2011 RB Elusive Ratings (1 Viewer)

[FF Ninja]

2011 Elusive Ratings

2010 Elusive Ratings

Elusive Ratings '08-'10

Sorry, too much to copy and paste, but I urge you to check out all 3 links.

My thoughts:

-I figure most will be surprised to see Ray Rice near the bottom of the list for 2010 and 2011.

-This reaffirms my faith in Lynch and makes me pretty excited about the steep discount I'll be able to snag Blount for this year.

-The numbers for Thomas Jones are too funny. I'm no Charles owner, but I bet those guys don't find the numbers very funny.

-Not very excited about BJGE (bottom 10 yac) in Cincy, but intrigued by Ridley (top 10 yac) who might be in BJGE's old role.

-Jonathan Stewart is probably seen as around RB30, but if he gets a larger part of the pie (and it appears he deserves it according to this article) then he could be a bargain. Although he and Williams both averaged 5.4 ypc last year.

-Toby Gerhart could possibly carry some teams for the first 6 weeks if Adrian hits the PUP.

-Shonn Greene's poor numbers may mean that Powell and/or McNight might get their shot sooner rather than later.

-And finally... Jackie Battle does not need YAC because Jackie Battle never gets touched.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Not sure what the utility of all that analysis is.

 

[FF Ninja]

Not sure what the utility of all that analysis is.

To me it is one metric to gauge the difference between skills and situation.

 

[chinawildman]

Is elusive even the right word? I would never consider Toby Gerhart to be more elusive than ADP.

 

[rizzler]

arian foster and mccoy dont even exist on the top15 list.

close her down, folks.

 

[TheFanatic]

It's a little deceiving as it's predicated on yards after being touched. Based on that, Barry Sanders would be at the bottom of the list, yet he is the most elusive back I have ever seen.

Should be the "Hard to Wrap Up" scale. Big RB's that barrel over LB's do well on this scale, but smaller backs that go around the LB are not going to look as good based on this criteria.

 

[werdnoynek]

It's a little deceiving as it's predicated on yards after being touched. Based on that, Barry Sanders would be at the bottom of the list, yet he is the most elusive back I have ever seen.Should be the "Hard to Wrap Up" scale. Big RB's that barrel over LB's do well on this scale, but smaller backs that go around the LB are not going to look as good based on this criteria.

actually it also takes into account missed tackles - meaning making people miss and avoiding contact. it's both yards after contact and missed tackles. might want to take another look.regardless, it's interesting stuff but by no means the only thing to consider when evaluating RB's. thanks for posting.

 

[TheFanatic]

It's a little deceiving as it's predicated on yards after being touched. Based on that, Barry Sanders would be at the bottom of the list, yet he is the most elusive back I have ever seen.Should be the "Hard to Wrap Up" scale. Big RB's that barrel over LB's do well on this scale, but smaller backs that go around the LB are not going to look as good based on this criteria.

actually it also takes into account missed tackles - meaning making people miss and avoiding contact. it's both yards after contact and missed tackles. might want to take another look.regardless, it's interesting stuff but by no means the only thing to consider when evaluating RB's. thanks for posting.

Oh, I missed the missed tackle part. Yeah, that makes more sense, but how do they quantify a missed tackle? A guy within X amount of feet of the player who doesn't touch him? Again with Barry Sanders, I would say a lot of guys got close to Barry but didn't miss a tackle because they never had the chance to tackle him.

 

[wiscstlatlmia]

Meh

 

[Steed]

LeSean McCoy being so low turned me off to the analysis.

 

[LTF]

LeSean McCoy being so low turned me off to the analysis.

I was turned off the second I saw it was from PFF.

 

[Sabertooth]

2011 Elusive Ratings

2010 Elusive Ratings

Elusive Ratings '08-'10

Sorry, too much to copy and paste, but I urge you to check out all 3 links.

My thoughts:

-I figure most will be surprised to see Ray Rice near the bottom of the list for 2010 and 2011.

-This reaffirms my faith in Lynch and makes me pretty excited about the steep discount I'll be able to snag Blount for this year.

