Bronco Billy
Footballguy
I'm curious because you keep hounding the point: is it possible that you can concede the fact that when Ellington turned the 4.6 40 that he hurt himself during that run?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Andre Ellington - RB - Clemson. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Eminence
- Start date
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
You're typically far better than this. Certain people just chug Kool Aid and lash out at anyone in disagreement, but do you really not understand the potential risk in investing dynasty RB14 (per DLF May ADP) resources in a guy like Andre Ellington? The issue isn't that Ellington sucks -- it's with the high price which is a result of the fan bois I'm getting blasted by.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
Of course it's possible. But then he ran a hand timed 4.51 at his pro day -- and I know you've been around long enough to know that those times are generally very player friendly. He's quick, but he's not fast.
Bronco Billy
Footballguy
Don't patronize me. It's annoying given how tortured your points are.
The whole point behind my post above is to show that people missed the boat on the players above - in many cases very badly - because they made assumptions based upon size/BMI and refused to use the eyeball test on guys who showed they had talent. I missed on most of them in those critical yrs when they had huge value as well (managed to hit on Portis, Rice and Bradshaw). It was a counterpoint to your throwing out Perry and Norwood as though it were some kind of proof of your position - which it definitely is not.
Bronco Billy
Footballguy
And I've been around long enough to know the difference between track speed in tees and shorts, and football speed when I see it. Some prolific RBs were pedestrian track runners. Shall I start naming some of them too?
All this back and forth is just mind numbing. Personally, i dont know how you can watch his play from last year and not be excited about his prospects in 2014. The history of guys his size, pro day 40's, BMI, snooooozer. The dude can flat out play. If this Lion Clown can't see it, so be it. Lets move on
Khy
Footballguy
I think you're missing the point entirely, any player is a potential risk within their first two seasons. What most people do is watch the players make their own assessments and go after players based on that. You keep throwing out how 'wrong' I was about David Wilson last season and how 'wrong' I am about him this season. As if every single person in the world wasn't as high on David Wilson. The general consensus in fantasy and real NFL was and still is that he is an elite talent. He may never even see the field again due to his spinal condition (not injury btw, condition that he's had for years).
The fact is, you simply can't just sit there and state "Well until I see it I don't think he's worth the price". You find guys you like and go after them. That's what we do in dynasty fantasy. If you don't go after the guys you want how do you ever expect to hit on guys?
Also as Bill said above, track speed is also not equal to game speed.
Bronco Billy
Footballguy
And my position hadn't changed, to make clear that I am not projecting Ellington to be the next Portis, Westbrook, Rice etc. I'm projecting solid RB2 numbers for him.
Wow how did i miss this gem? Because i project RB1 #'s from him, he needs to be drafted as my #1 RB? What the....Have you heard of value based drafting? If a guy you're really high on as a potential RB2 has an 8th rd ADP, you should take him in the 3rd/4th rd? Your arguments are straight comical. The idea is to get the guy at the price/value you like. My goal is to get Ellington as my #2 RB on as many teams as possible. So if he does produce RB1 #'s, im in business.
Khy
Footballguy
Have you actually watched any video on the kid? He makes plays that a lot of veterans don't make. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pUgDNA2L-A#t=131
Watch this highlight at 2:12, it trumps a lot of your points. Trumps that he isn't fast, he breaks away from the Falcons with ease. That he doesn't have good vision or agility, he is so perfectly patient it's almost disgusting how well he lines up the play. Here's a breakdown in screenshots just incase you don't really see this:
Pic 1 - The handoff is given into a completely collapsed offensive line, the only gap is filled by the MLB. More than likely this play goes for a yard if he's lucky.
Pic 2 - He pulls up and begins the move he's about to make, which looks like it's about to open a hole as highlighted. Except the MLB who has him plugged up in the first pic makes the move to close up the hole that's about to open and his OL #71 gets pushed back into the hole to completely close it of.
Pic 3 - Here we can see the hole from Pic 2 completely closed and Ellington makes yet a second move. You can see the now 3rd hole that he's been patient for start to form.
Pic 4 - He broke through the hole from Pic 3 with nobody in sight and is off to the races for a huge TD.
If Mendy or Taylor are taking this handoff it's a 1 yard or loss of yard play. Instead Ellington literally creates a huge TD for the Cards early in the game to pull a lot of momentum their way.
I know you can't see his talent, but I'm not sure how you can't. I think that is out disconnect, you see him as a RB3 limited talent who doesn't really deserve the playing time people think (and coaches say) he'll be getting. Where as me and most everyone else in this thread besides you see him as a RB2 with RB1 upside if everything comes together with opportunity and talent.
Watch this highlight at 2:12, it trumps a lot of your points. Trumps that he isn't fast, he breaks away from the Falcons with ease. That he doesn't have good vision or agility, he is so perfectly patient it's almost disgusting how well he lines up the play. Here's a breakdown in screenshots just incase you don't really see this:
Pic 1 - The handoff is given into a completely collapsed offensive line, the only gap is filled by the MLB. More than likely this play goes for a yard if he's lucky.
