BMI - invented in the 1800's, is it helpful or total junk? (1 Viewer)

[switz]

Felix Jones on the other hand is a fantastic bet to put on at least 8-10 pounds. It's no surprise that he's already up five pounds from his combine weight of 207.

Shocked you have something positive to say about Jones.

 

[EBF]

There is a reason they don't use BMI at the combine and they use this fancy little egg like machine.

FWIW, there's no need to "use BMI at the combine" since all of the information needed to calculate BMI is obtained.

What you don't understand is that BMI is meaningless. There is a reason they don't even use it for high school kids anymore.You can take two people who are 5'10 and wiegh 175 pounds and have two complete different body styles. BMI means nothing.

That may be true for the population as a whole, but I think it's a somewhat different story when you're talking about a group of fine-tuned professional athletes. It's a given that these guys have very low body fat percentages. That being the case, BMI offers a pretty good measure of muscle mass. A guy with a very low body fat and a very high BMI is probably jacked up. A guy with a very low body fat and a relatively high BMI is probably not nearly as muscular. This doesn't seem meaningless to me.

You have no clue knowing what thier body fat percentage is while using only BMI. If McFadden gained 10 pounds of muscle in only his upper body would that change your opinion on that chicken leg RB?

It's true that the body fat percentage will vary slightly among the RB prospects at the combine, but on average it will be very low since they're all world class athletes in peak physical condition. If they all have body fat percentages within a few percentage points of each other then BMI can tell us a lot about the differences in muscle mass among the group. You're right that it doesn't tell us much about the distribution of that muscle mass. A guy with huge legs and tiny arms might have the same BMI as a guy with huge arms and tiny legs. But the RBs at the combine were not randomly selected. They were selected because they're very good at performing a specific task that requires specific physical abilities. To me this means it's likely that they'll tend to have similar weight distributions. And again, I'll ask this question:If BMI is meaningless for RB prospects, then why aren't there any athletes with low BMI scores doing well at RB in the NFL?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Felix Jones on the other hand is a fantastic bet to put on at least 8-10 pounds. It's no surprise that he's already up five pounds from his combine weight of 207.

Shocked you have something positive to say about Jones.

I think I've got a way to take a pretty good stab at which RBs who need to gain weight after getting to the NFL will, and which ones won't. Not totally sure it works yet, but if it does I was way too low on Jones before. And if he bumps up to 215-220 he's right up there with Mendenhall and Stewart as a top prospect, IMO.

 

[Bri]

The biggest benefit of BMI is to better describe a player in terms of height/Weight ratio. A lot of short players get tabbed as small even though they carry good bulk anfd thin tall players labeled as big. It is at best a tool to be used in consideration, but well down the line.

why use BMI vs % body fat?ORpretending we know what the NFL teams will or won't spend money on, what about some of those tests with MRIs and XRays to determine different things about muscles. There's a wide range, sorry to be vague. All I'm getting at is with all their money why not use some big fancy machines/technology vs such a simple ratio?

Also, this does not account for the numerous prospects who are perfect in this measurement, but lack the other skills to be successful.

these prospects that I think you're alluding to bug me. I'd rather see a team take a FB(few do and they "always" pan out when they do) or some guy like David Ball that broke Rice's records. I'd rather see past success weighted more heavily than body mass I guess. I would be more OK with "my team" drafting Ball and cutting him, than drafting a 6-4, 220 pound(guess) 4.4 sprinter and cutting him.

1) BMI and body fat are not that same thing. the 2nd measures amount of fat in the body and the 1st a ratio of mass contained in a body. there are always new methods developing, some using mechanical technology, some apply concepts in different ways than before. 3) Most players in the NFL do fit into a range of athletic players, from large division 1 schools who were highly productive in college. Really good NFL personnel people are the ones better at seeing the frauds who fit the mold and find the gems who do not.

skipping/snipping point 2, nother time and nother daypercent muscle vs fat seems like a useful indication of something here. Most gyms I've joined over the years figure this out when I join so I gotta figure it's accepted in the athletic community.I'm not sure I totally understand why one would work well and the other wouldn't here as they're each measuring body fat

Body mass index (BMI) is a measure of body fat based on height and weight that applies to both adult men and women

 

[switz]

Felix Jones on the other hand is a fantastic bet to put on at least 8-10 pounds. It's no surprise that he's already up five pounds from his combine weight of 207.

Shocked you have something positive to say about Jones.

I think I've got a way to take a pretty good stab at which RBs who need to gain weight after getting to the NFL will, and which ones won't. Not totally sure it works yet, but if it does I was way too low on Jones before. And if he bumps up to 215-220 he's right up there with Mendenhall and Stewart as a top prospect, IMO.

That sounds pretty cool. I believe Jones has the potential be be the top, or in the top-2 backs form this years class. But i think everyone on these boards knows that already hehe

 

[Bri]

EBF wdcrob-

a ficticuous prospect has every single quality that Sweetness had but has a BMI of 27, will he be a great back or not?

 

[gianmarco]

EBF wdcrob-a ficticuous prospect has every single quality that Sweetness had but has a BMI of 27, will he be a great back or not?

