Dynasty Rankings (5 Viewers)

[Otis]

Ok seriously though, here are the guys presently ranked above Alexander who I think arguably belong ahead of him...

1 WR Calvin Johnson, DET 1 1 1 1.0 1.0 1.0

2 WR A.J. Green, CIN 2 2 2 2.0 2.0 2.0

3 WR Brandon Marshall, CHI 3 3 5 3.7 3.0 3.0

4 WR Victor Cruz, NYG 4 8 9 7.0 8.0 8.0

5 WR Julio Jones, ATL 7 13 3 7.7 7.0 7.0

5 WR Dez Bryant, DAL 5 5 13 7.7 5.0 5.0

7 WR Roddy White, ATL 13 6 6 8.3 6.0 6.0

8 WR Percy Harvin, MIN 9 7 10 8.7 9.0 9.0

9 WR Hakeem Nicks, NYG 10 9 8 9.0 9.0 9.0

10 WR Demaryius Thomas, DEN 8 4 16 9.3 8.0 8.0

11 WR Larry Fitzgerald, ARI 15 15 4 11.3 15.0 15.0

12 WR Andre Johnson, HOU 14 11 11 12.0 11.0 11.0

13 WR Jordy Nelson, GB 11 19 7 12.3 11.0 11.0

14 WR Vincent Jackson, TB 12 12 15 13.0 12.0 12.0

15 WR Randall Cobb, GB 6 17 19 14.0 17.0 17.0

16 WR Wes Welker, NE 20 14 14 16.0 14.0 14.0

No way in hell are most of the 44 guys currently ranked ahead of him by FBG should be there. None.

You are seriously saying you would take DX before Fitzgerald?I own DX, but I'd deal two DX's for Fitz.

DX on a per-game basis is near top 5 in WR scoring. And that includes the couple of games right after he was activated and just on the team, where he had 1 and 3 catches. He wasn't even playing football the first half of the season, let alone playing with this particular team and QB. That is absolutely amazing. And he's done it against all sorts of defenses and all sorts of coverages.Larry Fitzgerald turns 30 next season. He had one catch this week on ELEVEN targets. He won't even break a thousand yards this year (he's at 652 right now).



I like big, big upside. That's how you win.

If you truly like "big, big upside", why would you possibly cross off two guys that put up top-6 seasons in 2011?

Because I'm not playing in any 2011 fantasy leagues anymore.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Again, it's all there in the numbers. Determinism in general is something that bothers a lot of people and I think a lot of people take exception to the idea that a player's physique limits how he can be used, but recent history paints a pretty clear picture.

Here are the players in my database who entered the league with a BMI under 29 that weren't DQd from being a good prospect for some reason, and who were drafted in the first three rounds:C.J. SpillerJahvid BestChris JohnsonJamaal CharlesMatt ForteDarren McFaddenAdrian PetersonReggie BushClinton PortisI'm not sure you can really make a case that the usage of those guys is noticeably different than their thicker counterparts. Best came into the league with concussion issues and McFadden is 6'2" (which I do think lends itself to more injuries). But Portis was at his workhorse best as a thinner runner when he entered the league. Peterson is a monster. Forte has put up a gazillion touches since entering the league. So has Chris Johnson. Jamaal Charles is now a workhorse (and only Todd Haley and an ACL kept him from being one sooner). Reggie Bush has been used differently, but may have been limited by his size (we'll see what happens from here though). Spiller sure looks the part lately.I really think that if you took a random sample of nine thicker backs it'd be unlikely that their touches were different in a meaningful way, and that you're seeing what you expect to see.ETA: for whatever reason, between 1998 and 2005 Portis is the only qualifying back who entered the league. So it might appear that those sized backs are at a disadvantage when in fact there just weren't any of them coming into the NFL for nearly a decade.

 

[SSOG]

Again, it's all there in the numbers. Determinism in general is something that bothers a lot of people and I think a lot of people take exception to the idea that a player's physique limits how he can be used, but recent history paints a pretty clear picture.

Here are the players in my database who entered the league with a BMI under 29 that weren't DQd from being a good prospect for some reason, and who were drafted in the first three rounds:C.J. SpillerJahvid BestChris JohnsonJamaal CharlesMatt ForteDarren McFaddenAdrian PetersonReggie BushClinton PortisI'm not sure you can really make a case that the usage of those guys is noticeably different than their thicker counterparts. Best came into the league with concussion issues and McFadden is 6'2" (which I do think lends itself to more injuries). But Portis was at his workhorse best as a thinner runner when he entered the league. Peterson is a monster. Forte has put up a gazillion touches since entering the league. So has Chris Johnson. Jamaal Charles is now a workhorse (and only Todd Haley and an ACL kept him from being one sooner). Reggie Bush has been used differently, but may have been limited by his size (we'll see what happens from here though). Spiller sure looks the part lately.I really think that if you took a random sample of nine thicker backs it'd be unlikely that their touches were different in a meaningful way, and that you're seeing what you expect to see.ETA: for whatever reason, between 1998 and 2005 Portis is the only qualifying back who entered the league. So it might appear that those sized backs are at a disadvantage when in fact there just weren't any of them coming into the NFL for nearly a decade.

Exactly! Pointing to the leaderboards means absolutely nothing without context. If 100 RBs enter the league, and 98 of them fall between 215-230 pounds, then you can't point to the leaderboards and say "look, 8 of the top 10 workhorses are between 215-230 pounds, so guys outside that range are less likely to become workhorses!" No, what that hypothetical would demonstrate is that "non-ideal" backs are less likely to join the league, but if a non-ideal back makes it, he shouldn't have any additional obstacles on his path to workhorsedom. I see that the list of workhorses is dominated by "ideal" backs. The list of injured RBs who miss the most games to injury will also be dominated by "ideal" backs. The list of busts will also be dominated by "ideal" backs. Any list you look at will be dominated by "ideal" backs, because the vast majority of backs entering the league are "ideal". For this to be at all meaningful, you have to compare not total numbers, but the RATES of success. Wdcrob provided 9 names of undersized backs considered elite prospects. Of those 9, more than half (Johnson, Charles, Forte, Peterson, Portis) are/were workhorses. One (Spiller) is in the TBD category, but trending up. That leaves three in the clearly non-workhorse category. One (McFadden) is there because of injuries that may be linked to his size. One (Best) is there because of injuries that have absolutely nothing to do with his size. One (Bush) is there because he simply was not that talented. Still, that's a 55-66% success rate of producing workhorses. Wanna bet that the success rate of "ideal" prospects (BMI 29-31) drafted in the first 3 rounds is much lower?You just have so many biases and double standards that you can't look at this from an objective, statistical standpoint. In your mind, ideal backs succeed because they're ideal, and non-ideal backs succeed despite being non-ideal. The very definition of ideal is fluid (sometimes weight, sometimes BMI, sometimes thickness of legs), and your unwillingness to define it allows you to move the goalposts to include non-ideal backs like Peterson in with the ideal backs (even though he's way too tall to be an RB). And your Small Back Double Standard is so thick it's palpable- Jonathan Stewart splits carries with the talented Mr. Williams, and this doesn't mean he can't carry the load. MJD splits carries with the talented Mr. Taylor, and this doesn't mean he can't carry the load. CJ Spiller splits carries with the talented Mr. Jackson, and this is just yet more proof that he'll never be able to handle a workhorse load, just like you always predicted. Like I said, this is all antiquated thinking. It's the same antiquated thinking that led the NFL to avoid taking any "non-ideal" backs early for most of a decade, except for the transcendent Mr. Portis (who still fell a round further than he would have if he had a better body type). The NFL has since grown wise to their errors and started giving smaller backs a legit shot, and the smaller backs have been rewarding them. It's time for us to get rid of the small-RB bias, too, just like it's time for us to move past our short QB bias (Brees, Wilson), and our short WR bias (Harvin, Smiff), and start embracing the fact that, while some body types are in fact better suited for the demands of the NFL, if the scouting community endorses a non-ideal player, they've already vetted that player and opined that he'll hold up just fine, thankyouverymuch.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Tons of mileage.

