Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
He was injured throughout college too, he's a great talent but the extreme level of violence he plays with lends him to more injuries than others at an already injury prone position. I think the Cowboys would be silly to expect him to be the guy again next year just like I thought they were this year
I concur, the falcons will bring in a new hammer to replace turner next year.
He missed 4 games in college, and only 1 over the last 2 years. I'm not worried when an 18-19 YO misses 3 games over 2 years in which he got a very heavy load. He missed less time per touch than Trent Richardson and doesn't have screws in his knees. The Cowboys couldn't have predicted a foot sprain, caused by awkward contact. That stuff just happens, as it did to MJD.
Can I have your criteria, please? Just want to make sure it is applied fairly to Richardson when he misses time over the next 1.5 seasons. Richardson has more in common with Beanie than Murray does. Nothing about Murray's injuries are chronic or reoccurring; Richardson's and Beanie's have been.
I could probably get behind this assessment of Mendenhall and to take it a step further, him being demoted may not be all that bad. I felt as though he rushed back from injury and has never looked fully healthy. By not playing, he can get back to full strength and preserve his legs for his next team. A team like the Colts would appear to be a perfect fit for Mendy.Also, I wouldn't throw Murray into that Team Killer category just yet. He's still only in his second year in the league. Let's give him another chance and if he lets us down, then sure, we'll add him to the list.
My same argument against beanie from pre draft goes here, those who just look at his games played are not looking at enough details. He got hurt in game frequently and was ineffective trying to play hurt other times too. Red flags were there. Same reason I soured on dmc so quickly.
The difference between Murray and Mathews is i think Mathews is just soft. Murray is the furthest thing from soft, I just think he would be best utilized in the mb3 role or his career will flat line too quick for him to get his big contract
Sure. None of them have the lower body bulk to survive a physical running style. If they were as elusive as Adrian Peterson or Jamaal Charles, they might be able to get away with it, but they aren't. They're physical backs without the proper physique. Same with Marcus Lattimore at South Carolina. You take skinny guys like this and pound them into NFL defenses, and they're going to break. I predicted that literally every one of these guys (Murray, Lattimore, Beanie, McFadden) would have issues with durability. It's a simple consequence of their anatomy. The NFL is a strength game as much as it's a speed/quickness game. All RBs are bound to get injured eventually, but the squatty guys like Ray Rice, Maurice Jones-Drew, Frank Gore, and Michael Turner have the best chance to survive a high volume of touches without serious injuries.
Trent Richardson is 5'9.1" 229 pounds, making him one of the biggest running backs in the NFL in terms of weight per height. He is built similar to guys like Maurice Drew and Michael Turner, who have had tremendous durability. He is the embodiment of the prototypical high volume NFL RB. Beanie Wells is 4 inches taller, but only 6 pounds heavier. Completely different body type. Not nearly as compact, which is the biggest problem. His ankles and lower body are much more exposed. Same deal with guys like McFadden, Lattimore, and Murray. It's not impossible for someone with this type of build to be a successful long term NFL RB, but it's a lot less likely than with the compact guys.
So give me the criteria. It is very easy to say you knew all these guys were going to be injury prone in the NFL, depsite not missing games. Whats the criteria? Leave 2 games early a year? Questionable to play 3 a year? Play gimpy in 3 games year?I think your memory is being selective to serve your argument here.
I agree that Murray's injuries do not necessarily denote him being "Injury prone", but what can happen when an RB gets hurt more than once is organizational concern in that RB's ability to stay healthy for a long stretch. So what do they do? They draft or sign a solid counterpart, or an outright replacement. I don't think the Cowboys will look to outright replace Murray, but could easily see a situation where they want to limit his workload. Either way, it's a dent to fantasy value.
I posted a list of 15+ RB 6'0" or taller that had long healthy careers. I could put together a long list of guys shorter than that, who didn't. Please tell me how Lattimore's height led to either of his injuries. Tell me how him being 5'10" or 5'11" would have prevented them. Or how Richardson wouldn't have had his knee blown out twice, in the same situation.