I'll try to answer this from their perspective.You can't answer whether he will be or not. He could be. But his chances are lower than the same RB with a higher BMI. And, he's probably a "riskier" prospect compared to a guy with slightly less talent but an ideal BMI, but not necessarily a lesser prospect. Simply put, he would have a higher "bust" rate when compared to the same guy put in a higher BMI body.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

can you give another "gimmick/tweener type" for discussion(understood it's not the same person as Chris,just to clarify)

Warrick Dunn. He had a good, long career, but wasn't an elite 4-down back. Averaged 60 yards rushing/game and had only 62 TDs in 166 games. And his receiving numbers aren't out of this world either (<3 per game).Or, in FF terms, he never had a top-10 finish (FBGs scoring).And he's absolutely the BEST case scenario for someone that size. Drafted at #12 and had the best career of anyone like him in recent memory.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

EBF wdcrob-a ficticuous prospect has every single quality that Sweetness had but has a BMI of 27, will he be a great back or not?

I'll try to answer this from their perspective.You can't answer whether he will be or not. He could be. But his chances are lower than the same RB with a higher BMI. And, he's probably a "riskier" prospect compared to a guy with slightly less talent but an ideal BMI, but not necessarily a lesser prospect. Simply put, he would have a higher "bust" rate when compared to the same guy put in a higher BMI body.

IMO this is a great answer for someone between, say, 27.5 and 28.5.But 27? Bust. He just can't play in the NFL at the RB position. At least not as a traditional RB! Which, keep in mind, was the only question I was trying to answer.

 

[CalBear]

Johnson's combine BMI was 27.5, which is lower than any top 30 RB in the NFL. The closest guys are Warrick Dunn and Reggie Bush.

But not necessarily lower than the top 30 RBs in the NFL displayed at the combine. If you're comparing combine numbers to current numbers, it's junk data.

 

[Bri]

EBF wdcrob-a ficticuous prospect has every single quality that Sweetness had but has a BMI of 27, will he be a great back or not?

I'll try to answer this from their perspective.You can't answer whether he will be or not. He could be. But his chances are lower than the same RB with a higher BMI. And, he's probably a "riskier" prospect compared to a guy with slightly less talent but an ideal BMI, but not necessarily a lesser prospect. Simply put, he would have a higher "bust" rate when compared to the same guy put in a higher BMI body.

IMO this is a great answer for someone between, say, 27.5 and 28.5.But 27? Bust. He just can't play in the NFL at the RB position. At least not as a traditional RB! Which, keep in mind, was the only question I was trying to answer.

I was just throwing 27 out there. BTW It's impressive that that .5 bugs ya, (if it wasn't obvious before) it shows so much research and thought put in. I'm not sure why I disagree I just do then. Maybe I've glorified Sweetness in my mind too much over the years since he played but (as a pretend GM) I'd probably take a 7 foot tall Sweeteness so.....I'll have to think on this I guess

 

[switz]

The biggest benefit of BMI is to better describe a player in terms of height/Weight ratio. A lot of short players get tabbed as small even though they carry good bulk anfd thin tall players labeled as big. It is at best a tool to be used in consideration, but well down the line.

why use BMI vs % body fat?ORpretending we know what the NFL teams will or won't spend money on, what about some of those tests with MRIs and XRays to determine different things about muscles. There's a wide range, sorry to be vague. All I'm getting at is with all their money why not use some big fancy machines/technology vs such a simple ratio?

Also, this does not account for the numerous prospects who are perfect in this measurement, but lack the other skills to be successful.

these prospects that I think you're alluding to bug me. I'd rather see a team take a FB(few do and they "always" pan out when they do) or some guy like David Ball that broke Rice's records. I'd rather see past success weighted more heavily than body mass I guess. I would be more OK with "my team" drafting Ball and cutting him, than drafting a 6-4, 220 pound(guess) 4.4 sprinter and cutting him.

1) BMI and body fat are not that same thing. the 2nd measures amount of fat in the body and the 1st a ratio of mass contained in a body. there are always new methods developing, some using mechanical technology, some apply concepts in different ways than before. 3) Most players in the NFL do fit into a range of athletic players, from large division 1 schools who were highly productive in college. Really good NFL personnel people are the ones better at seeing the frauds who fit the mold and find the gems who do not.

skipping/snipping point 2, nother time and nother daypercent muscle vs fat seems like a useful indication of something here. Most gyms I've joined over the years figure this out when I join so I gotta figure it's accepted in the athletic community.I'm not sure I totally understand why one would work well and the other wouldn't here as they're each measuring body fat

Body mass index (BMI) is a measure of body fat based on height and weight that applies to both adult men and women

BMI does not actually measure body fat, it measures body mss - but mass is made up of more than just fat. That's why they stopped using it for kids, it doesn't actually measure body fat.But measuring mass is a good idea for football prospects, as their is a correlation between mass and success.

 

[EBF]

Johnson's combine BMI was 27.5, which is lower than any top 30 RB in the NFL. The closest guys are Warrick Dunn and Reggie Bush.

But not necessarily lower than the top 30 RBs in the NFL displayed at the combine. If you're comparing combine numbers to current numbers, it's junk data.

It mostly holds up when you look at the combine numbers because most of these guys enter the league as finished products or very close to it. I can probably go back and make a new list using only combine numbers when I get a chance. It will show pretty much the same thing.

 

[Bri]

EBF wdcrob-a ficticuous prospect has every single quality that Sweetness had but has a BMI of 27, will he be a great back or not?

I'll try to answer this from their perspective.You can't answer whether he will be or not. He could be. But his chances are lower than the same RB with a higher BMI. And, he's probably a "riskier" prospect compared to a guy with slightly less talent but an ideal BMI, but not necessarily a lesser prospect. Simply put, he would have a higher "bust" rate when compared to the same guy put in a higher BMI body.