Why keep bringing up an arugument that has been shown to be meaningless? Most of the runners that have still been able to have success past the age of 30 have been the ones that have received heavy workloads throughout their careers - because they were special backs that demanded carries. To say that Peterson is in the back stretch of his career is a fair argument - once he hits 30 he'll start to slow down, its inevitable of course. His all-time elite talent though should allow him to still eek out RB2 and I don't think it would be shocking to see RB1 numbers) at 30, 31 and 32.

 

[Concept Coop]

(...though should allow him to still eek out RB2 and I don't think it would be shocking to see RB1 numbers) at 30, 31 and 32.

I'd be surprised not to see that.

 

[EBF]

Exactly! Pointing to the leaderboards means absolutely nothing without context. If 100 RBs enter the league, and 98 of them fall between 215-230 pounds, then you can't point to the leaderboards and say "look, 8 of the top 10 workhorses are between 215-230 pounds, so guys outside that range are less likely to become workhorses!" No, what that hypothetical would demonstrate is that "non-ideal" backs are less likely to join the league, but if a non-ideal back makes it, he shouldn't have any additional obstacles on his path to workhorsedom.

Don't you think it's significant that a vast majority of the top RBs drafted by the NFL fit a pretty narrow mold? It is pretty clear that the job description favors a certain skill set which favors a certain body type. The fact that NFL teams favor thick RBs is no less significant than the fact that NBA teams favor tall centers. In both cases the physical quality contributes to success.

I see that the list of workhorses is dominated by "ideal" backs. The list of injured RBs who miss the most games to injury will also be dominated by "ideal" backs. The list of busts will also be dominated by "ideal" backs. Any list you look at will be dominated by "ideal" backs, because the vast majority of backs entering the league are "ideal". For this to be at all meaningful, you have to compare not total numbers, but the RATES of success. Wdcrob provided 9 names of undersized backs considered elite prospects. Of those 9, more than half (Johnson, Charles, Forte, Peterson, Portis) are/were workhorses. One (Spiller) is in the TBD category, but trending up. That leaves three in the clearly non-workhorse category. One (McFadden) is there because of injuries that may be linked to his size. One (Best) is there because of injuries that have absolutely nothing to do with his size. One (Bush) is there because he simply was not that talented. Still, that's a 55-66% success rate of producing workhorses. Wanna bet that the success rate of "ideal" prospects (BMI 29-31) drafted in the first 3 rounds is much lower?

There's a clear qualitative difference between guys like Peterson, Portis, and Forte and guys like Charles, Johnson, and Spiller. Nobody who watches Peterson run would ever describe him as undersized or lacking power. And Portis was something like 220 pounds for the majority of his career. I don't see either guy as an indictment of what I've been preaching. Quite the opposite.

Like I said, this is all antiquated thinking. It's the same antiquated thinking that led the NFL to avoid taking any "non-ideal" backs early for most of a decade, except for the transcendent Mr. Portis (who still fell a round further than he would have if he had a better body type). The NFL has since grown wise to their errors and started giving smaller backs a legit shot, and the smaller backs have been rewarding them. It's time for us to get rid of the small-RB bias, too, just like it's time for us to move past our short QB bias (Brees, Wilson), and our short WR bias (Harvin, Smiff), and start embracing the fact that, while some body types are in fact better suited for the demands of the NFL, if the scouting community endorses a non-ideal player, they've already vetted that player and opined that he'll hold up just fine, thankyouverymuch.

It's funny that you accuse me of seeing what I want to see when you're doing exactly that. The fact that teams spent high picks on guys like McFadden, Reggie, Spiller, and Johnson doesn't prove that they see these backs as workhorses. As I've said previously, the value of these players is their ability to deliver dynamic big plays that a thicker, slower back probably couldn't give you. The trade off is that very few of these backs can hold up under a full workload. This is exactly why guys like McFadden, Reggie, and Spiller haven't been workhorses. I'm not really interested in beating this dead horse any further, as it's clear that people on both sides will see whatever they want to see, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for guys like Spiller and McFadden to log Turner/MJD/Ricky levels of volume. Different players. Different bodies. Different strengths and weaknesses. At the end of the day, backs who fit the mold that I'm talking about dominate the season and career leaders for RB touches. I'm perfectly content to continue my foolish and old-fashioned bias of favoring them as long as they keep dominating the landscape.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Like I said, this is all antiquated thinking. It's the same antiquated thinking that led the NFL to avoid taking any "non-ideal" backs early for most of a decade

Actually, the NFL didn't avoid them -- there just weren't any. Looking further back Marcus Allen was built very similarly to Darren McFadden (though I think McFadden lacks Allen's vision). Ricky Watters was tall and thin and still played 16 games and averaged 360 touches a year for seven straight seasons. And there are others.It's an oddity how frequently this happens though -- where certain types of players are off the radar for several years and then there are three or four all at once. All since my prospect projections are comp-based using only quantitative data it's hard to know what to think when someone you haven't seen before pops up. I would kill for pre-1998 data to help fill in some of those holes.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

The Saints really don't do any of their RBs any favors by their constant rotation. Sproles is the only back with a defined role and consistent snaps. None of the backs ever get into a rhythm or the flow of the game with such limited opportunities.

Yet Ingram is the only one that it seems to negatively affect. All of the other backs in New Orleans have had outstanding YPC numbers.4.75.44.75.15.66.93.83.9Those are the YPC numbers of Ivory, Thomas, Sproles, and Ingram the last two years. The last two are Ingram, and are the two that clearly don't belong.Since the inevitable "his short yardage carries hurt his numbers" argument always pops up, I'll go ahead and remind people ahead of time that with his short yardage carries from last year removed, his ypc actually went down slightly. Additionally, when Ivory has had the same role (when Ingram wasn't there yet in 2010, and when Ingram was injured in 2011) his YPC was 5.0.This idea that New Orleans is destroying Ingram's per touch numbers is absurd. New Orleans is a bad spot to get a lot of touches, but it's probably the best spot in the entire NFL to put up good per touch numbers.If Ingram's poor numbers are just a result of short yardage carries and predictable play calling, why are Ivory's numbers so good when he's played the same role? Then again, I guess I should know better than to ask people that like Ingram to look at history, since that's been ignored ever since the day he was drafted ("Payton only uses RBBC because he's never had a guy who could be a workhorse", "Payton wouldn't draft a guy early to use him in a timeshare").