It's not height as much as it's about body mass. Steven Jackson is tall, but he's not brittle because he's strong as hell throughout his lower body. Imagine that you're an engineer building an athlete that needs to survive a lot of hits to the lower body. Would you want someone who looks like this?http://cache.deadspin.com/assets/images/11/2008/09/beanie_wells.jpghttp://i.cnn.net/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/0708/top20.running.backs.cfb/images/darren.mcfadden.jpghttp://fitsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/lattimore-surgery.jpghttp://www.vikingsgab.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/DeMarco-Murray.jpgOr this? http://cdn.everyjoe.com/files/2012/08/michael-turner-fantasy-football.jpghttp://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/J+Williams+Maurice+Jones+Drew+Denver+Broncos+ufFrDZ3KFZWl.jpghttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/_F2xmCQ3UB9Y/Rxw3tzmIIMI/AAAAAAAAA54/WKfSRfHM7Gg/s400/rayrice.jpghttp://3.bp.blogspot.com/-C3lo7wAjraI/TwdRufuQbKI/AAAAAAAAAg8/vs6sMLS1OuQ/s1600/dyer.jpgA more compact frame presents a smaller target. A thicker limb can withstand more force.Considering how intuitive this is, I'm surprised that there's always so much resistance to it. Think of the legs as a tree trunk. I'm no expert in physics, but I'd venture to guess that a shorter, wider trunk is going to be a lot more resistant to cracking than a longer, thinner trunk. It's also going to do a better job of absorbing hits and reducing strain. It's the same reason why a baseball bat will crack if hit at the handle, but not if hit at the barrel. Of course there are examples of thin backs who have been very durable (like Chris Johnson) and stocky backs who have had durability problems (like Rashard Mendenhall), but that's because there are a lot of variables involved. Running style is an important factor. So is luck. But I think it's pretty obvious that, all else being equal, a player with a strong frame is a lot more likely to survive the beating of life in the NFL trenches than a player who is stretched out and thin at the points where he is hit most often. It is no coincidence that guys like McFadden, Beanie, Murray, and Lattimore are always going down with foot/ankle/knee injuries. They don't have the anatomy to survive their own running styles.
Lattimore, Wells, Murray are not small; they are thick. Their BMI's are on par with Adrian Peterson, Marshawn Lych, Arian Foster, Stevan Ridley, etcetera. I don't understand why Stevan Ridley is fine, as he is 5'11", but if he was an inch taller, he'd be damned. And you seem to exclude the faster guys from this list, but Murray has a 40 time that would compete with any of them.
When healthy, he was arguably the best RB in the NFL. What he did in Jacksonville, of all places, was very special. He won't be returning to be an RB2; I would feel very comfortable with MJD being an RB1 for the short term. I like him as a buy, depending on price. But due to the nature of his injury (nothing long-term) I don't know that he can be had cheap, unless someone needs another RB for the playoffs, and you are willing to wait for MJD, and give up a starting RB in return.
The pictures tell a different story. Bear in mind that BMI doesn't tell you anything about the distribution of weight. It doesn't discern between someone who is top-heavy (like Reggie Bush or Robert Turbin) and someone whose weight is mainly concentrated in the lower body (like Warrick Dunn or LaDainian Tomlinson). I would not describe any of the three backs you listed as "thick." Quite the opposite, actually. I think the pictures make it pretty clear that they don't belong in the conversation with the likes of Turner, Martin, Richardson, MJD, etc.
Lattimore shouldn't be on the list. Put any human on earth in those two moments in time, and we're all screwed. Murray broke an ankle and sprained his foot (as did your model, MJD). I wouldn't put him on the list.But if it's anatomy, as you suggest, why are Foster and Peterson holding up? Why did Eddie George? Why did Fred Taylor? Why is Steven Jackson? It's not black and white, as you want to make it. There are teams that invest millions into the sport, and they are just find drafting guys that don't fit your bowling ball mold. If there were any backing to your claims, someone would have tracked it and presented it by now.
Those aren't the only body types to have long, healthy careers. Richardson already has red flags, and Martin has played 11 NFL games. If you are trying to argue physics in suggesting that Beanie Wells wasn't "built" to be an NFL RB, but LaDanian Tomlinson was, I don't know what to say to you. Beanie Well has bad knees; he very clearly has a frame to take a beating.
I've already touched on why guys like George/Taylor/Jackson are a different breed than guys like McFadden and Murray. It's about strength, not height. You can be 6'3" and still be a good NFL RB if you've got the right frame. Guys like Beanie Wells and Darren McFadden don't have the right distribution of weight to survive a physical running style, which is why they're always hurt. It's not luck as much as it's physics. I think smart teams are definitely aware of these issues. That's why you see so many of them deploy players like Charles, Spiller, and Bush in a committee approach instead of pounding them up the middle 20 times per game. I'm not going to bother debating it much more, but I think it's pretty clear that there is something to it. My own personal advice would be for FF players to divest themselves of guys like McFadden, Murray, and Wells while they still have name brand value. IMO those guys are always going to be getting these "unlucky" injuries every year. So far my paranoia has been vindicated by the inability of these guys to stay healthy, so I feel like there's definitely some merit to what I'm saying. I suspect that next year will bring more of the same for these guys, but there's no way to prove it. We'll just have to wait and see.