A previous post and stuff like this is part of my issue with this BMI talk I guess. Take a stance on something and fail, then re-hash the hypothesis and fail again til ya get it right. I simply don't know another better way to move a hypothesis forward.To those that spent some time explaining, thanks for the time. I don't wholly understand it but I think I've got the gist of it. If you're up to it-Some day sometime, come up with a ranking and weight(weighting the qualities seems quite necessary) of the other qualities a RB should have likeSpeed 10%Vision 5%BMI 40%etcMaybe that's an idea or maybe trying to do that, you get on the path to a completely different idea similar to BMI...whatever, it just might be something to try and work out

 

[coolnerd]

The biggest benefit of BMI is to better describe a player in terms of height/Weight ratio. A lot of short players get tabbed as small even though they carry good bulk anfd thin tall players labeled as big. It is at best a tool to be used in consideration, but well down the line.

why use BMI vs % body fat?ORpretending we know what the NFL teams will or won't spend money on, what about some of those tests with MRIs and XRays to determine different things about muscles. There's a wide range, sorry to be vague. All I'm getting at is with all their money why not use some big fancy machines/technology vs such a simple ratio?

Also, this does not account for the numerous prospects who are perfect in this measurement, but lack the other skills to be successful.

these prospects that I think you're alluding to bug me. I'd rather see a team take a FB(few do and they "always" pan out when they do) or some guy like David Ball that broke Rice's records. I'd rather see past success weighted more heavily than body mass I guess. I would be more OK with "my team" drafting Ball and cutting him, than drafting a 6-4, 220 pound(guess) 4.4 sprinter and cutting him.

1) BMI and body fat are not that same thing. the 2nd measures amount of fat in the body and the 1st a ratio of mass contained in a body. there are always new methods developing, some using mechanical technology, some apply concepts in different ways than before. 3) Most players in the NFL do fit into a range of athletic players, from large division 1 schools who were highly productive in college. Really good NFL personnel people are the ones better at seeing the frauds who fit the mold and find the gems who do not.

skipping/snipping point 2, nother time and nother daypercent muscle vs fat seems like a useful indication of something here. Most gyms I've joined over the years figure this out when I join so I gotta figure it's accepted in the athletic community.I'm not sure I totally understand why one would work well and the other wouldn't here as they're each measuring body fat

Body mass index (BMI) is a measure of body fat based on height and weight that applies to both adult men and women

BMI does not actually measure body fat, it measures body mss - but mass is made up of more than just fat. That's why they stopped using it for kids, it doesn't actually measure body fat.But measuring mass is a good idea for football prospects, as their is a correlation between mass and success.

Thanks this is a better answer than I could give.

 

[jurb26]

Johnson's combine BMI was 27.5, which is lower than any top 30 RB in the NFL. The closest guys are Warrick Dunn and Reggie Bush.

But not necessarily lower than the top 30 RBs in the NFL displayed at the combine. If you're comparing combine numbers to current numbers, it's junk data.

It mostly holds up when you look at the combine numbers because most of these guys enter the league as finished products or very close to it. I can probably go back and make a new list using only combine numbers when I get a chance. It will show pretty much the same thing.

This is probably the thing I have the most problem with in all of this. I'd highly disagree that 20 yr old kids are finished products. I'd also suggest that NFL training regimens and college ones are different providing an opportunity for growth.

 

[gianmarco]

Johnson's combine BMI was 27.5, which is lower than any top 30 RB in the NFL. The closest guys are Warrick Dunn and Reggie Bush.

But not necessarily lower than the top 30 RBs in the NFL displayed at the combine. If you're comparing combine numbers to current numbers, it's junk data.

It mostly holds up when you look at the combine numbers because most of these guys enter the league as finished products or very close to it. I can probably go back and make a new list using only combine numbers when I get a chance. It will show pretty much the same thing.

This is probably the thing I have the most problem with in all of this. I'd highly disagree that 20 yr old kids are finished products. I'd also suggest that NFL training regimens and college ones are different providing an opportunity for growth.

I can't speak from experience and I don't know this for sure, but I would venture to guess they are much closer than you are implying here. These top collegiate schools that pump out pro athletes probably have just as dedicated workout facilities and training programs that the pros do.

 

[CalBear]

Johnson's combine BMI was 27.5, which is lower than any top 30 RB in the NFL. The closest guys are Warrick Dunn and Reggie Bush.

But not necessarily lower than the top 30 RBs in the NFL displayed at the combine. If you're comparing combine numbers to current numbers, it's junk data.

It mostly holds up when you look at the combine numbers because most of these guys enter the league as finished products or very close to it. I can probably go back and make a new list using only combine numbers when I get a chance. It will show pretty much the same thing.

1) I don't believe the numbers teams publish.2) People can get taller until age 25. They can get more massive at any time. Unless you have data that says that the currently listed weights and heights for today's RBs are essentially the same as what they listed at the combine, I have a hard time believing that the numbers are comparable.

 

[jurb26]

Johnson's combine BMI was 27.5, which is lower than any top 30 RB in the NFL. The closest guys are Warrick Dunn and Reggie Bush.

But not necessarily lower than the top 30 RBs in the NFL displayed at the combine. If you're comparing combine numbers to current numbers, it's junk data.

It mostly holds up when you look at the combine numbers because most of these guys enter the league as finished products or very close to it. I can probably go back and make a new list using only combine numbers when I get a chance. It will show pretty much the same thing.

This is probably the thing I have the most problem with in all of this. I'd highly disagree that 20 yr old kids are finished products. I'd also suggest that NFL training regimens and college ones are different providing an opportunity for growth.