Pic 2 - He pulls up and begins the move he's about to make, which looks like it's about to open a hole as highlighted. Except the MLB who has him plugged up in the first pic makes the move to close up the hole that's about to open and his OL #71 gets pushed back into the hole to completely close it of.
Pic 3 - Here we can see the hole from Pic 2 completely closed and Ellington makes yet a second move. You can see the now 3rd hole that he's been patient for start to form.
Pic 4 - He broke through the hole from Pic 3 with nobody in sight and is off to the races for a huge TD.
If Mendy or Taylor are taking this handoff it's a 1 yard or loss of yard play. Instead Ellington literally creates a huge TD for the Cards early in the game to pull a lot of momentum their way.
I know you can't see his talent, but I'm not sure how you can't. I think that is out disconnect, you see him as a RB3 limited talent who doesn't really deserve the playing time people think (and coaches say) he'll be getting. Where as me and most everyone else in this thread besides you see him as a RB2 with RB1 upside if everything comes together with opportunity and talent.
Last edited by a moderator:
fatness
Footballguy
CDL is often a pretty good and informative poster. He just sometimes gets too involved in defending his view, and gets increasingly less informative as he does so. This is one of those times. We knew his view and reasons for it pages ago, yet he's pushing further and further out on weaker and weaker limbs to defend it. Hopefully he'll stop.
Wow. :whoosh: He was advocating for VBD. He was saying you should be loading up on top level WR talent in the early rounds if you believe you can find your RB1 in the 3rd/4th.
I don't know what that means, but CDL is legit. I don't take notice of many screen names here, but I've noticed this guy brings some good discussion to table. You guys should take this opportunity to engage in some thoughtful discussion instead of just jumping on him. It takes some balls and/or patience to be a devil's advocate in this forum. He tried to introduce some counter points in the middle of a full on hype circle jerk here and fan bois just flipped out on him.
I think he's got some good points. Ellington is small, not that fast for his size, really old for a 2nd year player, and plays in an extremely tough division. He could easily be a poor man's Steve Slaton. Personally, I don't like that many red flags on a guy at his price point.
Did you guys realize he's almost a year older than Mark Ingram? 1.5 years younger than Spiller.
Khy
Footballguy
Sure, he'll be 25 this playing season. By comparison? Foster was about 5 months younger than him at the start of his breakout 2010 campaign. Marshawn Lynch was 25 when he was traded to Seattle. Both of these guys were still top dynasty backs at that age. Not everyone are your Ray Rice's & Adrian Peterson's of the world who come in an instantly explode at age 22. In this league, this day in age? You're expecting 3-4 years of elite production from a RB and hoping you can grab onto that extra 4-5 length that we're seeing some guys do now. Truthfully, I'm not super worried about Ellington's age. If he does hit, from my view of it? I paid a 4-5th round pick in rookie drafts last year for this guy and I have what I consider a greater than 50/50 shot at high end RB2 with RB1 upside for the next 3-4 years. That's value if I've ever heard it.FF Ninja said:
Also realize, I'm not saying you should be paying the top dollar value on him in dynasty. You had a chance last season to get him without a premium, his price is far to high now. At this point the discussion should really only be on redraft which makes his age a lot less relevant.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
I'm gonna go ahead and bow out after this post. I do find it telling that the same exact posters that are resorting to name calling now were gleefully doing the same thing after his 80 yard TD week 8 last year, and crowing that Ellington was clearly taking over the featured role. And then completely disappeared when Ellington did nothing for the next month. So it goes, I guess.
On Ellington, yes, I see the talent. He looked damn good at times last year. I just choose to anchor my valuations of players to more tangible hard data points, like combine numbers, draft position, and the established usage pattern from last year, as opposed to the hugely subjective eyeball test and May coachspeak. Ellington's most likely career arc, based on everything, is IMO that of a 1000 - 1200 YFS handful of TDs committee guy. That's great return for a 3rd round rookie pick, but not so much for a 3rd round startup / redraft pick. That's it.
Good luck with Ellington this year guys. It'll be interesting to revisit this next offseason.
On Ellington, yes, I see the talent. He looked damn good at times last year. I just choose to anchor my valuations of players to more tangible hard data points, like combine numbers, draft position, and the established usage pattern from last year, as opposed to the hugely subjective eyeball test and May coachspeak. Ellington's most likely career arc, based on everything, is IMO that of a 1000 - 1200 YFS handful of TDs committee guy. That's great return for a 3rd round rookie pick, but not so much for a 3rd round startup / redraft pick. That's it.
Good luck with Ellington this year guys. It'll be interesting to revisit this next offseason.
zamboni
Footballguy
Another potentially good thread being sidetracked.
Did Ellington show that he's got some skill? Absolutely.