 

[Concept Coop]

Why is Chris Ivory still pointed to as a discredit to Ingram? Someone called Ingram a less explosive version of Ivory.

If we were to make a list of backs more explosive than Chris Ivory, in 2012, how many guys would we put on it? 7? 10? Certainly not 15.

Chris Ivory is a very talented runner who I feel could start for a lot of teams in the NFL.

 

[EBF]

Tons of mileage.

Why keep bringing up an arugument that has been shown to be meaningless? Most of the runners that have still been able to have success past the age of 30 have been the ones that have received heavy workloads throughout their careers - because they were special backs that demanded carries. To say that Peterson is in the back stretch of his career is a fair argument - once he hits 30 he'll start to slow down, its inevitable of course. His all-time elite talent though should allow him to still eek out RB2 and I don't think it would be shocking to see RB1 numbers) at 30, 31 and 32.

I'd have to look at it, but I think 1600 carries is approximately where you start to see a lot of great backs drop in effectiveness. I wouldn't assume that ADP's prime will last much longer than one more season. Could it? Sure, but he's no more freakish than LT was, and we saw what happened there. Peterson probably has 1-3 good years left. For me that's not enough to justify the price he'll command.

 

[Concept Coop]

This idea that New Orleans is destroying Ingram's per touch numbers is absurd. New Orleans is a bad spot to get a lot of touches, but it's probably the best spot in the entire NFL to put up good per touch numbers.If Ingram's poor numbers are just a result of short yardage carries and predictable play calling, why are Ivory's numbers so good when he's played the same role? Then again, I guess I should know better than to ask people that like Ingram to look at history, since that's been ignored ever since the day he was drafted ("Payton only uses RBBC because he's never had a guy who could be a workhorse", "Payton wouldn't draft a guy early to use him in a timeshare").

Read the Ingram HOF thread - I got blasted for saying he wasn't a better prospect than Knowshon Moreno at the time; blasted for suggesting he is a long shot for the HOF, and simply the best back in a below average RB class. So your "History-ignoring-Ingram" digs don't apply.2011: Mark Ingram played through knee injury and turf toe.2012A: Mark Ingram used as a short yardage back, and nothing more.2012B: Mark Ingram is named the starter and averages 4.46/carry. Nobody is ignoring history; nobody on this side of the argument, anyway.

 

[thriftyrocker]

Tons of mileage.

Why keep bringing up an arugument that has been shown to be meaningless? Most of the runners that have still been able to have success past the age of 30 have been the ones that have received heavy workloads throughout their careers - because they were special backs that demanded carries. To say that Peterson is in the back stretch of his career is a fair argument - once he hits 30 he'll start to slow down, its inevitable of course. His all-time elite talent though should allow him to still eek out RB2 and I don't think it would be shocking to see RB1 numbers) at 30, 31 and 32.

I'd have to look at it, but I think 1600 carries is approximately where you start to see a lot of great backs drop in effectiveness. I wouldn't assume that ADP's prime will last much longer than one more season. Could it? Sure, but he's no more freakish than LT was, and we saw what happened there. Peterson probably has 1-3 good years left. For me that's not enough to justify the price he'll command.

I understand avoiding that risk, especially in a startup when you can easily just take another position. But if you have a winning team, which RBs would you feel safer owning? TR and Martin sure. Probably Rice. After that no one.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Tons of mileage.

Why keep bringing up an arugument that has been shown to be meaningless? Most of the runners that have still been able to have success past the age of 30 have been the ones that have received heavy workloads throughout their careers - because they were special backs that demanded carries. To say that Peterson is in the back stretch of his career is a fair argument - once he hits 30 he'll start to slow down, its inevitable of course. His all-time elite talent though should allow him to still eek out RB2 and I don't think it would be shocking to see RB1 numbers) at 30, 31 and 32.

I'd have to look at it, but I think 1600 carries is approximately where you start to see a lot of great backs drop in effectiveness. I wouldn't assume that ADP's prime will last much longer than one more season. Could it? Sure, but he's no more freakish than LT was, and we saw what happened there. Peterson probably has 1-3 good years left. For me that's not enough to justify the price he'll command.

What happened there? Tomlinson averaged 4.2 ypc during his age 31 season with the Jets after people thought he was finished (due to age, but it turned out that with a decent o-line he was still viable). He also caught 52 balls and scored 6 TDs. He definately dropped off in his age 32 season - but was used strictly as a 3rd down back for the Jets that season and still caught 42 balls for over 10 yards per reception.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

The Saints really don't do any of their RBs any favors by their constant rotation. Sproles is the only back with a defined role and consistent snaps. None of the backs ever get into a rhythm or the flow of the game with such limited opportunities.

Yet Ingram is the only one that it seems to negatively affect. All of the other backs in New Orleans have had outstanding YPC numbers.4.75.44.75.15.66.93.83.9Those are the YPC numbers of Ivory, Thomas, Sproles, and Ingram the last two years. The last two are Ingram, and are the two that clearly don't belong.Since the inevitable "his short yardage carries hurt his numbers" argument always pops up, I'll go ahead and remind people ahead of time that with his short yardage carries from last year removed, his ypc actually went down slightly. Additionally, when Ivory has had the same role (when Ingram wasn't there yet in 2010, and when Ingram was injured in 2011) his YPC was 5.0.This idea that New Orleans is destroying Ingram's per touch numbers is absurd. New Orleans is a bad spot to get a lot of touches, but it's probably the best spot in the entire NFL to put up good per touch numbers.If Ingram's poor numbers are just a result of short yardage carries and predictable play calling, why are Ivory's numbers so good when he's played the same role? Then again, I guess I should know better than to ask people that like Ingram to look at history, since that's been ignored ever since the day he was drafted ("Payton only uses RBBC because he's never had a guy who could be a workhorse", "Payton wouldn't draft a guy early to use him in a timeshare").

Fair enough on this. I am obviously wrong that the RBBC hurts all of their backs, except in being able to compile stats (which is obvious).

 

[MAC_32]

The Saints really don't do any of their RBs any favors by their constant rotation. Sproles is the only back with a defined role and consistent snaps. None of the backs ever get into a rhythm or the flow of the game with such limited opportunities.