I can't speak from experience and I don't know this for sure, but I would venture to guess they are much closer than you are implying here. These top collegiate schools that pump out pro athletes probably have just as dedicated workout facilities and training programs that the pros do.

No matter what, they don't have the same amount of time. You know, some of these kids do attend class....

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

This is probably the thing I have the most problem with in all of this. I'd highly disagree that 20 yr old kids are finished products. I'd also suggest that NFL training regimens and college ones are different providing an opportunity for growth.

20 year old kids are nowhere near finished products, but there aren't any 20 year olds joining the NFL and most elite backs are in fact pretty close to the finished product when they come to the NFL.Of the 71 backs drafted in the last 11 years that didn't have some sort of fatal flaw only two of them have current playing weights more than 10 pounds different than their combine numbers (Portis +17 and Ricky Wms -14). And even more surprising... only 17 changed weight more than five pounds. That's less than 25% and includes four who LOST weight. Only 13 of 71 put on five or more pounds - some of whom were still undersized after the weight gain.

So what I'm trying to do is sort players into three starting bins:

Which ones meet the basic criteria and can be successful at their combine weight (i.e. they don't need to gain anything);

Which don't meet the basic criteria;

Which meet the basic criteria, but don't meet the size and/or power requirements.

It's the 3rd group I've spent the most time on in the last few months. And I think it's possible to make an educated guess as to which ones in this group will gain enough weight to be successful and which ones won't. Or at least that's the hope today.

 

[EBF]

I just ran the numbers using combine heights and weights found on NFL Draft Scout.

Here are the combine BMI scores for the top 30 RBs in my PPR league:

Brian Westbrook - 30.1

LaDainian Tomlinson - 31.5

Clinton Portis - 28.7

Joseph Addai - 29.7

Adrian Peterson - 28.3

Jamal Lewis - 32.9

Frank Gore - 30.7

Marion Barber - 30.6

Willis McGahee - 30.0

Earnest Graham - 33.1

Reggie Bush - 28.3

Maurice Drew - 32.8

Edgerrin James - 29.3

Kenny Watson - N/A

Steven Jackson - 30.1

Marshawn Lynch - 29.9

Ryan Grant - 28.3

LenDale White - 32.0

Chester Taylor - 30.0

Willie Parker - N/A

Brandon Jacobs - 32.3

Thomas Jones - 31.0

Ronnie Brown - 31.4

Justin Fargas - 29.1

Adrian Peterson II - 30.7

Fred Taylor - N/A

Kevin Jones - 30.7

Warrick Dunn - N/A

DeShaun Foster - 29.7

DeAngelo Williams - 31.6

High: 32.9 (Lewis)

Low: 28.3 (Bush, Peterson, Grant)

Average: 30.5

This is the exact same average I got when I used the NFL.com heights and weights.

Others:

Ricky Williams - 34.4

Michael Turner - 33.6

Rudi Johnson - 33.0

Travis Henry - 32.8

Michael Bennett - 30.4

Larry Johnson - 30.1

Shaun Alexander - 29.8

Laurence Maroney - 29.7

Deuce McAllister - 29.2

 

[benm3218]

This is probably the thing I have the most problem with in all of this. I'd highly disagree that 20 yr old kids are finished products. I'd also suggest that NFL training regimens and college ones are different providing an opportunity for growth.

20 year old kids are nowhere near finished products, but there aren't any 20 year olds joining the NFL and most elite backs are in fact pretty close to the finished product when they come to the NFL.Of the 71 backs drafted in the last 11 years that didn't have some sort of fatal flaw only two of them have current playing weights more than 10 pounds different than their combine numbers (Portis +17 and Ricky Wms -14). And even more surprising... only 17 changed weight more than five pounds. That's less than 25% and includes four who LOST weight. Only 13 of 71 put on five or more pounds - some of whom were still undersized after the weight gain.

So what I'm trying to do is sort players into three starting bins:

Which ones meet the basic criteria and can be successful at their combine weight (i.e. they don't need to gain anything);

Which don't meet the basic criteria;

Which meet the basic criteria, but don't meet the size and/or power requirements.

It's the 3rd group I've spent the most time on in the last few months. And I think it's possible to make an educated guess as to which ones in this group will gain enough weight to be successful and which ones won't. Or at least that's the hope today.

Would you share your gut feelings on who then will make it for fun? I'd like to know.

 

[benm3218]

I just ran the numbers using combine heights and weights found on NFL Draft Scout.

Here are the combine BMI scores for the top 30 RBs in my PPR league:

Brian Westbrook - 30.1

LaDainian Tomlinson - 31.5

Clinton Portis - 28.7

Joseph Addai - 29.7

Adrian Peterson - 28.3

Jamal Lewis - 32.9

Frank Gore - 30.7

Marion Barber - 30.6

Willis McGahee - 30.0

Earnest Graham - 33.1

Reggie Bush - 28.3

Maurice Drew - 32.8

Edgerrin James - 29.3

Kenny Watson - N/A

Steven Jackson - 30.1

Marshawn Lynch - 29.9

Ryan Grant - 28.3

LenDale White - 32.0

Chester Taylor - 30.0

Willie Parker - N/A

Brandon Jacobs - 32.3

Thomas Jones - 31.0

Ronnie Brown - 31.4

Justin Fargas - 29.1

Adrian Peterson II - 30.7

Fred Taylor - N/A

Kevin Jones - 30.7

Warrick Dunn - N/A

DeShaun Foster - 29.7

DeAngelo Williams - 31.6

High: 32.9 (Lewis)

Low: 28.3 (Bush, Peterson, Grant)

Average: 30.5

This is the exact same average I got when I used the NFL.com heights and weights.