Is it too soon to say that he's the bee's knees, and that he may not be able to handle a workhorse load? Absoutely.
So there's a lot of potential with AE, but also meaningful risk.
But at the end of the day, there aren't too many RBs out there that stand to possibly get a vast majority of their team's carries with seemingly weak competition. That alone is worth something in this day and age.
Did Ellington show that he's got some skill? Absolutely.
Is it too soon to say that he's the bee's knees, and that he may not be able to handle a workhorse load? Absoutely.
So there's a lot of potential with AE, but also meaningful risk.
But at the end of the day, there aren't too many RBs out there that stand to possibly get a vast majority of their team's carries with seemingly weak competition. That alone is worth something in this day and age.
Khy
Footballguy
Again, I think this thread is falling victim to the same crap that ruined the Wilson thread. Which is people misunderstanding others and not properly comprehending words. The same stuff happens in a lot of these bandwagon threads, things like word is equal to completely different work. Stuff like "situation/size/agility etc compares to" somehow becomes mistaken for "situation/size/agility makes him the next". And then the thread gets sidetracked for like 14 pages about how "There's no way Andre Ellington is the next Jamaal Charles" when nobody even said that to begin with and someone just misunderstood a simple point of comparison.
The other thing that has been in this thread, the Wilson thread, Paul Richardson's thread, Tavon Austin's thread and hundreds of others I'm sure is the whole "he's too small" concept. Which I'm truthfully tired of hearing, cause for every single one of them there is at least 3-5 examples of all pro caliber talents who performed at a smaller than average size. Would guys like Ellington, Wilson & Austin's success at their size make them outliers? Sure. But it's a silly thing to say "he's too small to succeed" when plenty of household names have done it before him. Although, in Austin's case there are a lot less comps than in Ellington and Wilson's, but you get my point.
The last one would be the statement "Well there isn't enough evidence or track record to support the pro side". The issue with this statement, and the reason that in my opinion it should never even crop up in these threads is simple. By the time there's enough evidence, he's too expensive. In dynasty we don't have the luxury of waiting for evidence before going after a guy you like, you simply have to trust your gut and the information in front of you and go for it.
The too long, didn't read of it all would be: people need to stop with the 'too small' thing, in every thread. There is zero, zip, nadda evidence that a smaller player is more subject to injury. Never has been proved, never will be proved cause it's a completely bogus and made up thing. And as for the comprehension issues, I'm not really sure what to do there. It still baffles me how saying "Ellington is similar in size to Jamaal Charles" translates to some people as "Andre Ellington is the next Jamaal Charles".
Last edited by a moderator:
That's the thing with Ellington. If you want to believe, you can argue away each red flag individually. Not convincingly, but to the point where an unbiased observer might think "yeah, that's not that big of a deal" but the sum of the red flags is what bothers me. I can't tell you he's not going to prosper because he's too small or too slow or because Arians prefers bruisers and doesn't like to throw to his RBs... but what I can tell you is that one of those things will likely bite you.
And I agree, I think we should talk about redraft. The guy is going RB16/17 in the middle of the third round amongst guys like Spiller and Mathews. Spiller finished the year with 4.6 ypc on 200 carries despite a high ankle sprain and Mathews finished the year as RB12 despite being cut out of the receiving game and goal line packages during the first half of the season. I get that this talk of 30 touches a game is exciting, but I'll believe it when I see it. And with guys in his ADP range, I've already seen it (not 30 touches a game since that just doesn't actually happen) so I can't justify drafting a guy on nothing but hype and coach speak when guys around him are proven and in the same scenario as the year before.
Carter_Can_Fly
Footballguy
A lot of good posts in this thread. Couer de Lion is getting blasted for no particular reason at all in this thread. He is simply stating counter arugements as to why he may not be successful and to temper expectations.
Ellignton did look good last year in small portions, but those of us that are on the fence about him are not willing to invest the pick it will take to get him. This is not a hit on ellignton it is weighing the odds and quite simply guessing or going with your gut feeling. I don't think anyone is truly wrong in this thread.
I happen to side more with Couer de Lion in this instance. I happen to think Ellignton is going to best be served in a role similar to last year when all is played out. He may always tease fantasy owners ala Quizz Rodgers in Atlanta. Now, before you attack me and say but Quizz has never had a high YPC and Ellignton is a different player. I get that. I am more happy to pass on a guy like Ellignton based on the odds being clearly stacked against him. Sometimes I gamble on players and sometimes I don't. I like gambling in fantasy football, but if I was going to gamble on RB's next year I would pay a tad higher price to get a guy like Sankey. Different strokes for different folks.
There are things that I do like about Ellignton though and I have to admit in fantasy football especially for RB's it is opportunity. Ellignton has an opportunity which is a good starting point. I also like proven track record and that is debateable for Ellignton who is going to be playing in a different role than last year.
Ellignton did look good last year in small portions, but those of us that are on the fence about him are not willing to invest the pick it will take to get him. This is not a hit on ellignton it is weighing the odds and quite simply guessing or going with your gut feeling. I don't think anyone is truly wrong in this thread.