Yet Ingram is the only one that it seems to negatively affect. All of the other backs in New Orleans have had outstanding YPC numbers.4.75.44.75.15.66.93.83.9Those are the YPC numbers of Ivory, Thomas, Sproles, and Ingram the last two years. The last two are Ingram, and are the two that clearly don't belong.Since the inevitable "his short yardage carries hurt his numbers" argument always pops up, I'll go ahead and remind people ahead of time that with his short yardage carries from last year removed, his ypc actually went down slightly. Additionally, when Ivory has had the same role (when Ingram wasn't there yet in 2010, and when Ingram was injured in 2011) his YPC was 5.0.This idea that New Orleans is destroying Ingram's per touch numbers is absurd. New Orleans is a bad spot to get a lot of touches, but it's probably the best spot in the entire NFL to put up good per touch numbers.If Ingram's poor numbers are just a result of short yardage carries and predictable play calling, why are Ivory's numbers so good when he's played the same role? Then again, I guess I should know better than to ask people that like Ingram to look at history, since that's been ignored ever since the day he was drafted ("Payton only uses RBBC because he's never had a guy who could be a workhorse", "Payton wouldn't draft a guy early to use him in a timeshare").

Forgetting a big piece of info above - New Orleans runs when Ingram is on the field, they run or pass when Ivory is on the field. Defense knows what's coming when Ingram is out there, they don't when it's Ivory. And they're caught by surprise when Sproles and Pierre run.

 

[EBF]

Tons of mileage.

Why keep bringing up an arugument that has been shown to be meaningless? Most of the runners that have still been able to have success past the age of 30 have been the ones that have received heavy workloads throughout their careers - because they were special backs that demanded carries. To say that Peterson is in the back stretch of his career is a fair argument - once he hits 30 he'll start to slow down, its inevitable of course. His all-time elite talent though should allow him to still eek out RB2 and I don't think it would be shocking to see RB1 numbers) at 30, 31 and 32.

I'd have to look at it, but I think 1600 carries is approximately where you start to see a lot of great backs drop in effectiveness. I wouldn't assume that ADP's prime will last much longer than one more season. Could it? Sure, but he's no more freakish than LT was, and we saw what happened there. Peterson probably has 1-3 good years left. For me that's not enough to justify the price he'll command.

I understand avoiding that risk, especially in a startup when you can easily just take another position. But if you have a winning team, which RBs would you feel safer owning? TR and Martin sure. Probably Rice. After that no one.

You're right that there aren't a lot of great alternatives. If it has to be a RB, the options aren't great. In a startup I'd just take another position. If I already owned him, there are lots of receivers that I'd trade him for.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

The Saints really don't do any of their RBs any favors by their constant rotation. Sproles is the only back with a defined role and consistent snaps. None of the backs ever get into a rhythm or the flow of the game with such limited opportunities.

Yet Ingram is the only one that it seems to negatively affect. All of the other backs in New Orleans have had outstanding YPC numbers.4.75.44.75.15.66.93.83.9Those are the YPC numbers of Ivory, Thomas, Sproles, and Ingram the last two years. The last two are Ingram, and are the two that clearly don't belong.Since the inevitable "his short yardage carries hurt his numbers" argument always pops up, I'll go ahead and remind people ahead of time that with his short yardage carries from last year removed, his ypc actually went down slightly. Additionally, when Ivory has had the same role (when Ingram wasn't there yet in 2010, and when Ingram was injured in 2011) his YPC was 5.0.This idea that New Orleans is destroying Ingram's per touch numbers is absurd. New Orleans is a bad spot to get a lot of touches, but it's probably the best spot in the entire NFL to put up good per touch numbers.If Ingram's poor numbers are just a result of short yardage carries and predictable play calling, why are Ivory's numbers so good when he's played the same role? Then again, I guess I should know better than to ask people that like Ingram to look at history, since that's been ignored ever since the day he was drafted ("Payton only uses RBBC because he's never had a guy who could be a workhorse", "Payton wouldn't draft a guy early to use him in a timeshare").

Forgetting a big piece of info above - New Orleans runs when Ingram is on the field, they run or pass when Ivory is on the field. Defense knows what's coming when Ingram is out there, they don't when it's Ivory. And they're caught by surprise when Sproles and Pierre run.

To be fair I think they mostly run when Ivory is on the field as well.

 

[MAC_32]

The Saints really don't do any of their RBs any favors by their constant rotation. Sproles is the only back with a defined role and consistent snaps. None of the backs ever get into a rhythm or the flow of the game with such limited opportunities.

Yet Ingram is the only one that it seems to negatively affect. All of the other backs in New Orleans have had outstanding YPC numbers.4.75.44.75.15.66.93.83.9Those are the YPC numbers of Ivory, Thomas, Sproles, and Ingram the last two years. The last two are Ingram, and are the two that clearly don't belong.Since the inevitable "his short yardage carries hurt his numbers" argument always pops up, I'll go ahead and remind people ahead of time that with his short yardage carries from last year removed, his ypc actually went down slightly. Additionally, when Ivory has had the same role (when Ingram wasn't there yet in 2010, and when Ingram was injured in 2011) his YPC was 5.0.This idea that New Orleans is destroying Ingram's per touch numbers is absurd. New Orleans is a bad spot to get a lot of touches, but it's probably the best spot in the entire NFL to put up good per touch numbers.If Ingram's poor numbers are just a result of short yardage carries and predictable play calling, why are Ivory's numbers so good when he's played the same role? Then again, I guess I should know better than to ask people that like Ingram to look at history, since that's been ignored ever since the day he was drafted ("Payton only uses RBBC because he's never had a guy who could be a workhorse", "Payton wouldn't draft a guy early to use him in a timeshare").

Forgetting a big piece of info above - New Orleans runs when Ingram is on the field, they run or pass when Ivory is on the field. Defense knows what's coming when Ingram is out there, they don't when it's Ivory. And they're caught by surprise when Sproles and Pierre run.

To be fair I think they mostly run when Ivory is on the field as well.

More often than Sproles and Pierre, less often than Ingram.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

EBF... here's the top-20 list for career RB touches among RBs who entered the league after 1990...

Curtis Martin 3608Jerome Bettis 3570LaDainian Tomlinson 3319Edgerrin James 3108Marshall Faulk 2936Eddie George 2933Thomas Jones 2747Warrick Dunn 2719Ricky Watters 2700Corey Dillon 2700Fred Taylor 2600Jamal Lewis 2600Ricky Williams 2497Steven Jackson 2409Clinton Portis 2305Shaun Alexander 2287Tiki Barber 2271Terry Allen 2225Ahman Green 2116Willis McGahee 2019
#1, #5, #8, #15, #17 and #18 are guys who are under your ideal weight range.

#2, #6, #12, and #13 are guys who are over your ideal weight range.

#8, #9 and #15 are under your ideal BMI.

#4, #6, #9, #10, #14 and #20 are 6'0" or taller.

#8 and #17 are under 5'9"

So of the top-20 guys who got the most touches over roughly a twenty year period five of them conform to your 'ideal' build and fifteen don't.

If you were saying that most RBs who make it in the NFL have BMIs over 29 or weights between 215-230 I wouldn't argue with you. Because most good prospects fall in that group.

