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!
I've never said Chris Johnson won't be a good player in the NFL. I've said multiple times that I think he has a lot of potential.However, I'll be VERY surprised if he's ever a true starter like Westbrook or Tiki. That has nothing to do with his talent and everything to do with his body type, which he probably won't be able to change. He's acutely undersized from a BMI standpoint. This either bothers you or it doesn't.
I get it, you're a hater. Thanks.
There's an old saying about practicing what you preach.Sorry to confuse your theory with some facts.Carry on.
The fact that I don't want to trade Reggie Bush in my PPR league is evidence that I don't believe that RB prospects with ideal BMI scores are much more likely to become elite FF backs than similar RB prospects with low BMI scores? Yea Jeff, you've added a lot to this discussion.
I don't think anyone is trying to hate on you or the premise. It just seems like there is a total lack of consistency going on in these threads. You don't like Bush's BMI, but you wont trade him. You don't like McFadden because his BMI is outside your ideal range. You love Stewart and Mendenhall though and theirs too is outside your ideal range only on the higher end rather than lower end. Some guys can gain weight. Some guys can't gain weight. Though nobody will give tangible reasons as to who can and who can't. Some guys are finished products others are not. The variability of accurate height and weight numbers. Its difficult to take this measure as seriously as you and some others would like when in reality we know that the measures of it can be rather fluid over time. Even during the course of a season a players BMI can change greatly (in realation to the slim window that you site as an ideal range). Does that mean that RB got significantly more or less likely to be an elite 3 down RB? We could go on and on. There are no standards when talking about this subject.
u were ok till this... now you sound rediculous. Keep digging, your hole will get deeper.The fact that I don't want to trade Reggie Bush in my PPR league is evidence that I don't believe that RB prospects with ideal BMI scores are much more likely to become elite FF backs than similar RB prospects with low BMI scores? Yea Jeff, you've added a lot to this discussion.
People are attributing beliefs to me that I simply don't possess. There's a difference between saying BMI is important and saying BMI is all-important. I've never said it should be the only consideration so I'm not sure why people assume that I think it's the only consideration. Like I said, I've actually drafted Chris Johnson in PPR leagues and I've recommended him to other owners who have asked me for advice in their dynasty drafts. If I thought he was garbage then I wouldn't have done either of those things. The Reggie Bush stuff is somewhat irrelevant. I was very high on his prospects two years ago before I incorporated BMI into my evaluation process. I still think he's a great back in PPR leagues. That doesn't mean I think he's a superstar nor does it contradict my belief in the importance of BMI. Reggie Bush is not a stud in standard formats and will almost certainly never be a 300+ carry back based on what we've seen so far. If anything, he's a good piece of evidence in support of what I've been saying: low BMI backs do not become workhorses in the NFL. Regarding Stewart and Mendenhall, I'll go back to what I said about BMI being important, but not necessarily all-important. I've liked both of these guys throughout the entire evaluation process. Their BMIs may not be quite ideal, but they're close. There have been some very good workhorse NFL backs in the past few years who had similar BMI numbers. To me this means that backs with their BMI scores can be successful. So BMI is not something that concerns me with these two.There have been no successful workhorse RBs with a BMI as low as that of Charles, Johnson, or McFadden. To me this is more of a red flag than the Stewart/Mendenhall BMI issue. Moreover, it's a quantitative data point that jives with my first hand observations of these backs: they're not built like RBs and they don't run with power. They will probably never be stud workhorse backs in the NFL. This is something that I think people should consider when they're drafting. There's really not much inconsistency here. I'm saying that there appears to be a fairly narrow range of body types that can yield a successful workhorse NFL back. Prospects who fall within that range should probably be favored over similar prospects who don't. I would typically recommend taking the ideal first round RB over the non-ideal first round RB. In general, I would be wary of prospects with low BMI scores. I'm pretty sure this is what I've been arguing all along. I don't think it's a stretch.
The 1st paragraph isn't true and that has been pointed out before. Peterson, Dunn and R. Smith are all examples of recent guys who have been successful with a lower BMI than you think is ideal. I'm sure some question if Dunn qualifies as a workhorse RB, but with 3 straight years of over 265 carries and back to back years of 280+, I'd have to say he proved capable. On top of that, the career rushing list is littered with guys on the low end of that measure.Again, we are not even sure how accurate the numbers you are basing this theory on are. We are also unsure how often they change, how rapidly they change and at what stages of players careers or even a given season they change. These are rather sever problems in a lot of peoples minds.