I happen to side more with Couer de Lion in this instance. I happen to think Ellignton is going to best be served in a role similar to last year when all is played out. He may always tease fantasy owners ala Quizz Rodgers in Atlanta. Now, before you attack me and say but Quizz has never had a high YPC and Ellignton is a different player. I get that. I am more happy to pass on a guy like Ellignton based on the odds being clearly stacked against him. Sometimes I gamble on players and sometimes I don't. I like gambling in fantasy football, but if I was going to gamble on RB's next year I would pay a tad higher price to get a guy like Sankey. Different strokes for different folks.
There are things that I do like about Ellignton though and I have to admit in fantasy football especially for RB's it is opportunity. Ellignton has an opportunity which is a good starting point. I also like proven track record and that is debateable for Ellignton who is going to be playing in a different role than last year.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
Wait, why is Spiller running for 4.6 ypc on 200 carries some huge accomplishment that makes him "safe" while Ellington running for 5.5 ypc on 118 carries isn't?
That's not even accounting for the fact that both the Bills and Chargers brought in additional running backs that have both looked pretty good lately.
I actually agree that I would take Mathews over Ellington in a redraft, though his upside is capped. Sometimes FFers play it safe to their own peril. It's not slow and steady in the 3rd/4th round that wins the race, it's typically the guys drafted in that area that then perform like 1st rounders that do it. The odds may be against Ellington doing that, but he does have that kind of upside so it's something to consider.
Khy
Footballguy
As I said above though, I'm not sure how in dynasty we can go on 'proven track record' as a part of analysis. And if we wanna say college track record, Ellington had some of that coming into the league. Again, a big reason he slipped so far in the draft was his essentially non-participation in the combine from pulling up a hammy in the first 40 yard attempt. Mayock had a 3rd round grade on him based on his tape. We see this often where a guy slips for something silly (whether it be mild character concerns, or bad combine stats) and ends up performing to their originally anticipated draft grade. Ellington graded out on tape as a 3rd round pick. It was a big factor of me taking him last season. In my head, he was a 3rd round pick and Arizona got a steal cause teams forgot about him.
As for the ADP thing of Ellington vs Spiller vs Mathews. I'm with Free... how is Spiller's 202/933/4.6ypc season that much safer than Ellington's 118/652/5.5ypc season? If you want to keep on with the 'small sample size' thing sure whatever, but those aren't that much different. Even in Spiller's gross season of 207/1244/6.0ypc he still barely eclipsed 200 carries and finished out as a Top 10 fantasy RB. And Spiller's start to his career wasn't even close to as explosive and productive as Ellington's was last season. Me personally, I think I'd rather take Ellington at that slot over Spiller and Mathews. Both of them have an extensive injury history. Mathews gets a hangnail and sits on the sideline for 2 games. So I'd rather that Ellington's lack of serious injury history and couple that with his upside being better than both of them (at least imo) and say I'll take Ellington.
And if you want my thoughts on why I think Spiller's upside is less than Ellington's I'm happy to expand on that theory.
Hey, that's a legitimate beef. Misinterpreting can be frustrating. But it is silly to dismiss size when it clearly does matter. Sure, there are always going to be exceptions. But generally, certain sizes fit certain roles in the NFL and you have to be a very special talent to get buy when you don't have ideal size (see Steve Smith or Bob Sanders). So you almost have to be a Jamaal Charles to be a small back in the NFL with a large workload. And Charles doesn't thrive on 300 carries per season. Andy Reid threw the ball to his RBs 153 times last season. 104 to Charles. Last year Arians only targeted his RBs 100 times total. Only 53 times in Indy the year before. In 2011, he threw to his RBs 66 times in PIT. 73 times in 2010. So this isn't actually an ideal situation for a player like Ellington. But now I'm blurring problems - size and situation. I think both should be red flags. Sure, small guys CAN thrive, but there's a reason that few do. Consider the NFL to be a sieve. Once things shake out, most of the small backs have fallen through the holes and been reduced to specialty roles. Only a few with elite talent stick around in prominent roles. So if you are going to gamble on a player, small backs have long odds compared to guys with prototypical size.
That was the thinking last year too when everyone overleveraged themselves with junk rbs
What is his upside capped at? Goal line backs have much more upside than non-goal line backs. Have you looked at his splits? Once McCoy gained faith in him, he took off. 168/775/5 + 19/123/0 in the last 8 games. That's almost 900 yards. Even with Brown, I think Mathews will perform like a 2nd round pick at worst. Given how poorly Woodhead performed down the stretch, I'd think Brown will steal more of Woodhead's carries than Mathews'. And I doubt either of them displace Mathews at the goal line.