But what you're saying is that good prospects who don't fit your criteria won't get as many touches as the good prospects who do and that's just not right. If there was a player with Warrick Dunn's attributes entering the league every year that list would be dominated by guys who are 5'8" and 180, but since players like him only come along once every 20 years or so (hello, Tavon Austin!) it isn't.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

2011: Mark Ingram played through knee injury and turf toe.2012A: Mark Ingram used as a short yardage back, and nothing more.2012B: Mark Ingram is named the starter and averages 4.46/carry. ...Why is Chris Ivory still pointed to as a discredit to Ingram? Someone called Ingram a less explosive version of Ivory. If we were to make a list of backs more explosive than Chris Ivory, in 2012, how many guys would we put on it? 7? 10? Certainly not 15.Chris Ivory is a very talented runner who I feel could start for a lot of teams in the NFL.

One trend that I've begun to notice with FF is that the longer the list of excuses we use to convince ourselves of something in FF is, the less likely those excuses are really indicative of what's going on. More on this at the bottom of the post, so I'll cut it short here.And btw, in this marvelous stretch where Ingram is averaging an incredible 4.4ypc.....Chris Ivory is averaging 5.4.As to the second part of your post about Ivory being used to discredit Ingram, it's not like the two are producing similarly. It's not like people are saying "Chris Ivory is doing nearly as well and he's a nobody". They're not similar. Ivory has blown him out of the water every step of the way. We're talking a full YPC difference in pretty much any time period we choose to compare, even when Ivory was being used similarly. It says a lot when people say "no one could produce in this situation" and Chris Ivory is doing exactly that. He's not exactly Adrian Peterson, either.

Forgetting a big piece of info above - New Orleans runs when Ingram is on the field, they run or pass when Ivory is on the field. Defense knows what's coming when Ingram is out there, they don't when it's Ivory. And they're caught by surprise when Sproles and Pierre run.

Are there any actual numbers to this? I can't speak to this year, but it doesn't really make sense in the context of last year. Ingram got hurt and Ivory took Ingram's role. His snap count in the games Ingram missed was similar to Ingram's snap counts in the games he played, yet New Orleans actually passed less as a team when Ivory played. Thomas/Sproles rushing numbers didn't increase so unless the Saints were running 25 fewer plays per game over that stretch it doesn't seem possible that the Saints were any less predictable with Ivory in there.Regardless, it doesn't really matter. Even if Ingram is coming in during the obvious running downs, he's not the first back to do so. How often do we hear about some great young running back that does awesome on a per touch basis but can't get more touches because he can't pass block? You know what that means? It means that when he's in the game, it's a running play. Yet, those guys are producing. Guys like David Wilson and Ronnie Hillman are in the same spot (for a different reason) and their not in nearly as good a rushing situation with those touches, but still doing better. Countless other young runners have been in the same situation.This is no different than when Ingram came into the league. For whatever reason, people decide to like him and create reasons to back that up, rather than liking him because those reasons convinced them. "Sean Payton just hasn't had a workhorse capable back like Ingram (he had). Yeah, that sounds good, I'll use that to argue why I like the guy". This is just more of the same. Logically, it makes sense that short yardage carries and predictable play calling could stymie a running back's production. Realistically, lots of guys have been faced with those same issues and produced much better, including a guy on his own team running behind the same line, with the same quarterback, in the same situations.I got caught in this trap with Beanie Wells. All these excuses just sounded great on paper, and I just knew he was going to be great. This is a fluke and that's a bad break, you'll see, one day it's all going to come together. The longer the list of the excuses gets, the more likely it is that you'll be making yet another excuse the next year. Ingram could go on to be good, and may represent great value right now. I can't really argue that because I can't predict the future. However, I've seen very little out of him other than lots and lots of reasons why it's not his fault. In those cases, we usually just end up with more reasons why that's the case than we do fantasy points.

 

[Tau837]

Again, it's all there in the numbers. Determinism in general is something that bothers a lot of people and I think a lot of people take exception to the idea that a player's physique limits how he can be used, but recent history paints a pretty clear picture.

Here are the players in my database who entered the league with a BMI under 29 that weren't DQd from being a good prospect for some reason, and who were drafted in the first three rounds:C.J. SpillerJahvid BestChris JohnsonJamaal CharlesMatt ForteDarren McFaddenAdrian PetersonReggie BushClinton PortisI'm not sure you can really make a case that the usage of those guys is noticeably different than their thicker counterparts. Best came into the league with concussion issues and McFadden is 6'2" (which I do think lends itself to more injuries). But Portis was at his workhorse best as a thinner runner when he entered the league. Peterson is a monster. Forte has put up a gazillion touches since entering the league. So has Chris Johnson. Jamaal Charles is now a workhorse (and only Todd Haley and an ACL kept him from being one sooner). Reggie Bush has been used differently, but may have been limited by his size (we'll see what happens from here though). Spiller sure looks the part lately.I really think that if you took a random sample of nine thicker backs it'd be unlikely that their touches were different in a meaningful way, and that you're seeing what you expect to see.ETA: for whatever reason, between 1998 and 2005 Portis is the only qualifying back who entered the league. So it might appear that those sized backs are at a disadvantage when in fact there just weren't any of them coming into the NFL for nearly a decade.

Do you publish your database/rankings/conclusions somewhere? I saw reference to a blog, but I'm not sure what blog.

 

[thriftyrocker]

Guys like David Wilson and Ronnie Hillman are in the same spot (for a different reason) and their not in nearly as good a rushing situation with those touches, but still doing better.

Are they though? I don't really think they are. Certainly if you go advanced stats, they're not.

The longer the list of the excuses gets, the more likely it is that you'll be making yet another excuse the next year.

Would be interesting to see how true that was, because they're certainly examples on the other end like Spiller, DMC, TJones, Benson.

 

[Concept Coop]

And btw, in this marvelous stretch where Ingram is averaging an incredible 4.4ypc.....Chris Ivory is averaging 5.4.

Ivory doesn't have a single carry on 3rd or 4th down and less than 4 yards to go. Context, especially with such a small sample size. As easy as it is to say they are used the same; they're not. Ingram is the short yardage back.

All these excuses just sounded great on paper, and I just knew he was going to be great. Ingram could go on to be good, and may represent great value right now. I can't really argue that because I can't predict the future. However, I've seen very little out of him other than lots and lots of reasons why it's not his fault. In those cases, we usually just end up with more reasons why that's the case than we do fantasy points.

This is really just a rant about nothing; it's you deciding what is an excuse and what is not, and applying it how you decide. Reasoning to support not writing off a 22 YO 1st round RB isn't simply a collection of excuses. If you've written him off, fine. But don't discredit others who haven't without more than "stop using excuses or trying to analyze; he's a bum." It sounds a lot like the Spiller talk a little more than a year ago, which produced a classic thread with owners making horrible moves.

 

[Concept Coop]

Do you publish your database/rankings/conclusions somewhere? I saw reference to a blog, but I'm not sure what blog.

He hasn't released it yet, but mentioned the potential of doing so. I, for one, would be very interested to see it.

 

[Tau837]

Tons of mileage.

Why keep bringing up an arugument that has been shown to be meaningless? Most of the runners that have still been able to have success past the age of 30 have been the ones that have received heavy workloads throughout their careers - because they were special backs that demanded carries. To say that Peterson is in the back stretch of his career is a fair argument - once he hits 30 he'll start to slow down, its inevitable of course. His all-time elite talent though should allow him to still eek out RB2 and I don't think it would be shocking to see RB1 numbers) at 30, 31 and 32.