Only...he doesn't. Too stretched out. Too thin in the lower body. Blatantly obvious in any picture:http://www.waitingfornextyear.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/beanie.jpghttp://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/cgD3K_qgp7kSkh8Au6z4wA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NQ--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/sptusfantasyexperts/Beanie-Wells-victim-of-the-turf-toe-US-Presswire.jpghttp://i.cdn.turner.com/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/0902/nfl.combine.2009/images/chris-Beanie-Wells_TK5_589.jpgCombine that body type with the inability to avoid collisions and you have the recipe for an injury prone back. He has always been like this and always will be. Has very little to do with luck and a lot to do with running style and anatomy.
You are familiar with the injury history of McFadden and Wells, correct? What do non-contact injuries have to do with a persons size? Why would a tall human being be more prone to a foot sprain than a shorter human being. Or chronic knee issues. You keep talking about "build", but that has nothing to do with Beanie's knee, or McFadden's sprains.
I'd be the first to admit that it's not an exact science by any means. I've been surprised by the relative durability of guys like Peterson and Chris Johnson. I do think running style is a big factor. Some players do a better job of staying low and running behind their pads. Some players excel at avoiding unexpected collisions. Peterson is really good in that regard. He is not the stockiest back by NFL standards, but he is nimble in a way that guys like McFadden and Wells aren't. It helps him get out of some situations where a lesser back would be punished. I don't think it's black-and-white and wouldn't suggest as much. I've already said that some thin backs can survive a high workload while some stocky backs struggle with injuries. But I do think the odds favor a certain body type. Most of the guys who have had long and productive careers at RB in the NFL in the last fifteen years have fit the mold that I'm talking about. I'd rather bet with the odds than against them. I think it's narrow-minded and simple to think that physics and anatomy don't play a role in determining physical performance and durability. Clearly they do. I'm not going to sit here wasting any more of my afternoon arguing the obvious though.
You seem to be arguing as though Wells and Beanie haven't been able to handle the beating. But neither of them have been slowed by a consistant collection of hits.Tell me why George, Taylor, and Jackon don't have bad knees or are not prone to sprains/turf toe/etc, due to how strong and well built they are.
After someone spend the time charting it clearly, or NFL teams who invest millions take mention, I'll treat it as obvious. Until then, it's your opinion and not much more.
EBF is much more black and white and concrete on his stance than probably is warranted, but the overall point has proven to be much more solid than you are apparently willing to acknowledge.Of course any running back is susceptible to injury, bet it minor or major, and injuries are, to a certain extent, very luck based. However, I believe it is also true that running backs without ideal NFL builds are inherently more unlucky, if that makes any sense (and it probably doesn't).The point EBF is trying to make, and I believe it is a good one, is that player like Murray, who is generally taller and leaner in the lower body, is far more open to take these unlucky shots that can lead to injuries (or McFadden, Beanie, etc...). A player like Trent Richardson or MJD are much more compact and "squattier" in the lower body, thus making less target area for the unlucky hits and injuries to occur. Running style also very much plays into this, as players who play with a more upright style are, by nature, leaving themselves more open to an unlucky shot that would cause an injury.I realize as I am typing this, MJD and Mendenhall, 2 of the more compact "squattier" players, are injured, but as I said, bad luck can strike to anyone at any time, particularly when it comes to injuries in the NFL. The point to consider is that players with less than ideal body types have appeared to be more prone in recent years to these unlucky injuries than players with ideal body types. I'm sure you can come up with a list of over 100 players who were taller and leaner in their lower body that had fine and healthy NFL careers. However, today's NFL is a very different game and, at least to my eye, it seems injuries are occurring at a much more frequent level. Considering the size, speed, and violence of the league has appeared to increase ten fold over the last 20-30 years, I certainly would prefer to put my money on the player with the ideal frame rather than the player lacking that frame, assuming all other things are equal (and I admit, it is rare that all other things are equal). I understand that this is far from fool proof and it is very easy to come up with examples that both support and denounce this, but you are looking to play the averages here and if even 51% of the time this hypothesis proves to be correct, then it would be wise to adhere to it when possible.
This all makes some sense to me, when we are talking about guys who couldn't handle the beating. But what about injuries not caused by the beating?Again, how does being tall, or thin, or anything, cause you to get turf toe, or sprain your ankle, or break your ankle. We don't know if any of these guys can take a beating - that's not what caused their injuries. Can anyone show me anything that suggests taller humans sprain their ankles more often than shorter humans? Or their feet? Or get turf toe? How does an extra 10 points in the lower body prevent Mcfadden from spraining his foot?Richardson is the prototype, no? He has knee issues. Why? How much shorter and heavier would he have needed to be in order to prevent them?The anser is simple to me: Richardson's size (which is ideal) had NOTHING to do with his knee injuries. Same goes for Beanie Wells.