-The numbers for Thomas Jones are too funny. I'm no Charles owner, but I bet those guys don't find the numbers very funny.

-Not very excited about BJGE (bottom 10 yac) in Cincy, but intrigued by Ridley (top 10 yac) who might be in BJGE's old role.

-Jonathan Stewart is probably seen as around RB30, but if he gets a larger part of the pie (and it appears he deserves it according to this article) then he could be a bargain. Although he and Williams both averaged 5.4 ypc last year.

-Toby Gerhart could possibly carry some teams for the first 6 weeks if Adrian hits the PUP.

-Shonn Greene's poor numbers may mean that Powell and/or McNight might get their shot sooner rather than later.

-And finally... Jackie Battle does not need YAC because Jackie Battle never gets touched.

I think people are really sleeping on him this season. I have a feeling I will get him in most drafts because I have him around RB15 right now. Heck in a supposedly down year last season he was a top 20 PPR guy. I don't see those number going backwards.

 

[wiscstlatlmia]

LeSean McCoy being so low turned me off to the analysis.

I know, right? Because preconceived and/or consensus opinions are ALWAYS right. How dare they challenge us to consider another angle! The nerve of these people never ceases to amaze me...

Its not a first time thing that PFF is going a little crazy with the stats. Its almost like they overhaul you with stats rather than just looking at things for what they areThe point is, we already KNOW LeSean McCoy is one of the most elusive backs in the league... so why does it matter what the stats say?

 

[az_prof]

LeSean McCoy being so low turned me off to the analysis.

I know, right? Because preconceived and/or consensus opinions are ALWAYS right. How dare they challenge us to consider another angle! The nerve of these people never ceases to amaze me...

Its not a first time thing that PFF is going a little crazy with the stats. Its almost like they overhaul you with stats rather than just looking at things for what they areThe point is, we already KNOW LeSean McCoy is one of the most elusive backs in the league... so why does it matter what the stats say?

I have never been impressed with McCoy's elusiveness. I know he has produced big time, but that doesn't prove that he is elusive. On the other hand, this metric seems to favor bigger and stronger backs. It seems to me that the league is not a big back league as much as it used to be in the past. I am not convinced this metric is a great measure yet--they will need to modify it.

 

[beef]

This is reallt an rb breaking tackles stat and mccoy may make people miss but when touched he goes down.

 

[Steed]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kZhIdLqtDI&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Nothing to do with preconceived notions. He looks elusive to me.

LeSean McCoy being so low turned me off to the analysis.

I know, right? Because preconceived and/or consensus opinions are ALWAYS right. How dare they challenge us to consider another angle! The nerve of these people never ceases to amaze me...

 

[Nero]

LeSean McCoy being so low turned me off to the analysis.

I know, right? Because preconceived and/or consensus opinions are ALWAYS right. How dare they challenge us to consider another angle! The nerve of these people never ceases to amaze me...

Its not a first time thing that PFF is going a little crazy with the stats. Its almost like they overhaul you with stats rather than just looking at things for what they areThe point is, we already KNOW LeSean McCoy is one of the most elusive backs in the league... so why does it matter what the stats say?

Haven't looked at the analysis yet, but I will say McCoy gets a huge benefit playing with Vick. He has ankle breaking shakes, but he would only be average if he were playing with a traditional QB.

 

[JamesTheScot]

LeSean McCoy being so low turned me off to the analysis.

I know, right? Because preconceived and/or consensus opinions are ALWAYS right. How dare they challenge us to consider another angle! The nerve of these people never ceases to amaze me...

Dude, it's almost useless for any predictive purpose.Why? Consider this nice tidbit from the introductory paragraphs:

"Michael Turner again found himself at the sharp end of this particular statistic, leading the league with a massive 62 missed tackles forced on his runs, and another five on receptions out of the backfield. That total of 67 wasn't just a league-leading mark in 2011, but it is comfortably the highest mark we have tallied since we've been recording the statistic, beating the previous mark of 63 set by DeAngelo Williams in 2008."

If Turner 2011 ranks ahead of Williams 2008, and you actually watched both guys play in those respective years, I think you can safely conclude that the utility of this ranking exists mainly in just passing some time when sitting on the crapper.