As for Spiller, I guess you're going to ignore the high ankle sprain I mentioned? Before last season, he had 388 carries at 5.4 ypc. Including the injury plagued season, he's at 589 for 5.1 ypc. So yeah, that's a lot more impressive than Ellington's 118 carries which have a nice 80 yarder in there which may or may not skew his stats. Before anyone freaks out, I'm not saying take out the long play. Just be aware of its existence and use your own judgment on its statistical importance.
People say crap like this every year and it rarely turns out to be true, but you are trying to obscure the point: you completely misinterpreted his statement and went off on a ridiculous rant. To borrow your phrasing, have you heard of reading comprehension?
Yes i have actually. But you're mincing my words like your lil cohort likes to do. He suggested that since i project him as an RB1, he should be drafted as my RB1. The 'taking WR's early' nonsense is flawed logic, although he/you seem to think it holds true still. Top level fantasy rb production is a scarce commodity. Whereas WR's who produce at a high level are increasing year after year. Regardless of that, projecting player production vs where u actually 'draft' them are completely seperate. If you're to big of a dunce to recognize that, well then not sure what to tell you..
Last edited by a moderator:
Khy
Footballguy
I don't know about rarely turned out to be true... last season the gap between WR1 and WR12 (WR1) was less than 50 points or about 3ppg difference. The drop off from WR13 - WR24 (WR2) was much larger with Nelson at about 243pts and Hartline @ 24th with 182 pts. But Nelson had 243 points and 14th was Edelman with 224 points. So the main 'drop' was after 13, we saw a drop of 25 points or about 2 ppg difference in one ranking. So from 14-24th the difference was once again small... about 42 points or about 2.5ppg. 25-36 (WR3) value was only a difference of about 30 points, so about 2 ppg.
More or less meaning this
WR1: 18 - 15ppg
WR2: 14 - 12ppg
WR3: 11 - 9.5ppg
8.5ppg difference between the #1 WR and #36
That really isn't that steep of a drop off, not compared to some past seasons. Going back to 2008 the tiers were like so:
WR1: 16.5 - 12ppg
WR2: 12 - 10ppg
WR3: 9 - 8 ppg
8.5ppg difference between the #1 WR and #36.
Difference here being that 8.5 was significantly bigger a deal back in 2008 when your top players were scoring on average 2-3 less ppg than that of 2013 players. WR2's in 2013 were that of WR1's in 2008. That's a big difference. And WR3's in 2013 were that of WR2's in 2008 and so on. The gap has closed to an extent. You have a lot less drop off in WR1 than you did in the past and your WR2 & 3s are really almost the exact same whether it's a high or low end of the grade.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Not really. http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Draft-probabilities-by-position.html
Jonathan Bales
Exploring Running Back Size
Wednesday, April 02, 2014
http://www.rotoworld...-back-size?pg=1
Jonathan Bales is the author of the Fantasy Football for Smart People book series. He recently launched RotoAcademy - a fantasy football training school.
I was having a conversation with my dad the other day and I asked him to name the top four wide receivers in football with whom he’d want to start a team. He said Calvin Johnson, Josh Gordon, Dez Bryant and A.J. Green. I agree with three, subbing in Demaryius Thomas for Green (although it’s close).
Then I asked him to name the top four running backs with whom he’d start a team. LeSean McCoy was an immediate choice. He contemplated Jamaal Charles and Adrian Peterson, but in running back years, they’re basically dead. Matt Forte was on his list, as was Marshawn Lynch - Marshawn Lynch! - and Le’Veon Bell.
If that list sounds ridiculous to you, it’s because 1) it kind of is and 2) it’s really, really hard to figure out which running backs are the best ones. We can immediately identify the top wide receivers in the NFL, but that task is exponentially more difficult for running backs. If we’re incorporating age into our assessment - which we should since it matters in both real life and fantasy - who the hell are our starting four? I’d likely still throw Charles and perhaps AP in there with McCoy, but I seriously have no idea who is the fourth-best back in the NFL.
In short, we know that Julio Jones and Dez Bryant and those studs are better than second-tier receivers like Jordy Nelson and Eric Decker, who are in turn better than guys like Brandon LaFell. But outside of a couple obvious talents at running back, can we really know that the consensus No. 25 running back is any worse than the No. 5 player at the position? How good is a player like C.J. Spiller? I legitimately considered putting him in my top four, but I have a feeling that most people might not have him in their top 15 or 20.
When it comes down to it, running backs are just so dependent on their teammates for success that it’s really difficult to isolate their play and figure out how good they are. They’re difficult to project out of college and their NFL stats are only loosely tied to their actual talent.
That’s one reason I’ve been going against the grain in advocating a late-round running back strategy as of late, but it’s not like we can just draft only rookies at the position (maybe). Running back is still very important in the fantasy realm, so what can we make of the position?
Running backs are always going to be dependent on heavy usage for substantial production, but we still need to figure out some way to predict which ones are going to be useful when they get opportunities.