I'd have to look at it, but I think 1600 carries is approximately where you start to see a lot of great backs drop in effectiveness. I wouldn't assume that ADP's prime will last much longer than one more season. Could it? Sure, but he's no more freakish than LT was, and we saw what happened there. Peterson probably has 1-3 good years left. For me that's not enough to justify the price he'll command.

It seems odd that you cited Tomlinson here.Through 2005 (his first 5 seasons), Tomlinson had 1728 career carries, 351 career receptions, and 7 career pass attempts, for a total of 2086 career touches (regular season and postseason). In 2006, he had the best season of his career and was the #1 RB and #1 overall player.

Then, through 2006, Tomlinson had 2099 career carries, 409 career receptions, and 10 career pass attempts, for a total of 2518 career touches (regular season and postseason). In 2007, he was the #1 RB and #2 overall player.

Then, through 2007, Tomlinson had 2444 career carries, 474 career receptions, and 11 career pass attempts, for a total of 2929 career touches (regular season and postseason). In 2008, he was the #7 RB and #15 overall player.

As of right now, Peterson has 1742 career carries and 178 career receptions, for a total of 1920 career touches. If Tomlinson is indeed comparable, it suggests Peterson has at least 2 elite seasons remaining and another very good season. And remember, Tomlinson's decline was accelerated by injuries; Peterson may not decline as rapidly if he avoids more injuries.

 

[Tau837]

EBF... here's the top-20 list for career RB touches among RBs who entered the league after 1990...

Curtis Martin		3608Jerome Bettis		3570LaDainian Tomlinson	3319Edgerrin James		3108Marshall Faulk		2936Eddie George		2933Thomas Jones		2747Warrick Dunn		2719Ricky Watters		2700Corey Dillon		2700Fred Taylor		2600Jamal Lewis		2600Ricky Williams		2497Steven Jackson		2409Clinton Portis		2305Shaun Alexander		2287Tiki Barber		2271Terry Allen		2225Ahman Green		2116Willis McGahee		2019

#1, #5, #8, #15, #17 and #18 are guys who are under your ideal weight range.#2, #6, #12, and #13 are guys who are over your ideal weight range.#8, #9 and #15 are under your ideal BMI.#4, #6, #9, #10, #14 and #20 are 6'0" or taller.#8 and #17 are under 5'9"So of the top-20 guys who got the most touches over roughly a twenty year period five of them conform to your 'ideal' build and fifteen don't.If you were saying that most RBs who make it in the NFL have BMIs over 29 or weights between 215-230 I wouldn't argue with you. Because most good prospects fall in that group.But what you're saying is that good prospects who don't fit your criteria won't get as many touches as the good prospects who do and that's just not right. If there was a player with Warrick Dunn's attributes entering the league every year that list would be dominated by guys who are 5'8" and 180, but since players like him only come along once every 20 years or so (hello, Tavon Austin!) it isn't.

 

[Andrew74]

(...though should allow him to still eek out RB2 and I don't think it would be shocking to see RB1 numbers) at 30, 31 and 32.

I'd be surprised not to see that.

All this talk is making me slightly question keeping Richardson over AD in my keeper league. It ha been hard enough to let go of him as is. :'(

 

[EBF]

So of the top-20 guys who got the most touches over roughly a twenty year period five of them conform to your 'ideal' build and fifteen don't.

Most of the guys on the list have the qualities that I look for. I've been accused of moving the goal posts, but that's because there isn't a single measure that effectively quantifies what I'm talking about. Weight doesn't work because it doesn't tell you anything about height. Height doesn't work because it doesn't tell you anything about weight. BMI is flawed because it only tells you about height per weight, and not about how that weight is distributed across the body. Some guys carry it in their arms and shoulders (bad). Some guys carry it in their lower bodies (good). A guy like Warrick Dunn or Brian Westbrook might be used an example of a small player, but both of those guys were quite solid. Dunn looked the way a RB is supposed to look and had a really strong lower body. He was kind of like Sproles in that regard. Not really a good example of a thin back. Someone like McFadden is the poster boy for everything that I recommend avoiding. He has a low BMI and if you look at him, the distribution of weight is completely off as well. It's all in his shoulders and not at all in his legs. That's why he's had so many lower body injuries.

We are in agreement in some respects though. In general, the farther away a player gets from the ideal body type, the more freakish his skills must be. If you look at guys like BJGE, Greene, Ridley, and Morris, they don't really have any dynamic athletes. Yet they're able to be successful workhorse backs in the NFL because they have compact frames with good power. Players like Spiller and Charles lack the ideal frame, but they compensate with quickness and speed. Tavon Austin is just like this. He's so small that he has to have elite athletic qualities because that's the only way he could possibly be drafted at his size. So the irony of all this is that the average non-ideal back probably needs more "talent" to be drafted in the same spot as some guy who's 5'10" 220. And so if you went back and looked at the average career touches for backs drafted in the same rounds, you might actually find that the smaller guys have a higher average than the bigger guys.

But where it really breaks down is when you look at the highest reaches of volume. Even in a career year Jamaal Charles isn't coming close to logging the kind of work that elite thicker backs such as Ricky Williams, LaDainian Tomlinson, Edgerrin James, and Arian Foster have done. And guys like Doug Martin and Trent Richardson who represent the next generation of that breed are also out-touching all of the thin backs in the league.

And that's really all I'm saying. Guys like Spiller, Charles, and Bush can have a lot of value in the NFL and FF, but they also have natural limitations that will probably prevent them from logging the kind of volume needed for a HoF type career. And in any given season they will be out-touched by the best of the thicker backs. In some cases their explosiveness might be enough to cover the gap, but often it won't. An explosive back who can also handle 350+ touches will always outproduce them. That's why guys like Tomlinson, Edge, and Ricky have ruled over FF and that's why I'd take a Martin or Richardson (if he's healthy) over a Spiller or Charles without much hesitation.

 

[Spin]

Curious everyone's thoughts on Crabtree.

Since Kaepernick took over in week 10:

5/70/1

3/31/1

3/26/0

7/101/0

9/93/0

for a total of 71.1 points over that 5 game stretch (ppr). Average of 14.22 points per game

He is currently ranked 21 in my league scoring. If you pro-rate his 5 games with Kaepernick over 14 games it comes to 199.08, which would slot him right around WR14.

Solid WR2.

What are his dynasty outlooks with Kaepernick at the helm? I've held onto him since drafting him as a rookie, and it seems like it's finally starting to pay off. I doubt he'll be the super stud I was hoping for but I really like his upside with Kaepernick there. I currently have him ranked at WR19 for dynasty, and considering most rankings I see have him ranked 30+, some into the 70s.

I think he is a perfect buy low target at the moment.

 

[Concept Coop]

Curious everyone's thoughts on Crabtree.I think he is a perfect buy low target at the moment.