Not everything that cuts against the grain is brilliant. Most of the time it's just stupidity. The grain becomes the grain for a reason.

But go ahead and ignore your eyes and bump Turner in your rankings while your league-mates follow quaint, outdated modes of thinking on him.

 

[JamesTheScot]

LeSean McCoy being so low turned me off to the analysis.

I know, right? Because preconceived and/or consensus opinions are ALWAYS right. How dare they challenge us to consider another angle! The nerve of these people never ceases to amaze me...

Its not a first time thing that PFF is going a little crazy with the stats. Its almost like they overhaul you with stats rather than just looking at things for what they areThe point is, we already KNOW LeSean McCoy is one of the most elusive backs in the league... so why does it matter what the stats say?

Haven't looked at the analysis yet, but I will say McCoy gets a huge benefit playing with Vick. He has ankle breaking shakes, but he would only be average if he were playing with a traditional QB.

You're going to have to unpack that for me a bit. If he has ankle-breaking shakes, he has ankle-breaking shakes whether his QB is Vick or Rodgers or Gabbert.If your argument is that Vick's presence helps spring McCoy, then that isn't even an argument. We already know that. And this elusive ranking adds nothing to that analysis. A RB with less ankle-breaking shake behind that sorry O-line paired with a traditional QB would produce less than what McCoy does.

 

[JamesTheScot]

It's a little deceiving as it's predicated on yards after being touched. Based on that, Barry Sanders would be at the bottom of the list, yet he is the most elusive back I have ever seen.Should be the "Hard to Wrap Up" scale. Big RB's that barrel over LB's do well on this scale, but smaller backs that go around the LB are not going to look as good based on this criteria.

actually it also takes into account missed tackles - meaning making people miss and avoiding contact. it's both yards after contact and missed tackles. might want to take another look.regardless, it's interesting stuff but by no means the only thing to consider when evaluating RB's. thanks for posting.

Oh, I missed the missed tackle part. Yeah, that makes more sense, but how do they quantify a missed tackle? A guy within X amount of feet of the player who doesn't touch him? Again with Barry Sanders, I would say a lot of guys got close to Barry but didn't miss a tackle because they never had the chance to tackle him.

I suspect the methodology is biased against guys that excel at avoiding contact using speed (Johnson), moves (McCoy) and vision (Rice). They can turn solid tackles into arm tackles, but they also completely eliminate tackle attempts...which presumably they don't get credit for in this analysis. Is it a missed tackle if the defender never even sees the runner or never breaks down and fires at him?I don't blame PFF from drawing the line somewhere. How subjective would it get trying to breakdown each play and count what tacklers would have gotten a shot at the RB if not for something (anything) the RB does. Does a sweep with goes for a TD count as 11 missed tackles? Does the RB get credit for his first step in a counter play selling the misdirection? But they should describe the results with a little more care. I don't think elusiveness is what they are describing.If the numbers are telling you a different story than what your eyes are telling you, there's a fair chance the methodology is flawed.

 

[az_prof]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kZhIdLqtDI&feature=youtube_gdata_playerNothing to do with preconceived notions. He looks elusive to me.

LeSean McCoy being so low turned me off to the analysis.

I know, right? Because preconceived and/or consensus opinions are ALWAYS right. How dare they challenge us to consider another angle! The nerve of these people never ceases to amaze me...

The first run doesn't show any elusiveness. He catches the ball and runs straight into the EZ--no one touches him until he hits the EZ. The second play also doesn't show any elusiveness--the hole is big enough to drive a semi-truck through. He shows Quicks--to burst through the hole quickly, but not elusiveness or tackle breaking. The third run shows good vision as he busts the run outside; again, no one touches him, he doesn't need to juke or elude or break a tackle. The fourth run he shows good vision to jump outside; he does elude one tackle with a stutter step. The fifth run he again has a semi truck size hole and no one touches him for 15 yards, where he goes down when the tackler hits him. I think I have seen enough. He has good vision and instincts and good quickness; but he doesn't show elite elusiveness as defined by this study--making people miss and/or breaking tackles.