Others:

Ricky Williams - 34.4

Michael Turner - 33.6

Rudi Johnson - 33.0

Travis Henry - 32.8

Michael Bennett - 30.4

Larry Johnson - 30.1

Shaun Alexander - 29.8

Laurence Maroney - 29.7

Deuce McAllister - 29.2

THIS THEORY HAS JUST BEEN DEBUNKED! TOTAL GARBAGE.Lendale White at 32? I have seen every single game he has played in. He is overweight and out of shape. Fatdale White.

If he has 32 and thats close to ideal then this BMI is junk.

Ha! I knew it. Lendale White is close to perfect.... JUNK

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Would you share your gut feelings on who then will make it for fun? I'd like to know.

I'm wrapping up my off-season FF shenanigans right now and hope to post an uber-predictions thread covering both WRs and RBs in the next week or two.It'd be smarter to wait a year or two since none of this stuff is tested looking forward yet, but where's the fun in that? If I'm wrong no one dies and it was still fun.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

THIS THEORY HAS JUST BEEN DEBUNKED! TOTAL GARBAGE.Lendale White at 32? I have seen every single game he has played in. He is overweight and out of shape. Fatdale White.If he has 32 and thats close to ideal then this BMI is junk. Ha! I knew it. Lendale White is close to perfect.... JUNK

White is also over six feet tall.

 

[EBF]

THIS THEORY HAS JUST BEEN DEBUNKED! TOTAL GARBAGE.Lendale White at 32? I have seen every single game he has played in. He is overweight and out of shape. Fatdale White.If he has 32 and thats close to ideal then this BMI is junk. Ha! I knew it. Lendale White is close to perfect.... JUNK

White is also over six feet tall.

And coming off an 1,100 yard rushing season.You do have to use a little bit of common sense with these things. Obviously LenDale White's 32 BMI is a little different than Rashard Mendenhall's 32 BMI. The general idea of an ideal BMI in the 29-32 range holds true though.

 

[jurb26]

This is probably the thing I have the most problem with in all of this. I'd highly disagree that 20 yr old kids are finished products. I'd also suggest that NFL training regimens and college ones are different providing an opportunity for growth.

20 year old kids are nowhere near finished products, but there aren't any 20 year olds joining the NFL and most elite backs are in fact pretty close to the finished product when they come to the NFL.Of the 71 backs drafted in the last 11 years that didn't have some sort of fatal flaw only two of them have current playing weights more than 10 pounds different than their combine numbers (Portis +17 and Ricky Wms -14). And even more surprising... only 17 changed weight more than five pounds. That's less than 25% and includes four who LOST weight. Only 13 of 71 put on five or more pounds - some of whom were still undersized after the weight gain.

McFadden entered the NFL at 20 and wont turn 21 till later this month. Along with him, Mendenhall is 21, Jones is 21, Rice is 21 and most guys are barely 22 when entering. You say only 17 changed weight more than 5 lbs as if that is a minor amount. I would say 24% is a significant amount considering that guys like EBF are constantly telling us that RBs are "finished products." 1 out of 4 are still seeing what I would consider significant physical changes. Also, I'd be more interested in seeing how the change in body weight correlates to age rather than simply since entering the league. My instincts would tell me that a guy like McFadden who is only 20 is going to have a much higher probability of being in that 24% that change more than 5 lbs than a guy who comes into the league at 22 or 23. I'd say it's telling that the 2 guys you sighted as having gained the most weight in your sample are Portis (entered at 20) and Williams (entered at 21).

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

McFadden entered the NFL at 20 and wont turn 21 till later this month. Along with him, Mendenhall is 21, Jones is 21, Rice is 21 and most guys are barely 22 when entering.

The average age of all RBs on 9/1 of their rookie years is almost exactly 23. And only 28 of 196 in my data set were under 22.

You say only 17 changed weight more than 5 lbs as if that is a minor amount. I would say 24% is a significant amount considering that guys like EBF are constantly telling us that RBs are "finished products."

Five pounds is significant for some of them, but for many of them it's not. If you need twelve and get five the extra five aren't going to help very much.

Also, I'd be more interested in seeing how the change in body weight correlates to age rather than simply since entering the league. My instincts would tell me that a guy like McFadden who is only 20 is going to have a much higher probability of being in that 24% that change more than 5 lbs than a guy who comes into the league at 22 or 23. I'd say it's telling that the 2 guys you sighted as having gained the most weight in your sample are Portis (entered at 20) and Williams (entered at 21).

Your instincts are good. But McFadden's still not likely to put on major weight if I'm right about who develops after reaching the NFL and who doesn't.

 

[jurb26]

Also, I'd be more interested in seeing how the change in body weight correlates to age rather than simply since entering the league. My instincts would tell me that a guy like McFadden who is only 20 is going to have a much higher probability of being in that 24% that change more than 5 lbs than a guy who comes into the league at 22 or 23. I'd say it's telling that the 2 guys you sighted as having gained the most weight in your sample are Portis (entered at 20) and Williams (entered at 21).

Your instincts are good. But McFadden's still not likely to put on major weight if I'm right about who develops after reaching the NFL and who doesn't.

What are you using as a hypothesis for this? Everything I have read and heard about McFadden would suggest that he is nearly certain to gain weight.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Everything I have read and heard about McFadden would suggest that he is nearly certain to gain weight.

Just looking at who did and who didn't gain weight in the past. And the fact he hasn't started putting on weight since the draft is interesting.

