaller backs be "exceptional" at these specific traits.

Yet to date I have no idea what this list of specific traits is, or what constitutes exceptional, and in the context of this thread, which specific traits you rate Jones as exceptional and which ones you don't.

Or in other words, if you had said you don't like Jones long term for these five reasons, and reason #1 was his weight, and the other 4 were deficits in specific traits you identified and elaborated on on Jones specifically, maybe folks would understand your evaluation better.

Just my $0.02.

I believe I mentioned that, but I'll go over it again. The categories are nothing out of the ordinary. The smaller the RB, the more they need specific traits like escapability, quickness, & long speed. The overall package has to be exceptional for a smaller RB. One key thing that helps any RB & smaller ones in particular is having loose hips (like McCoy). Of course, vision, pass receiving ability, etc. come into play with any RB.

Share this post


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

I believe I mentioned that, but I'll go over it again. The categories are nothing out of the ordinary. The smaller the RB, the more they need specific traits like escapability, quickness, & long speed. The overall package has to be exceptional for a smaller RB. One key thing that helps any RB & smaller ones in particular is having loose hips (like McCoy). Of course, vision, pass receiving ability, etc. come into play with any RB.

Sounds an awful lot like SPARQ scores... Jones was the #2 RB in the 2017 draft class for SPARQ score

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Bojang0301 said:

Sorry to put you in the middle. I’ve just never seen anything like this. Guy actually thinks people are arguing with him over Jones and not that he can’t articulate one tangible argument or describe a super secret, ultra elite formula that is massively successful.

 

You're taking my posts the wrong way. You're way out there.

If you truly read everything I've posted, you'll find it's a good general overview. Maybe you find it confusing or you're so against it you're blinded, but I've given you & others my thoughts on the matter.

It's definitely not a secret formula as you keep insisting to try to poke fun, LOL. Not sure what else to say.

Share this post


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

You're taking my posts the wrong way. You're way out there.

If you truly read everything I've posted, you'll find it's a good general overview. Maybe you find it confusing or you're so against it you're blinded, but I've given you & others my thoughts on the matter.

It's definitely not a secret formula as you keep insisting to try to poke fun, LOL. Not sure what else to say.

:lol:

Decoded....

I have such a great overview of this topic, but you're either too stupid or too short sighted to see it.

:lmao:  You can't make this stuff up. "I'm so right you must be a complete idiot not to get it"

 

When you think everyone in the room is crazy except for you, time to take a second look at yourself... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dr. Dan said:

Sounds an awful lot like SPARQ scores... Jones was the #2 RB in the 2017 draft class for SPARQ score

Nope. Not at all. I don't put NEARLY as much stock into timed events as most FFers. I could write a thesis on why the scouting community should change the way they go about testing at the Combine & such. Good example is Cook's 3-cone time. I know I keep harping on this, but the vast majority of what I do is simple eyeball scouting. Besides, what criteria did you think I was using? Those traits are typical RB traits. I did mention the traits in an earlier post, but with all the back & forth, it could've easily been missed. No problem.

BTW, I believe on-field traits are much more reliable than timed events as a predictor of success.

Edited by Football Jones

Share this post


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

:lol:

Decoded....

I have such a great overview of this topic, but you're either too stupid or too short sighted to see it.

:lmao:  You can't make this stuff up. "I'm so right you must be a complete idiot not to get it"

 

When you think everyone in the room is crazy except for you, time to take a second look at yourself... 

That's a good one, LOL.

Edited by Football Jones
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Football Jones said:

Nope. Not at all. I don't put NEARLY as much stock into timed events as most FFers. I could write a thesis on why the scouting community should change the way they go about scouting with the Combine & such (probably never happen, but still). Good example is Cook's 3-cone time. I know I keep harping on this, but the vast majority of what I do is simple eyeball scouting. Besides, what criteria did you think I was using? Those traits are typical RB traits. I did mention the traits in an earlier post, but with all the back & forth, it could've easily been missed. No problem.

BTW, people want too call them SPARQ scores, but I personally don't like that term because on field traits are much more reliable than timed events, IMO.

Mavis is that you? You know, circumventing the forced vacation is a violation of FBG Forum policy. That's almost to the letter what he's said.

Contradicting himself... "it's all about quickness and speed, but not timed events that actually quantify these areas, just see your your eyes. You'll know it when you see it. Trust me, I'm so good you must be a moron not to understand" :rolleyes: 

 

Seems to be his MO... let's not let this thread get ruined either guys. 

Edited by Dr. Dan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know who Mavis is, but you have this fascination about me trying to come off as a smart guy. Get over it, LOL.

Because I don't put as much weight into SPARQ scores as you, I'm a smart guy?

Every once in awhile I get into one of these discussions where there's a lot of back & forth, but this one with all the accusations & everything takes the cake. Take it to the FFA forum. I'd actually like to talk some football. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, but all the other stuff distracts from the thread.

 

Edited by Football Jones
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

:shrug:

A lot of people think bigger is better when it comes to RB, including NFL coaches. It is a pretty common opinion to have but one I have often disagreed with.

Like anything else the results are mixed bag.

I would like to hear more about what exceptional traits a smaller RB needs to be a featured RB. Have had this discussion several times over the years and I have never been convinced that this is the case. There are always exceptions to axioms such as this.

I don't believe bigger is necessarily better. I'm just saying 220 is about the point where I don't worry about size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So let me get this straight. I do use metrics to some degree, but if you don't put a lot of weight into BMI, SPARQ scores, & certain other metrics, you're not only stupid, you're an egomaniac. 