Running Back Size
Heading into this analysis, my hypothesis was that shorter, heavier running backs would have more success than taller, lighter ones. I was really interested in the height data because I’ve had a suspicion that shorter backs are generally better; they’re usually more agile, quicker and have a low center-of-gravity which is crucial at the position.
Related to both height and weight is body-mass index (BMI). Using BMI to judge overall health is absolutely asinine - pretty much every NFL player falls into the ‘obese’ category - but it’s still a good measure of how much bulk a running back possesses; a 5’10” back who weighs 210 pounds is bulkier and has a higher BMI than a 5’10” back who weighs only 190 pounds. The taller a player, the more difficult it is for him to have a high BMI. So I’m really looking to test three things - height, weight and body mass - and how they affect NFL performance.
The first thing I did was test the correlation between those three traits and a trio of stats - carries, yards-per-carry and touchdowns - for all backs since 2000 with at least 300 yards rushing. Here are those r-values. (see link for graphs)
The initial numbers suggest that height doesn’t affect NFL performance all that much for running backs (more on that later). Taller backs get a few more carries than shorter ones, they have a few more touchdowns, but they’re generally a bit less efficient in terms of YPC.
Meanwhile, take a look at weight and BMI. Neither affects workload very much - meaning we’ve already determined we can’t use running back size to predict rushing attempts - and they’re both weakly correlated to touchdowns. We’d expect bigger, heavier backs to score more touchdowns just because they see more goal line attempts, though.
But take a look at the effect of weight/BMI on rushing efficiency. They’re pretty strongly negatively correlated, meaning as weight increases, rushing efficiency decreases. This was at first a surprise to me because we wouldn’t expect heavier backs to be worse.
I overlooked an important fact, though; generally, heavier backs are slower than light ones, and speed is incredibly important to running backs. I’ve shown that the 40-yard dash matters more for backs than for any other position. Here’s a refresher that breaks down running back approximate value according to combine 40 times.
I value speed in running backs even more than other stat geeks; if a running back doesn’t run sub-4.55 (regardless of his weight), there’s very little chance I’ll draft him. If he’s very light, his little frame better be accompanied by blazing speed.
The fact that heavy running backs are much worse than lighter ones isn’t surprising when you consider the differences in speed. So does extra weight hurt a running back? No, with two caveats: 1) he isn’t just eating Wendy’s and the “extra” weight is lean muscle and 2) his speed remains unchanged. I’ll take a 220-pound back with 4.45 speed over a 200-pound back with the same speed all day. Weight is good, it’s just not as important as straight-line speed.
Now, let’s get back to height…
Height and Running Back Success
The correlations suggested that, as a general rule-of-thumb, taller might not be worse for backs, but there’s another way to analyze the data - sorting it into buckets. I like to do this because it helps see how performance changes at certain thresholds. And when we do that with height, we see a different story for running backs.
I sorted all of the data into quantiles for height, weight and BMI.
We see a steady decline in YPC with weight; the lightest quarter of all backs has been the most efficient, followed by the 26th-50th percentile, and so on. The BMI effect is similar, with a very rapid decline after the bottom quarter.
Very quickly, I want to mention that there’s probably a little bit of a selection bias here with lighter backs getting a higher quality of carries. When a running back gets a carry on third-and-10, he usually gains a decent number of yards, and he’s also usually a fairly light third-down back. However, such carries are pretty uncommon and the results are very strong, suggesting that the real culprit is simply heavy backs being slower.
I’m going to bold this sentence and say it again: the best running backs are fast.
Now, look at height. Remember that the correlations showed that height might not matter too much for running backs, but what we really see is that the bottom 75 percent of running backs in terms of height perform right around the same in terms of efficiency. Meanwhile, the top 25 percent - the tallest quarter of running backs - have rushed for fewer than 4.0 YPC since 2000. That’s horrific.
To me, this is clear evidence that height doesn’t matter all that much for running backs … to a point. And that point is right around 73 inches, or 6’1”.
Now let me just address the criticism sure to come to everyone’s minds: BUT ADRIAN PETERSON IS 6’1”! Yes, that’s true. As is the fact that Arian Foster ran a 4.68 in the 40-yard dash, Jerry Rice was also quite slow, Warren Sapp dominated inside despite shorter-than-average arms and lots of other cases of players becoming exceptions to the rule.
My goal isn’t to get every prediction correct, but just to tilt the odds a little bit. And the numbers suggest that, as a general rule-of-thumb, we should prefer shorter backs over those who stand well above 6’0”. That doesn’t mean we need to avoid every tall running back. In the case of Adrian Peterson, it’s kind of difficult to hate a 217-pound back with 4.40 speed. But if another back were similar to Peterson - 217 pounds with 4.40 speed and a comparable skill set - but he checked in at 5’10”, we’d be smart to favor the shorter back.
All other things equal, we should seek running backs 6’0” or shorter.