Most of the top college backs fall roughly within the 29-33 range, so your population has a selection bias. And you can't hand wave at the combine numbers which show that a guy like Peterson, who had an extremely successful rookie season and now is the #2 fantasy pick, actually is undersized by your measure. Should you have avoided Peterson?Want to know why your average stayed the same? Because thin RBs put on weight, and fat RBs lose it.
Yes, and there's a functional reason why most of the top college backs fall within that range.
I never said BMI is all-important. I took Peterson over Lynch at 1.01 in a rookie draft last year after a long process of weighing all the variables. In the end, I decided that Peterson's rare talent was worth a gamble over Lynch's more prototypical build. Even though Peterson had durability concerns, his potential when healthy was too much to pass up. However, I don't think Peterson is necessarily a great example of a successful low BMI back despite his monster rookie year. He has only played one full season in the past four years and hasn't yet shown the ability to be a durable workhorse back. McFadden's supporters might wonder why I haven't cut him the slack I cut Peterson. Qualitatively, I don't think McFadden is nearly as impressive as Peterson was. His build is also significantly less ideal. In this case the positives aren't enough to outweigh the negatives like they were with ADP. I have Mendenhall and Stewart ranked higher than DMC.
Can you prove this? You said my numbers were junk data because they didn't reflect the size of these players entering the league. I provided new numbers showing that the average was the same for players entering the league and you're still not satisfied. Maybe you just don't want to believe in this stuff.
That's an assertion you haven't proven. You certainly haven't proven it for all individuals. And you haven't addressed the issue that your selection population looks pretty much like your resultant population, which is exactly what you would expect if there were no significant statistical effect.
Peterson played more games than Marshawn Lynch. Running backs get hurt sometimes. Your data do nothing to prove that lighter backs are more likely to be injured--in fact, your examples of small RBs include some extremely durable backs. Warrick Dunn has played in more games than any other tailback in the last 10 years--Tiki Barber, another small back, is #3 in that population.You're just ignoring a data point that doesn't agree with your hypothesis. That's the opposite of analysis.
The fact that the average is the same proves nothing; the question is whether the tiny population of individuals who you are using to define "success" entered the league with BMI which is less than ideal by your criteria. And it turns out that there are several examples where a "successful" back now has "ideal" BMI, but entered the league with less. A couple of those examples (Peterson and Portis) are in the top-5 RBs being selected in fantasy drafts this year. If you are truly analyzing what's going on, that would be a huge warning flag that your hypothesis should be reconsidered or declared false. Instead, you're curve-fitting and moving the goalposts.
If BMI is irrelevant, why are there no successful RBs in the NFL with low BMIs? No one has been able to answer this question.It's pretty clear that there's a selection process favoring a fairly specific body type. How you could dismiss this as arbitrary is beyond me.
Tiki Barber probably had a near ideal BMI during his best seasons. I'd venture to guess that Warrick Dunn is pretty close to ideal if you look at his actual height and weight (and Dunn can hardly be considered a stud workhorse RB since his best years pale in comparison to the best seasons by high BMI backs). Adrian Peterson has been chronically injured throughout his brief career. He's not a proven workhorse. By dismissing his injuries with the lame statement that "running backs get hurt sometimes" you're just ignoring a data point that doesn't agree with your hypothesis. The list of low BMI backs who have achieved sustained success during the past decade is pretty small. I have to believe that this isn't a coincidence. There are lots of great athletes with low BMIs, yet you don't see them in NFL backfields. Why? Because their bodies can't meet the demands of the position.
This is a good point, but all it means to me is that my range was probably a little bit too narrow. Maybe McFadden and Johnson will show that the range of successful body types is broader than I currently believe. I'm not going to give them the benefit of the doubt. There are no elite RBs in the NFL with BMI scores as low as theirs. I don't like the idea that a player has to defy recent history in order to succeed. I'd rather have someone who fits into a mold that has already proven successful. So while I won't guarantee failure for Chris Johnson, I think Rashard Mendenhall is more likely to develop into an every down workhorse back.
Jeff, I'm sensing a grudge against EBF. That's fine, but as a paying member of the site, I expect nothing less than utmost professionalism from staff members to promote "Be[ing] Excellent to One Another" as noted in the Shark Pool notes thread.I value your dynasty rankings and usually agree with your opinions on the board and I would like to keep it that way.I get it, you're a hater. Thanks.