I think his name still dictates paying a fair price. I don't like him as anything more than a safe WR2/3 and don't see anyone selling for less than that.I'd much rather pay a little more for guys like Cecil Shorts, or a lot less for guys like Golden Tate.

 

[SSOG]

Don't you think it's significant that a vast majority of the top RBs drafted by the NFL fit a pretty narrow mold? It is pretty clear that the job description favors a certain skill set which favors a certain body type. The fact that NFL teams favor thick RBs is no less significant than the fact that NBA teams favor tall centers. In both cases the physical quality contributes to success.

Of course it's significant! You're just confused as to its significance. Yes, being of a non-ideal body type makes it much, much harder to make it to the NFL. This is all irrelevant to this discussion, because we're discussing RBs who have already made it to the NFL. Once the scouts have gotten a hold of a prospect and put him through the ringer, performing all their due diligence, putting him under the microscope, and have still declared him an elite prospect (first three rounds), then that back has a patina of credibility about him. He's been certified. The scouting community has affirmed their belief that, unlike all the other non-ideal backs, this particular player has what it takes to succeed in the NFL.I liken it to small school WR prospects. Lots of players dominate at small schools and never make the NFL. If we see somebody putting up huge numbers at Appalachian State or the Colorado School of Mines, we shouldn't assume that they're a great pro prospect. If that same player passes through the scouting crucible and gets certified with a grade in the first three rounds, though, we have to stop holding his small school status against him. You seem to inherently understand this, even going so far as arguing that small school WRs are underrated still. You've never once pulled up a list of the all-time reception leaders and said "look how it's dominated by big school players!". And yet that's exactly what you're doing here with non-ideal RBs.

Short QBs are another great example. There are not many short QBs atop the NFL lists, and yet, when the scouting community sees enough in a short QB to rate him highly (Drew Brees, Russell Wilson, Doug Flutie, etc), we should understand that they've evaluated that player's height and concluded that it won't be a problem.

There's a clear qualitative difference between guys like Peterson, Portis, and Forte and guys like Charles, Johnson, and Spiller. Nobody who watches Peterson run would ever describe him as undersized or lacking power. And Portis was something like 220 pounds for the majority of his career. I don't see either guy as an indictment of what I've been preaching. Quite the opposite.

Hey look, it's scouting with **** and Jane. See goalposts. See goalposts move. Move, goalposts, move!Clinton Portis entered the league at 205 and was a workhorse for years... but because he at one point managed to edge just barely over your 215 minimum, you're counting his entire career as validation of the idea that a back needs to be 215 to be a workhorse? You're ignoring all those years where Portis WASN'T 215 but was still a workhorse because it's wildly inconvenient to your theory. You can't just throw out data because it's inconvenient. You can't ignore the fact that Portis was a workhorse with a non-ideal body type, or the fact that Mike Shanahan was quick to remind that he dominated at 205 and opine that his ideal playing weight was sub-215. The only reason Portis doesn't undermine your theory is because your definition of "ideal" is "any back who gets a workhorse workload". If NFL goalposts were as flexible as yours are, kickers would never miss.

It's funny that you accuse me of seeing what I want to see when you're doing exactly that. The fact that teams spent high picks on guys like McFadden, Reggie, Spiller, and Johnson doesn't prove that they see these backs as workhorses. As I've said previously, the value of these players is their ability to deliver dynamic big plays that a thicker, slower back probably couldn't give you. The trade off is that very few of these backs can hold up under a full workload. This is exactly why guys like McFadden, Reggie, and Spiller haven't been workhorses.

I'm not really interested in beating this dead horse any further, as it's clear that people on both sides will see whatever they want to see, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for guys like Spiller and McFadden to log Turner/MJD/Ricky levels of volume. Different players. Different bodies. Different strengths and weaknesses. At the end of the day, backs who fit the mold that I'm talking about dominate the season and career leaders for RB touches. I'm perfectly content to continue my foolish and old-fashioned bias of favoring them as long as they keep dominating the landscape.

Oakland clearly drafted McFadden to be a workhorse. It's 100% obvious to anyone who watches his usage pattern. Oakland *DESPERATELY WANTS* him to be a workhorse. As for Spiller... again, Jonathan Stewart splits time with a pro bowler and it doesn't mean anything, while Spiller splits time with a pro bowler and it's proof positive that his team only viewed him as a CoP back. Small Back Double Standard (SBDS). That's fine, we'll revisit this discussion next season when CJ Spiller is putting the bow on the end of his 300 touch season and making your assertions that he'd never be a workhorse look almost as foolish as your assertions that Charles would never be a workhorse while he was in the middle of an unequivocal workhorse season.

I'd have to look at it, but I think 1600 carries is approximately where you start to see a lot of great backs drop in effectiveness. I wouldn't assume that ADP's prime will last much longer than one more season. Could it? Sure, but he's no more freakish than LT was, and we saw what happened there. Peterson probably has 1-3 good years left. For me that's not enough to justify the price he'll command.

Emmitt Smith hit 1600 carries in 1994. He posted 4 more career top-10 finishes, three more top-24 finishes, a 25th place finish, and a 26th place finish, compiling 597 more career VBD.LaDainian Tomlinson hit 1600 carries in 2005. He posted three more top-10 finishes and five more top-20 finishes, compiling 557 more career VBD.

Marshall Faulk hit 1600 carries in 1999. He posted two more #1 overall finishes, a pair more top-20 finishes, and had 504 more career VBD.

Barry Sanders hit 1600 carries in 1994. He played four more seasons, finishing top 10 every single time (including #1 overall in his 2000 yard season), and compiling 488 more VBD before walking away at the top of his game.

Sweetness hit 1600 carries in 1979. He posted 5 more top-5 finishes and a pair of 13th place finishes after that, compiling 701 more career VBD.

To put this 500-600 VBD into perspective, here is a brief list of players along with their career VBD totals:

Joe Horn- 311

Hines Ward- 325

Andre Johnson- 364 (and counting)

Jamal Lewis- 382

Jerome Bettis- 438

Ricky Williams- 445

Chad Ochocinco- 454

Larry Fitzgerald- 464 (and counting)

Steven Jackson- 468 (and counting)

Isaac Bruce- 501

Torry Holt- 561

Terrell Davis- 595

Clinton Portis- 597

Tiki Barber- 642

Priest Holmes- 673

In other words, a post-1600-carries Sanders, Tomlinson, Sweetness, Faulk, or Smith would have provided as much or more value than a rookie Hines Ward, Andre Johnson, Ricky Williams, Chad Ochocinco, Steven Jackson, Isaac Bruce, Torry Holt, Terrell Davis, or Clinton Portis. All of these guys were legitimate first round picks in dynasty startups (and deservedly so!). These guys were long-time fantasy studs, guys with amazing careers. Doug Martin is great, but is he better than Portis or Jackson? Is he a more desirable prospect than Ricky Williams or Terrell Davis were at this point in their rookie campaigns? Is Dez Bryant better than Andre Johnson, Torry Holt, or Isaac Bruce? There is a lot of room for these guys you'd take over Peterson to wind up being huge studs who will be remembered for decades and *STILL* not have as much career value in front of them as Peterson does.