There is no exact science, every case is independent of others. I felt these guys had more risk than others and their college play supported those thoughts
I'll be trying to get him cheap where I can, due to Thomas' recovery. But it does hurt his value, especially being a RB. It will likely give James a shot to carve a niche as well.
You want an easy answer and there isn't one. I think there is a level of risk with every player and that gets factored into their valuation. I think the level of risk is much higher with those discussed and while I downgraded them for it the consensus did not so I do not have them anywhere.
hunter had an lmj problem anyway, obviously the door is wide open for James now
What about D. Wilson?
I like him and he'll get a shot. But I don't think it is as certain that he'll get the bulk soon, as it was with Hunter.
He's in that group with Miller, Daryl, and Hillman for me. Guys we hope can get a large enough share of the carries in the future to be at least a low-end RB1. Right around where Ryan Williams was when his value peaked, whenever that was.But Hunter...I couldn't get him anywhere, but he was the one single guy I had penned in, not penciled in, as an heir to an RB1 job in the near future. It's still possible of course, but this makes it tougher, and it wasn't going to be a clean transition the way Gore has been playing on a contender anyways.
I'm mostly with you on this one CC...but I wouldn't dismiss EBF's theory on it out of hand. I think there's a logic to it that lends it some credence. I believe he gives the idea too much weight in his evaluations...but it deserves some weight.
I don't think bulk carries were any sort of certainty with Hunter.
It's absolutely a part of the valuation process. As is raw production, durability displayed in college, running style, strengths, weaknesses, work ethic, between the ears, etc. There's lot of puzzle pieces to be put together on all of these guys.
I think a lot of people say "injury prone" when they should be saying "pain prone". Mathews is "pain prone", in my opinion, as is Stewart. Those are guys that I think get the same nagging "injuries" and bumps and bruises as other players, but just can't play through them as well. "Injury prone" is when either the same body part is clearly weak and keeps getting injured or the player's method of play on the field gets them injured more often than a random NFL player.
I don't think he's an heir apparent RB1 - at best an heir apparent RBBC. Bradshaw is still only 26 and is only one season removed from 1500+ total yard season. Sure, he gets dinged up, but this situation reminds me of F. Jackson/Spiller. For 3 years+ people thought Spiller was taking over - this year it finally seems to be happening - but Jackson is 31. Wilson might eventually be the lead dog - but I have a feeling it will be later (3-4 years) rather than sooner.
Do not want.
I agree that it's intuitive. That doesn't make it right. Beware intuitive explanations, because our cognitive process is so riddled with bias that being obvious cannot be taken as a proxy for being right. It's intuitive that when you're in a lot of debt you should cut spending, yet applying that intuitive logic to the government leads to something called the fiscal cliff. It's intuitive that breaking a bone will weaken it and leave it more susceptible to further breaks, but the opposite is actually the case. It's intuitive that players listed on the injury report as questionable would be more limited and therefore score fewer points than average when they play, but the truth is that players score as many points in weeks where they are listed on the report as they do in weeks where they aren't. It's intuitive that a team that has come back from several scores down to tie the game would have "momentum" and therefore be more likely to earn the win, but the reality is that a tie game is a 50/50 affair, regardless of the order of the scoring. I agree that you would think a shorter, thicker, more muscular leg would be less prone to injury, but it also occurs to me that most injury occurs at the joint, and I can't envision a clear mechanism that would cause different musculature to increase or reduce injury risk at the joint. I'd be really interested in seeing some sort of objective, rigorous, comprehensive, data-driven analysis of the subject. Absent that, I'll remain leery of plausible-sounding but wholly unsubstantiated (or purely anecdotal) explanations.
I agree it deserves some weight. I disagree that we are the ones to assign that weight. The NFL is a multi-billion dollar industry. It is hugely performance based. I'm sure the thought that body type might be linked to injury risk has occurred to front offices. I'm sure they've invested resources into investigating that possibility. If they're investing heavy resources in a player, that should be all the reassurance we need that either (a) they have concluded he's not an undue risk for injury, or (b) they have concluded that he's such an obscene, league-altering talent that he was worth the risk. Yes, scouting departments get it wrong all the time. The question is who you place more trust in- the multi-million dollar scouting industry that is vetting, working out, and medically examining these players, or some guy on the Internet looking at how skinny a player's legs are.