EBF and Jeff are in at least one league together and know each other well enough where I don't think the tone here is as harsh as it seems.Jeff, I'm sensing a grudge against EBF. That's fine, but as a paying member of the site, I expect nothing less than utmost professionalism from staff members to promote "Be[ing] Excellent to One Another" as noted in the Shark Pool notes thread.I value your dynasty rankings and usually agree with your opinions on the board and I would like to keep it that way.I get it, you're a hater. Thanks.
just to play devils' advocate here, what was the BMI of the following players:Terrell DavisTiki BarberPriest HolmesLarry JohnsonWarrick DunnC. PortisMaroneyBrandon Jacobsdon't want to burst your bubble, but you're potentially making a huge mistake if you pass on D. McFadden because of a low BMI score..This guy is one of the most talented RB's to come down the pike in a while..benm3218 said:
I agree with this. I'm not saying DM is a surefire bust - just that he's at higher risk than most 1st round picks with his measurables.
Seems like people say this every year, but I'm pretty sure a very talented RB 'came down the pike' last year.
Just because there are more backs with higher BMI that make it to the NFL doesn't mean that they have a higher success rate. I think people assume small backs don't make it in the NFL, however, there aren't that many highly regarded picks that come out. When judging the number of successful backs in the league, you're choosing from a lot of Steven Jackson and a little of Warrick Dunn.
What backs in the 1st round have his measurables and why would they be less risky?
People keep pointing out low BMI backs who were successful. You say that a low BMI back won't be a fulltime starter. You have said that 10 times in this thread. Well regardless of whether or not he was the best ever Dunn was a full time starter as was Tiki. Furthermore...
you can't just make up a statement like "Tiki Barber probably had a near ideal BMI during his best seasons. I'd venture to guess that Warrick Dunn is pretty close to ideal" to support your theory. Without real actual data on thier height and weight at thier prime it is LUDICROUS to just assume they fit your mold in order to make your point more valid. You are taking two low BMI backs that are good examples and saying, 'yeah but they probably were bigger than they said'. No way. That is not a logical way to have a discussion.
Hi DigiVoX,I realize that I have a "voice" and a reputation in the Shark Pool. I understand that.I also understand that EBF has a voice and a following here.I believe that it is my job around here to point out value and educate people about fantasy football and football in general. Sometimes that education isn't about rankings or articles - it goes towards debunking flawed theories.Let me put it this way - if this BMI theory was put into a science journal, it would be known as the Cold Fusion of fantasy football.I'll try and make an analogy. If I say most cars that get good mileage are Fords, yet some other researchers say that Toyotas also get good mileage, I need to explain why Toyotas do what they do or else adjust the original statement. Otherwise the original statement is flawed. I don't see any adjustments being made to this "BMI Theory".EBF has put forth a theory. He doesn't give any basis for it other than "most of the guys I see fall in this range". As a disproof of that theory many posters (including me) have given players and cases as proof to the contrary. EBF hasn't explained why BMI is not applicable to them. If that cannot be done, then the theory is worthless. Either the theory must change or else it is just an observation of a result rather than a proof that predicts future performance. It is put upon anyone who presents a theory to either explain away those cases or to modify / adjust / adapt the theory. That's not happening here. Reggie Bush was adored by EBF two seasons ago so much that he pursued him and drafted him early. If he doesn't believe in his abilities to sustain a long and productive career due in part to BMI, he should be "selling high" on him. He's not. I would think that anyone who wanted to put out a concept would want to support their findings or solidify the case - or at the minimum be willing to change their minds if it is disproven.
See above for combine BMI's. Don't have data on pre-1999 guys. Maybe EBF can fill in their BMI during their "best" pro season, or better yet their average BMI over the span of the successful part of their careers.I would estimate Terrell & Tiki are over 29, Holmes over 30, and Dunn under 28. I would also argue Dunn is the least "workhorse" of the group when looking at average carries/game or season totals, although he probably beats out Maroney and Jacobs at this early point in their careers in that respect.
As I continue to think of the BMI issue, we seem to be discussing the sub-set of successful RBs without paying attention to the entire set of RBs. What would be useful is to show the range of BMI for all drafted RBs over the time periods discussed. (I think one of the threads did do all RBs from this past draft). If there is a legitimate variation between BMI range between the two sets you have something predictive. I am not a numbers cruncher, but as I am mentally reviewing guys who have failed at RB, most of them seem to have bodies no different than the elite ones. In short, the NFL is largely drafting guys with BMI of 29-32, so it would follow that most of the deemed elite would have that BMI range, but there would also be a similiar ratio of average and failure RBs with BMI in the so called proper range of 29-32. So simply do elite RBs have a different BMI range than average or poor NFL RBs?