Running backs getting shorter and heavier
by CHASE STUART on APRIL 20, 2014
http://www.footballp...er-and-heavier/
In December, I noted that fewer rushing yards are coming from first round picks. That’s a trend that seems very likely to continue in 2014, and perhaps for the foreseeable future. As it turns out, running backs are also getting shorter and heavier.
LeSean McCoy, Alfred Morris, Frank Gore, Knowshon Moreno, Zac Stacy, DeAngelo Williams, Maurice Jones-Drew, Ray Rice, Giovani Bernard, Trent Richardson, Doug Martin, Danny Woodhead, and Mark Ingram are all 5’10 or shorter. As you can probably infer from the sheer quantity of the group, those players aren’t significant outliers: the “average” running back, weighted by rushing yards last season, was only five feet and 11.1 inches tall. That means backs like Jamaal Charles (6’1), Matt Forte (6’1), and Adrian Peterson are more outliers than the 5’10 backs.
This is a weighted average, so McCoy (who had about 3% of all rushing yards from running backs last year) counts three times as much as, say, Donald Brown when calculating the 2013 (weighted) average running back height. Regular readers will recognize that this is the same methodology I used when calculating the average (weighted) average of each team’s receivers last season. The graph below shows the average weighted height of all running backs since 1950: (See link for chart)
As you can see, running back used to be a tall man’s position. But average running back height has steadily decreased, dropping 1.8 inches from 1965 to 2013. At the same time, running backs are getting heavier, although players at all positions are getting heavier. Still, I thought it would be useful to calculate an average weighted weight of running backs since 1950 using the same formula:(See link for chart)
This trend towards shorter backs looks to continue in this year’s draft. Oregon’s De’Anthony Thomas (5’9, 174) is this year’s shifty/third down back model, while LSU’s Jeremy Hill (6’1, 233) and Ohio State’s Carlos Hyde (6’0, 230) fit the bruising back stereotype.
But most of the other top backs are in the short but stocky range: Auburn’s Tre Mason (207 pounds), Wisconsin’s James White (204), and combine superstar Jerick McKinnon (209) from Georgia Southern are all 5’9. Arizona’s Ka’Deem Carey and Washington’s Bishop Sankey are both 5’10 and around 208 pounds. Florida State’s Devonta Freeman (5-foot-8, 206 pounds) and Boston College’s Andre Williams (5’11, 230) also fit the general mold.
This makes sense to me, even if someone like Peterson remains the best back of our era. For running backs, a lower center of gravity helps, and as weight training and nutrition improves, packing on 210 pounds of muscle on a 5’10 frame is no longer atypical. Franco Harris, Jim Brown, andJohn Riggins were all 6’2, 230. Larry Csonka was even bigger. But the shorter back model is clearly preferred now.
One other note to keep in mind: Over the last decade, running backs are getting lighter. This is a pretty noticeable departure from historical trends, and I can’t imagine this feature is being duplicated at many other positions. But since lighter backs tend to be better in the passing game, this result isn’t too surprising, either.
T with T
Footballguy
CDL you are a moron. Im sorry man I hate to be rude but you just clearly don't get it. From being on these sites and reading thousands of posts I have to say you do say something of the most off the wall stuff to be found to mankind. Just because David Wilson had a bad year/ got hurt etc doesn't mean anything and the way you judge players shows you have very little fantasy football IQ. Stay in the tennis room.
...says one of the worst posters in the SP. When T with T disagrees with you, you are on the right track. I was just reading the Mason vs. Stacy thread and was dismayed to see this guy also likes Stacy. Made me rethink my take on the situation, but really, I assume mouth breathers are just throwing darts, getting hyped about players without really knowing why. Best to just completely ignore.
Bigboy10182000
Footballguy
Whats clear is that he never even bothered to look at this past years draft...the earliest picks were all bigger type RB's from what I recall
I'm not sure if this includes FB's or not but the average NFL RB comes in at 5'11 and around 220 pounds, that was from Deadspin FWIW
Sankey, the 1st rb off the boards is 5'9 , 209 lbs. Far from a big guy really, stocky yes. Hill and Hyde yea they're big backs for sure. But if you go through the draft board, the far majority of rbs' were under 6 feet and ~ 200 lbs. Its been beaten to death in this thread so i wont rehash the same rhetoric. But there have been numerous 'undersized' rb's who were great fantasy producers. Ellington just looks to be another...Bigboy10182000 said:
Bigboy10182000
Footballguy
The comment in the article said these backs were preffered...after looking at the first 5 or 6 taken it would seem the article was incorrect
ericttspikes
Footballguy
I doubt anyone is picking Ellington as a top 10-15 back. He's comfortably in a slew of RBs who are all a roll of the dice; Moreno, Joique Bell, RIce, Mathews, Rashad Jennings, Richardson, Gore, Johnson, Sankey. I might take some of these guys over Ellington, but none of these guys are slam dunks.
Bigboy10182000
Footballguy
The 21 year old, 12th pick of the draft? That guy?
You've been beaten over the head in here time and time again. I think you just need to admit that you are in love with Ellington or you are Ellington or close family of him.