 

[jurb26]

Everything I have read and heard about McFadden would suggest that he is nearly certain to gain weight.

Just looking at who did and who didn't gain weight in the past. And the fact he hasn't started putting on weight since the draft is interesting.

OK, so basically is totally arbitrary then. FYI, Portis didn't put weight on until his 2nd year and actually lost about 8 lbs during his 1st year (this is why I gave McFadden 2 year window earlier). How does Portis' weight loss factor into your study? Who did and didn't gain weight that you are linking to McFadden? Hate to say it, but it really seems like you just don't like McFadden given some of the responses. I think its safe to say there is a LOT of speculation in regards to this subject.

 

[puckalicious]

THIS THEORY HAS JUST BEEN DEBUNKED! TOTAL GARBAGE.Lendale White at 32? I have seen every single game he has played in. He is overweight and out of shape. Fatdale White.If he has 32 and thats close to ideal then this BMI is junk. Ha! I knew it. Lendale White is close to perfect.... JUNK

The BMI range we are talking about is for determining a RB's ability to handle a full NFL workload. As in a workhorse, every down back. Lendale fits that description pretty well.Granted, he is probably an outlier in terms of body fat %, but to call him out of shape? We are talking about the NFL here right?Sort of like saying that boxer Butterbean is out of shape. Yeah, he's got more body fat than the typical boxer (ok, ALOT more) but he is probably more "in shape" than 99% of the general population. I think you are confusing the appearance of body fat with an athlete's cardiovascular fitness. Take me for example - I'm pretty skinny with a low body fat % and well defined muscle tone, but I can guarantee that I am more out of shape than many "fat" people.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

OK, so basically is totally arbitrary then.

It's not arbitrary - it's looking at who did and didn't gain weight and what those players each had in common. Turns out they share a few things that are measurable. And they statistically correlate to weight change very strongly.

 

[jurb26]

OK, so basically is totally arbitrary then.

It's not arbitrary - it's looking at who did and didn't gain weight and what those players each had in common. Turns out they share a few things that are measurable. And they statistically correlate to weight change very strongly.

You continue to avoid the question.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

OK, so basically is totally arbitrary then.

It's not arbitrary - it's looking at who did and didn't gain weight and what those players each had in common. Turns out they share a few things that are measurable. And they statistically correlate to weight change very strongly.

You continue to avoid the question.

Whatever dude. If you want to believe I've got some sort of an ax to grind against someone I don't know - feel free.But you may want to spend some time boning up on the vocab - 'arbitrary' already has a definition.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I know you've posted the information elsewhere, but which RB's in this year's class match the ideal BMI range?

If you look at the elite NFL backs of the past 5-6 years (the guys who played at a high level for a long time) you get the following numbers using heights and weights from NFL.com:Jamal Lewis - 34.2Shaun Alexander - 31.8LaDainian Tomlinson - 31.7Clinton Portis - 31.1Marshall Faulk - 30.3Brian Westbrook - 30.1Fred Taylor - 30.1Edgerrin James - 29.8Ahman Green - 29.6Tiki Barber - 29.4As you can see, the range is pretty narrow. Mostly between 29.5-32.0. Here's the BMI info for this year's top rookie backs using actual combine heights and weights:Jonathan Stewart - 33.5Rashard Mendenhall - 32.2Tashard Choice - 30.5Ray Rice - 30.3Ryan Torain - 29.9Felix Jones - 29.6Steve Slaton - 29.0Kevin Smith - 28.5Matt Forte - 28.4Jamaal Charles - 27.9Darren McFadden - 27.7Chris Johnson - 27.5 Jones, Torain, Rice, and Choice are all comfortably within the ideal range. Mendenhall and Stewart are actually slightly oversized, but they're pretty close to some very good modern backs (MJD - 32.6, Gore - 32.9, Lewis - 34.2).

So Jones at 29.6 is "comfortably within" this range of 29.5-32.0, yet Mendenhall "is actually oversized" at 32.2?If you want any credibility to the study, don't interpret them so rigidly.

 

[jurb26]

OK, so basically is totally arbitrary then.

It's not arbitrary - it's looking at who did and didn't gain weight and what those players each had in common. Turns out they share a few things that are measurable. And they statistically correlate to weight change very strongly.

You continue to avoid the question.

Whatever dude. If you want to believe I've got some sort of an ax to grind against someone I don't know - feel free.But you may want to spend some time boning up on the vocab - 'arbitrary' already has a definition.

I could care less if you have an ax to grind or not. You are insinuating that you have some sort of data to back up what you are saying but never provide it. I'm only interesting in gathering the information. Again, I'll ask. What attributes are you looking at to gage if a player is going to gain weight or not?What players who have not gained weight are you linking McFadden to and what is the common attribute?What players who have gained weight are you not linking him to but are linking to others and what is the common attribute?These are not difficult questions. You have stated and implied to have this information or be using it. By not sharing it, it seems that yes, you do have some sort of ax to grind.

 

[EBF]

I know you've posted the information elsewhere, but which RB's in this year's class match the ideal BMI range?