I said this to EBF:
I'll say this to you:
You can't just take a theory that is trying to be proven with statistics and actual data and come up with some random number in your head. This is rediculous...
I didn't have the time to look up their actual BMI when I posted. Sorry for offending you with estimates, so now I'll take time out of my busy schedule just for you. Here are their stats from NFL.com:Terrell - 5'11" 210 29.3
Just because Jeff is a part of the FBG group doesn't mean he can't call BS if he see's it. All he is asking is this:
The BMI thought guys are so adamant about its positive attributes, they need to be able to explain the low BMI successes outside of just saying they were probably bigger than the listed weight. That IS hogwash. You don't just make up a data point to agree with your theory.Don't be so thin skinned. This is the Shark Pool and Jeff was not being rude or unkind.
Terrell Davis - http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/D/DaviTe00.htmHeight: 5-11 Weight: 206 lbs.
Again, you have to find out what the stats were at the combine. The theory being advanced here is that you should evaluate as risks backs who display low BMI at the combine, because they don't match the typical size of NFL RBs. But already in this thread it's been shown that several backs who had low BMI at the combine no longer have low BMI. I really doubt Tiki was 205 when he entered the league. Every off-season we hear stories about players who have changed their weight upwards or downwards.
We actually did answer the question--and then you changed the definition of "low BMI."
The difference is that a 6'3" center will never be 6'10", while a RB who comes in overweight or underweight can change his weight. It happens all the time, and it's happened for several of the backs in your success population. If McFadden at some point in his career has a successful season with 300 carries, will that invalidate your theory? Or will you just move the goalposts again?
Ah but McFadden isnt just a first round back, he's a top 5 back. RBs drafted that high only bust because of injury or off-field issues. Honestly, his social crowd is more of a concern to me when talking about him busting. His measurables (again I'm looking at both height and weight not just BMI) makes me concerned that he wont live up to the fantasy hype that surrounds a rookie (few rookies do), but that wont make him a bust. He doesnt have to be a top 5 fantasy back to justify Oakland picking him. He's still the best fantasy prospect in this year's draft. Of the first round backs this year, only Mendenhall has ideal measurements by my standards, however Mendenhall doesnt have McFadden's extreme speed nor the superior run blocking line. Now Tomlinson had ideal measureables and no off-field concerns so yes, McFadden is a greater risk than Tomlinson was but now we are compareing top 5 talents by NFL scouting standards.
Yes, and I stated I don't have their combine #'s. I could say that I agree with you saying "I really doubt Tiki was 205 when he entered the league" but that would be giving you the benefit of the doubt. If I were benm3218 I'd say "You can't just take a theory that is trying to be proven with statistics and actual data and come up with some random number in your head".
Either way, general statements to the effect of "players gain weight after being drafted" can be countered with "20 year olds are not done growing yet" so the net effect is minimal on BMI.
It's obvious that some prospects can get significantly bigger, but it's not obvious that they all can. Some players have a greater capacity for muscle mass than others. A guy like Ray Rice is already bulked up to an ideal BMI whereas Jamaal Charles is acutely undersized. Assuming that all else is equal between these two backs, you should favor the player with an ideal body type over the player who might eventually have an ideal body type. I think the idea that every player can add bulk is clearly a myth. Think about the difference in size between Todd Pinkston and Anquan Boldin. Do you think Pinkston could get as big as Boldin by lifting weights? I would argue that both players probably spent a similar amount of time in the weight room throughout their careers. The reason Pinkston was never as big as Boldin is purely genetic. Pinkston's body did not have the same capacity for muscle mass.