Holy moses batman. We're talking SIZE here you dimwit. Who cares when/where or what age they were when drafted. My god, its like talking to my 7 yr old niece with you.
Bigboy10182000
Footballguy
Than block me. You're heading to my list shortly after this....theres a difference between stating your opinion and jamming it down people's throats because they don't agree with you over and over and over. You seem to be infatuated with Ellington and it's just weird.
Size is only a part of it. One was considered talented enough to be the 12th player taken. I know it's hard to see but it's actually a thing.
Bronco Billy
Footballguy
I would have included him but couldn't readily find his ADP in '97, and he started producing right from the onset of his career. The point I was trying to make is that we have seen enough guys drafted in FF well later than their production warranted because they dropped due to among other factors their size.
They seemed to drop in the NFL draft at least partly for the same reason. Some like Bradshaw dropped way down. Dunn was a mid-first round NFL pick.
'Then' block me. I see you're a Philly fan so grammar isn't your thing. Draft position is irrelevant ONCE they produce on the field. Sigh.
You want the countless # of players who did great things and weren't drafted high, or drafted at all? Or the countless # of guys taken high in the draft and did nothing in the NFL? It's an assinine argument really. But keep grasping at straws I suppose.
There is no infatuation with Ellington. I know a legit talent when i see it, you apparently do not. Lets move on please.
Bradshaw only dropped because of off the field/character issues. Most thought he was a 3rd rd talent at the time.
Bigboy10182000
Footballguy
Again with the weirdness...you're so infatuated with him you spend half your time insulting people who don't agree with you
You love him and not just in a FFB kind of way it seemsYou put your projections out there...top 6 in PPR (going off of last year) if I recall...lets see if it happens.
Khy
Footballguy
Early picks being big backs doesn't mean jack all imo. Look at the actual starters in this league. Here... lets look at the size of the top 20 backs last season (just using total rushing yards as that's the easiest way to do this).Bigboy10182000 said:
The average height among the top 20 backs last season was 71.05 inches or roughly 5' 11". Smallest being MJD at 5' 7" and the biggest being Forte at 6' 2".
The average weight was about 214lbs. Lightest was Charles at 199lbs and heaviest would be Lacy at 230lbs. Both clearly outliers.
So the 'average' BMI among the top 20 backs last season was 29.97 so more or less 30. The lowest would be Reggie Bush at 27.5 and the highest is the human dump truck Zac Stacy at 34.1. Just so we're clear, 5' 11" 214lbs works out to about 29.8 BMI so everything is pretty inline so far.
The average 40 time was 4.46. The fastest obviously Chris Johnson at 4.24 and the lowest Alfred Morris at 4.67.
So this guys article is more or less useless. The point here is, your 'perfect' RB is 5' 11" 214lbs and runs a 4.46 or better. With lower BMI typically comes faster speeds, although in some cases this isn't the case. All of the RBs on this list with a >=30 BMI ran a sub 4.5 40 except two... Fred Jackson and Le'Veon Bell. And of the 8 backs on this list with a BMI above 30, only 3 surpassed 4.5 speed DeAngelo Williams (31.7 BMI 4.40 speed), Chris Ivory (30.1 BMI, 4.48 speed) and MJD (32.9 BMI, 4.39 speed).
I also wanted to try something interesting... which is take the BMI and subtract the 40 time from it. Just to see if there's any correlation there at all. The average among these backs at that number comes to 25.51. The lowest being Reggie Bush at 23.17 and the highest being Zac Stacy at 29.55.
However, the guys we typically consider "elite" for fantasy purposes? LeSean McCoy, Matt Forte, Jamaal Charles, Adrian Peterson, Marshawn Lynch? All of them fall below the 26 point mark. I think this is a good metric for measuring the size + speed combination. I think that 26 mark is a good spot to be in for long term production type of status... there are obviously a few outliers as with every statistic. But the only 'long term' guy on this list that falls outside 26 is Frank Gore who sits at 27.42.
The guys who fall under 26 though? Reggie Bush (23.17), Jamaal Charles (23.44), Matt Forte (23.53), Fred Jackson (23.94), CJ Spiller (23.63), Chris Johnson (24.06), Adrian Peterson (24.2) & LeSean McCoy (24.5), Le'Veon Bell (25), DeMarco Murray (25.29), Ryan Mathews (25.35), Marshawn Lynch (25.54), Chris Ivory (25.62).
For comparison's sake... Andre Ellington has a 24.8 and that's assuming a 4.6 40.
Again, it's sort of a 'made up' statistic and but I'd be curious to see this translated to more historical numbers just to see where it leads. If I get a chance later today I might do it with the all time leading rushers just to see if it actually holds any water, it was just something I wanted to try.
Ditka Butkus
Footballguy
Size is a consideration.......but I would much rather have a smaller back that slips tackles and makes people miss than a big back that takes on tackles and takes a pounding from direct hits.