If you look at the elite NFL backs of the past 5-6 years (the guys who played at a high level for a long time) you get the following numbers using heights and weights from NFL.com:Jamal Lewis - 34.2Shaun Alexander - 31.8LaDainian Tomlinson - 31.7Clinton Portis - 31.1Marshall Faulk - 30.3Brian Westbrook - 30.1Fred Taylor - 30.1Edgerrin James - 29.8Ahman Green - 29.6Tiki Barber - 29.4As you can see, the range is pretty narrow. Mostly between 29.5-32.0. Here's the BMI info for this year's top rookie backs using actual combine heights and weights:Jonathan Stewart - 33.5Rashard Mendenhall - 32.2Tashard Choice - 30.5Ray Rice - 30.3Ryan Torain - 29.9Felix Jones - 29.6Steve Slaton - 29.0Kevin Smith - 28.5Matt Forte - 28.4Jamaal Charles - 27.9Darren McFadden - 27.7Chris Johnson - 27.5 Jones, Torain, Rice, and Choice are all comfortably within the ideal range. Mendenhall and Stewart are actually slightly oversized, but they're pretty close to some very good modern backs (MJD - 32.6, Gore - 32.9, Lewis - 34.2).

So Jones at 29.6 is "comfortably within" this range of 29.5-32.0, yet Mendenhall "is actually oversized" at 32.2?If you want any credibility to the study, don't interpret them so rigidly.

Comfortably was a stretch. Mendenhall is my top ranked rookie, so I'm obviously not too worried about his BMI.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

If you look at the elite NFL backs of the past 5-6 years (the guys who played at a high level for a long time) you get the following numbers using heights and weights from NFL.com:

.....

As you can see, the range is pretty narrow. Mostly between 29.5-32.0.

...

I just ran the numbers using combine heights and weights found on NFL Draft Scout.

Here are the combine BMI scores for the top 30 RBs in my PPR league:

Clinton Portis - 28.7

Reggie Bush - 28.3

Ryan Grant - 28.3



Ricky Williams - 34.4

Michael Turner - 33.6

Rudi Johnson - 33.0

Travis Henry - 32.8

Deuce McAllister - 29.2

Lots of discrepancies with this little theory.So how about that Reggie Bush?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

These are not difficult questions. You have stated and implied to have this information or be using it. By not sharing it, it seems that yes, you do have some sort of ax to grind.

Guess you'll have to decide for yourself if I'm not answering your question because I hate Darren McFadden or if it's because I'm not interested in giving every random stranger on the Internet the details of an answer it took me two years to find.Feel free to be arbitrary.

 

[EBF]

If you look at the elite NFL backs of the past 5-6 years (the guys who played at a high level for a long time) you get the following numbers using heights and weights from NFL.com:

.....

As you can see, the range is pretty narrow. Mostly between 29.5-32.0.

...

I just ran the numbers using combine heights and weights found on NFL Draft Scout.

Here are the combine BMI scores for the top 30 RBs in my PPR league:

Clinton Portis - 28.7

Reggie Bush - 28.3

Ryan Grant - 28.3



Ricky Williams - 34.4

Michael Turner - 33.6

Rudi Johnson - 33.0

Travis Henry - 32.8

Deuce McAllister - 29.2

Lots of discrepancies with this little theory.

There weren't many discrepancies when I used the NFL.com height and weight numbers. Using the actual combine numbers revealed a few more successful low-ish BMI guys, but the average (30.5) was actually exactly the same as when I used the NFL.com numbers. I think it dispels the notion that the only reason guys like McFadden, Charles, and Johnson look small is because they're being compared to NFL veterans and not incoming rookies. They look small even when compared to incoming rookies. Overall, there's a pretty clear pattern. Most of the top pro backs fall roughly within the 29-33 range. None of them had a BMI below 28 when they entered the NFL.

So how about that Reggie Bush?

What about him?

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

If you look at the elite NFL backs of the past 5-6 years (the guys who played at a high level for a long time) you get the following numbers using heights and weights from NFL.com:

.....

As you can see, the range is pretty narrow. Mostly between 29.5-32.0.

...

I just ran the numbers using combine heights and weights found on NFL Draft Scout.

Here are the combine BMI scores for the top 30 RBs in my PPR league:

Clinton Portis - 28.7

Reggie Bush - 28.3

Ryan Grant - 28.3



Ricky Williams - 34.4

Michael Turner - 33.6

Rudi Johnson - 33.0

Travis Henry - 32.8

Deuce McAllister - 29.2

Lots of discrepancies with this little theory.

There weren't many discrepancies when I used the NFL.com height and weight numbers. Using the actual combine numbers revealed a few more successful low-ish BMI guys, but the average (30.5) was actually exactly the same as when I used the NFL.com numbers. I think it dispels the notion that the only reason guys like McFadden, Charles, and Johnson look small is because they're being compared to NFL veterans and not incoming rookies. They look small even when compared to incoming rookies. Overall, there's a pretty clear pattern. Most of the top pro backs fall roughly within the 29-33 range. None of them had a BMI below 28 when they entered the NFL.

So how about that Reggie Bush?

What about him?

I thought you liked Reggie Bush, and he falls out of your BMI "ideal" zone definition.

 

[jurb26]

These are not difficult questions. You have stated and implied to have this information or be using it. By not sharing it, it seems that yes, you do have some sort of ax to grind.

Guess you'll have to decide for yourself if I'm not answering your question because I hate Darren McFadden or if it's because I'm not interested in giving every random stranger on the Internet the details of an answer it took me two years to find.Feel free to be arbitrary.

So it took over 2 hours for you to say that you don't feel like telling.

 

[EBF]

I thought you liked Reggie Bush, and he falls out of your BMI "ideal" zone definition.

I liked him when he was entering the league and he's been a great pick for me in the only dynasty league where I took him (PPR), but he's certainly been a mild disappointment as an NFL player. His struggles are part of the reason why I started paying attention to BMI. My current model would be skeptical of Reggie Bush.