If McFadden becomes a consistent workhorse back at his current size then I'll definitely have to reconsider whether or not BMI is truly relevant. He offers a great test since he's so thin and yet such a highly touted prospect and dynamic athlete. My prediction with DMC is that he'll probably be a dangerous change of pace back, but never a consistent workhorse like Shaun Alexander or LT. People have provided examples of successful low BMI guys (Grant, Dunn, Peterson), but none of those players have achieved sustained success as 300+ carry backs. I don't think they really disprove the notion that a back must have an ideal BMI to be an elite workhorse back in the NFL. To be fair, this whole BMI theory is in its infancy. If I sound inconsistent then that's probably because I'm still working through some of these questions myself. What I know is that an overwhelming majority of the elite backs of the past decade seem to fit within a narrow range of body types. Shaun Alexander, Priest Holmes, LaDainian Tomlinson, Ahman Green, Fred Taylor, Edgerrin James, Larry Johnson, Tiki Barber, Brian Westbrook, and Marshall Faulk. Picture those guys in your head. Some are a little taller and some are a little shorter, but they all have a fairly similar body type: compact frames with good weight distribution and thick legs. There have been some dominant backs with higher BMIs in the past decade (Jerome Bettis, Jamal Lewis), but there have been no truly dominant smaller backs. Guys like Warrick Dunn, Charlie Garner, and Reggie Bush are the closest thing. Their best seasons don't approach the best seasons by the best high BMI backs.
All good points, specifically the point that not many make it without proper BMI. However, the hardest "measurable" is the vision a guy has and it is perhaps the most important factor of a RB success. Curtis Martin was not drafted high because he didn't have the measurable, but the guy had the best vision I can remember. he almost never went the wrong way and this ability to predict where the hole would be before he got there was a huge part of his success.Your point about Moss was correct, but I do think that speed vision and pad level are important factors, but of course the balance a guy has, leg strength, decisiveness, etc...are also of importance.It is hard to predict what factor BMI has but it should give you a nod over two guys you are comparing equally. If I had Ray Rice and McFadden as exactly equals in all categories but the BMI was better for Rice, than Rice would get my nod, but I am not sure it would sway over to another guy if I had that guy ahead.EBF said:There's more to being a great RB prospect than an ideal BMI. DeAngelo Williams is built a lot like LaDainian Tomlinson, but he isn't as good because he isn't as athletic and his intangibles are probably little worse. I've never said that BMI is everything. I've only said that it's something. My basic thinking is not that every RB prospect with an ideal BMI will succeed, but rather that very few RB prospects with a less than ideal BMI will succeed. A quick look around the NFL reveals a very small number of elite pro backs with sub 29 BMI scores. Is this a supply issue?Doubtful. There are plenty of great athletes in the USA with sub 29 BMIs. Yet you don't see them playing RB in the NFL. This is because the unique demands of the RB position require a unique body type. It's the same reason why all shotputters tend to look similar and why all 1500m runners look similar and why all 400m runners look similar. Function follows form. Different functions require different forms. The functions associated with the RB position seem to require a sturdy build with good leg thickness. I don't believe that speed, vision, and pad level are sufficient for success as an NFL RB. Randy Moss is a great athlete. He's blazing fast with exceptional quickness and burst. He has great coordination and athletic instincts. He's an athletic dynamo. Yet he would almost certainly be a horrific NFL RB. He's tall and gangly. He's weak. He has a high center of gravity. He couldn't run hard or break tackles. He has a lot of the traits you look for in an elite RB prospect, but he doesn't have everything. When I evaluate RB prospects, I look for players who have EVERYTHING. The guys I favor are the guys who have vision, speed, quickness, instincts, and ideal body types. To me LaDainian Tomlinson the gold standard of what you look for in a RB prospect. Name a RB trait and LT has it. Speed? Power? Quickness? Burst? Vision? Instincts? Ideal size? The guy is flawless. That's why he's the best in the league and one of the best RBs to ever play football. Few people will match that standard, but in any given pool of RB talent you want to favor the "most perfect" players. BMI is an important part of the evaluation.Bri said:EBF,In the other thread , I mentioned other characteristics which were all but glossed over like speed, vision, pad level etc. Here you're quoting a good post that it's one of many tools. Can you elaborate on this please?It did come across like BMI was the be all end all.EBF said:Hoss_Cartwright said:
To return to basketball for a moment, this is like saying that Michael Jordan won't be successful because he's too big to be an off guard but too small to be a small forward. Or that Magic Johnson won't be successful because you can't play point guard at 6'8". "The best off-guards of the past decade have been between 6'1" and 6'4"." The fact that there was not a lot of precedent for the attributes that Michael or Magic had didn't detract from their ability to be successful--and in fact, it's now common to see off guards that have Jordan's size.
I would rather bet on a decade of results than assume that a player will be an exception to an established pattern. Size is generally considered an asset in bastketball. Being thin is not considered an asset for NFL running backs.