Got it. 

Sad day in the SP for me.

Edited by Football Jones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't posted in awhile due to being busy, but the last few weeks I've been a lot more active because I'm laid up at home & it's driving me crazy. Got to do something.

I tend to graviate into threads where I have a contrarian view simply to add a differing opinion. I think that's healthy. I'm not too interested in threads where everyone agrees because there's essentially nothing to debate. That MO kind of sets me up for the people who can't handle a different viewpoint, but I get it. FFers are a passionate lot.

That said, this thread is one reason why I tend to shy away from posting unless I'm bored or REALLY want to get my point across for some specific reason. It eventually breaks down into name-calling & other childish activities. I don't mind spirited discussions one bit, but the extra stuff is a real bummer.

Share this post


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

I don't believe bigger is necessarily better. I'm just saying 220 is about the point where I don't worry about size.

Kind of tired of this conversation (as I imagine others reading it are).

Your statement contradicts itself. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Football Jones said:

I don't know who Mavis is, but you have this fascination about me trying to come off as a smart guy. Get over it, LOL.

Because I don't put as much weight into SPARQ scores as you, I'm a smart guy?

Every once in awhile I get into one of these discussions where there's a lot of back & forth, but this one with all the accusations & everything takes the cake. Take it to the FFA forum. I'd actually like to talk some football. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, but all the other stuff distracts from the thread.

 

I just think it's odd that you put stock into speed and agility, but take no stock into objective measures that quantify these things. if you don't like Sparq scores, then what objective measures do you use to quantify these "special abilities"? 

24 minutes ago, Football Jones said:

So let me get this straight. I do use metrics to some degree, but if you don't put a lot of weight into BMI, SPARQ scores, & certain other metrics, you're not only stupid, you're an egomaniac. 

Got it. 

Sad day in the SP for me.

No. You're just contradicting yourself... you like RBs over 220, but under 220 is okay as long as you possess special abilities such as agility, speed, etc. But not the kind of speed/agility that is measurable in Sparq scores. That has no value in determining speed, agility, etc. Just weird. You still haven't explained these "special abilities" that you talk about. You mentioned a few, but haven't explained how you measure those. 

You like measurables when it comes to weight as a blanket number, but you don't like taking an athlete's height into consideration, such as BMI (a 6'5 230 pound RB vs a 5'5 215 pound RB will play completely different). But, you like looking at more specifics such as speed, agility, etc... but not scores that give blanket numbers (SPARQ). How convenient. 

Edited by Dr. Dan

Share this post


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

Kind of tired of this conversation (as I imagine others reading it are).

Your statement contradicts itself. 

Yeah, we've lost it at this point & I'm getting kind of fed up, LOL, but it's not a contradiction. I really would like to clear this up, but maybe some of you guys are taking things too literally with the 220.

Be open to the fact I can be really high on a small RB if they've got the right traits. Also, on the other side of the coin, I'll be concerned about the very same attributes for bigger RBs (around 235-240). Are they too much of a plodder, etc?

It's all relative to their size & what they bring to the table.

Share this post


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

I just think it's odd that you put stock into speed and agility, but take no stock into objective measures that quantify these things. if you don't like Sparq scores, then what objective measures do you use to quantify these "special abilities"? 

No. You're just contradicting yourself... you like RBs over 220, but under 220 is okay as long as you possess special abilities such as agility, speed, etc. But not the kind of speed/agility that is measurable in Sparq scores. That has no value in determining speed, agility, etc. Just weird. You still haven't explained these "special abilities" that you talk about. You mentioned a few, but haven't explained how you measure those. 

Hopefully, the post before this cleared things up. If it didn't, too bad. ;)

Give it up. I'm doing the same. :)

 

 

Edited by Football Jones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, I've explained this elsewhere & they got it. Didn't mean they agreed with me necessarily, but they understood.

I really think many of you assumed too much &/or thought I was full of ####, LOL

Let's let this die. No hard feelings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm a Jones owner (and not a Ty owner) I'm probably trying to sell him to the Ty owner for a king's ransom. The most likely scenario is that Ty comes back at some point and Jones/Ty form some type of timeshare IMO. Even though I'm still not sold on Ty as a runner and think he's possibly an example of the "modern age RB" taken a step too far I doubt GB just tosses him to the side. He's too versatile not to use.

Of course, Ty is a guy who has gone to the sideline with wrist, ankle and chest injuries in the first month of action and there's a possibility that he simply can't hold up. The problem is that if Jones forces a timeshare and Ty's usage is reduced, the odds that Ty stays healthy increases.

So yeah, the biggest thing Jones owners need to contemplate is whether or not his value has peaked. 

Share this post


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

If I'm a Jones owner (and not a Ty owner) I'm probably trying to sell him to the Ty owner for a king's ransom. The most likely scenario is that Ty comes back at some point and Jones/Ty form some type of timeshare IMO. Even though I'm still not sold on Ty as a runner and think he's possibly an example of the "modern age RB" taken a step too far I doubt GB just tosses him to the side. He's too versatile not to use.

Of course, Ty is a guy who has gone to the sideline with wrist, ankle and chest injuries in the first month of action and there's a possibility that he simply can't hold up. The problem is that if Jones forces a timeshare and Ty's usage is reduced, the odds that Ty stays healthy increases.

So yeah, the biggest thing Jones owners need to contemplate is whether or not his value has peaked. 

I think this is smart

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.