 

[gianmarco]

Here is my one issue with BMI's and combines in general and trying to apply these "rules", particularly using #'s. The main crux of most of these arguments, studies, guidelines, etc. are based on #'s and standards of which there aren't really any to go by. It goes along with the simple concept of garbage in = garbage out.

These calculations on BMI's are really only helpful if there is an absolute standard that is applied to ALL RB's (or whatever position/athlete). In other words, you have to have true weights and true heights at the same timeframe. As far as I know, that simply doesn't happen. Heights are misrepresented, multiple weights are given---there simply is no standard. So, if you are trying to apply a rule using BMI's and using actual cutoffs at 10ths of a point, then you're using flawed data to start with and the validity comes into question. The general premise behind this is absolutely useful, but when you start nitpicking on small amounts, then that's a problem. Add in the fact that some weights are from college playing time, some during the combine, and some afterward and there simply is no standard (not to mention the heights/weights from older players you're using as a baseline are even more off).

Now, you factor in combine #'s which are one-time measurements. I'm sorry, but we all know that everyone has good and bad days and some have better combines than they normally would if repeated 10 times and vice versa. I have a hard time using these gauges and these combine #'s to say a player will fail, but IF he had run so and so instead, then he's a solid prospect. Who's to say he doesn't truly run that but was merely a few hundredths of a second off on that particular run or that day. We look at these pro day #'s and see differences and dismiss those, but what if those are the more accurate #'s?

I think the bottomline is that there is something to be said for BMI and body types. EBF brings up a fantastic point to drive this home. There are tons and tons of athletes with lower BMI's but they aren't RB's. Why is that? Take Randy Moss as he used in his example. An amazing gifted athlete that would fail miserably as a RB. Reason being, he simply doesn't have the build for it. These ranges that are being defined are nice and all, but in all honesty, I don't really believe them due to the fact that there simply is no standard. That being said, I don't need a BMI to tell me that McFadden doesn't have a typical body type of a successful RB. The data that has been accumulated shows that, for the most part, successful elite RB's have a higher BMI and compact, squatty build with quickness. It's just what works well for that position. The more you deviate from that ideal, the worse the odds of being successful but does not make it impossible. See Jerome Bettis/Jamal Lewis for example (and vice versa).

I think this is an interesting year because we have a lot of "odd" RB's who don't all fit prototypical, workhouse RB's. At the same time, we're seeing more and more of these guys. Not every RB has to be an elite prospect to have use in the NFL or in fantasy terms. But, if I were trying to hit the homerun and find the next LT or Marshall Faulk and had 2 guys to compare, I would put it on the guy who most resembled that prototypical back with a BMI in the ranges provided with a give or take attitude and less rigidity.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I thought you liked Reggie Bush, and he falls out of your BMI "ideal" zone definition.

I liked him when he was entering the league and he's been a great pick for me in the only dynasty league where I took him (PPR), but he's certainly been a mild disappointment as an NFL player. His struggles are part of the reason why I started paying attention to BMI. My current model would be skeptical of Reggie Bush.

So, that means you are trading him from that franchise, correct?Just wondering.

 

[EBF]

That's basically how I see it. BMI isn't the holy grail of evaluating RB prospects. It's merely one data point to consider. I think people who ignore it are making a mistake, but I also think it would be a mistake to make decisions based solely on BMI.

 

[benm3218]

Portis, Grant, Deuce? uhhh...

Look, EBF - I know you wouldn't say that there is a hard and fast rule here. You would say there are exceptions. You already stated that "90% fit in this bucket". Well one out of ten not fitting in the bucket is a pretty significant number. It's not like catching lighting in a bottle. One in ten are pretty good odds.

If you had watched the plays CJ had in the game on a dvr in slow mo like I did you would see a player who picked a blitz and held 2 people long enough for VY to make a great play. You would see a player that DEMANDED the safeties attention freeing up VY to make his 35 yard run. You would see a player who side stepped a tackler while going full speed without losing a bit of that speed and effortlessly keeping his balance.

If you had seen the game live and had the ability to study his plays you would be thinking he was most likely going to fall in that 10% bracket that made it without being ideal.

You have a nifty argument that can be used successfully more often than not. The statistics prove this. But, you simply can't judge a player by a stat, you have to actually watch them or study them to have a real opinion. If you don't have time to watch film and want to use a thing like BMI to compensate for lack of time to watch film thats ok, but don't act like CJ probably won't make it in the NFL just because an excel sheet says so.

 

[EBF]

I thought you liked Reggie Bush, and he falls out of your BMI "ideal" zone definition.

I liked him when he was entering the league and he's been a great pick for me in the only dynasty league where I took him (PPR), but he's certainly been a mild disappointment as an NFL player. His struggles are part of the reason why I started paying attention to BMI. My current model would be skeptical of Reggie Bush.

So, that means you are trading him from that franchise, correct?Just wondering.

I wouldn't trade Reggie Bush in a PPR league. That doesn't mean I think he's the next great NFL back.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I thought you liked Reggie Bush, and he falls out of your BMI "ideal" zone definition.

I liked him when he was entering the league and he's been a great pick for me in the only dynasty league where I took him (PPR), but he's certainly been a mild disappointment as an NFL player. His struggles are part of the reason why I started paying attention to BMI. My current model would be skeptical of Reggie Bush.

So, that means you are trading him from that franchise, correct?Just wondering.

I wouldn't trade Reggie Bush in a PPR league. That doesn't mean I think he's the next great NFL back.

I get it, you have a theory that you're pushing yet you don't believe in it. Thanks.