 

[Concept Coop]

...

 

[MAC_32]

Forgetting a big piece of info above - New Orleans runs when Ingram is on the field, they run or pass when Ivory is on the field. Defense knows what's coming when Ingram is out there, they don't when it's Ivory. And they're caught by surprise when Sproles and Pierre run.

Are there any actual numbers to this?

Mike Clay at PFF has been tweeting the #'s all year, they've been ridiculous. I know at one point it was > 80% of Ingram's snaps were run plays to him. The force feeding did work on one play because they play actioned for a long TD to Joseph Morgan, I believe it was the Packers game. Not going to be successful over the course of the season though.

 

[JFS171]

KA-BOOM

Bravo, sir.

 

[EBF]

Clinton Portis entered the league at 205 and was a workhorse for years... but because he at one point managed to edge just barely over your 215 minimum, you're counting his entire career as validation of the idea that a back needs to be 215 to be a workhorse? You're ignoring all those years where Portis WASN'T 215 but was still a workhorse because it's wildly inconvenient to your theory. You can't just throw out data because it's inconvenient. You can't ignore the fact that Portis was a workhorse with a non-ideal body type, or the fact that Mike Shanahan was quick to remind that he dominated at 205 and opine that his ideal playing weight was sub-215. The only reason Portis doesn't undermine your theory is because your definition of "ideal" is "any back who gets a workhorse workload". If NFL goalposts were as flexible as yours are, kickers would never miss.

Portis was never a McFadden. Even in his Broncos days he was a pretty compact, solid runner. That's not me moving the goalposts to fit an arbitrary standard. There's just no single way to quantify bulk and lower body strength. Weight doesn't do it. BMI is close, but flawed for reasons that I've already mentioned. And none of the physical measurables tell you anything about running style, which is a factor as well.You want an objective metric. There isn't one. As I said before "I know it when I see it" is the closest I can come to an answer. I've spent a fair amount of time evaluating prospects at RB. My thinking has evolved significantly over the last 4-5 years. At this point I have a pretty nuanced understanding of the position. Trying to explain all of my conclusions and beliefs to people who haven't invested the same amount of time is difficult though. They don't have the same frame of reference.

FWIW, it's not a black-and-white all-or-nothing thing like people are trying to make it out to be. It's more like a gradient. I've had guys like Jamaal Charles, CJ Spiller, and Jahvid Best on my dynasty teams. They are borderline guys for me whereas guys like McFadden, Beanie, and Murray are players that I would never draft or acquire. I often get accused of being a black-and-white thinker on topics like this by people who don't even know my process or beliefs. All of this stuff about build is just one of the many variables that factors into my thought process.

There is a lot of room for these guys you'd take over Peterson to wind up being huge studs who will be remembered for decades and *STILL* not have as much career value in front of them as Peterson does.

We don't know how much he has left in the tank. At this point it's pure conjecture and speculation. He could be dominant for 3-4 more years or he could completely fall apart next year. So I can't really buy into any assumption that he's going to have X or Y value. Morever, something like VBD will vary depending on the requirements of your league. And that's all assuming that VBD should be the sole driver of personnel decisions, which is not the case. Trade value is a big factor as well and that's where old players really suffer. If you're the guy who buys Peterson at his current price tag and your team bombs next year, you're going to have a really tough time cashing him out for fair value. Ask any Andre Johnson, Frank Gore, or Larry Fitzgerald owner how easy it is to get fair value for an aging star in a competitive league. It's basically impossible. Some people do well by targeting aging stars and buying veterans for cheap, but that's never been the approach that works for me. I build young teams and buy uncertainty. For me, a guy like Peterson isn't a compelling option given what it would cost to get him.

 

[yanos]

Its funny how this topic has surfaced so many time in my Hockey Fantasy pool. 'Always pick the 6'2 + forward has he will have more 'chance' to perform than the 5'9 forward. I always go with EBF reasoning when I see 2 players at equal talent/potentiel, I'll take the bigger guy. This is more of a personal preference me think. Or an inerrant though process, or a false 'security feeling'. After 10 years of Fantasy Hockey, I concluded that as SSOG mentioned, it is obviously harder for smaller guys to Make the NHL. The thing that I also concluded is that bigger guy (or the ideal size EBF mentioned) gets more opportunity than the smaller guy. The 5'9 forward has a much smaller window to succeed that the 6'3 forward. I'm not certain on how this would translate to Football, since team will ride the best RB they have, regardless of size. Are team holding their smaller back in RBBC for longer to 'protect' them? Are the smaller guys in need of less touches to produce the same output as the prototypical RB?

On the injury front, I think that each player will approach contact differently with respect of their own size. A bigger guy might put himself more at risk that the lighter guy simply from confidence, habit/reflex or from the simple fact that he can take more. I would therefore attenuate the injury risk of smaller backs.

In any case, this discussion is amazing. Thanks for the effort put in and the data to back it. You guys are quite interesting to read. Keep it up.

 

[SSOG]

FWIW, it's not a black-and-white all-or-nothing thing like people are trying to make it out to be. It's more like a gradient. I've had guys like Jamaal Charles, CJ Spiller, and Jahvid Best on my dynasty teams. They are borderline guys for me whereas guys like McFadden, Beanie, and Murray are players that I would never draft or acquire. I often get accused of being a black-and-white thinker on topics like this by people who don't even know my process or beliefs. All of this stuff about build is just one of the many variables that factors into my thought process.

Okay. I'm telling you, though, that your gradient is wrong. Johnson has been a workhorse his whole career. Charles has become a workhorse (and was busy being one several weeks ago while you were holding him up as an example of someone who would never become one). Spiller will be a workhorse next year, putting up 300+ touches. Who knows what Murray or McFadden will do going forward. The results of your analysis, no matter HOW you define "non-ideal"- are not standing up as seasons go by. It's a different NFL. Size might make a difference, but scouts realize this, and if they take a small back, it's because they're not scared off by his size.

There is a lot of room for these guys you'd take over Peterson to wind up being huge studs who will be remembered for decades and *STILL* not have as much career value in front of them as Peterson does.

We don't know how much he has left in the tank. At this point it's pure conjecture and speculation. He could be dominant for 3-4 more years or he could completely fall apart next year. So I can't really buy into any assumption that he's going to have X or Y value. Morever, something like VBD will vary depending on the requirements of your league. And that's all assuming that VBD should be the sole driver of personnel decisions, which is not the case. Trade value is a big factor as well and that's where old players really suffer. If you're the guy who buys Peterson at his current price tag and your team bombs next year, you're going to have a really tough time cashing him out for fair value. Ask any Andre Johnson, Frank Gore, or Larry Fitzgerald owner how easy it is to get fair value for an aging star in a competitive league. It's basically impossible. Some people do well by targeting aging stars and buying veterans for cheap, but that's never been the approach that works for me. I build young teams and buy uncertainty. For me, a guy like Peterson isn't a compelling option given what it would cost to get him.

You're right. We don't know. Peterson might be more like Dickerson, who tailed off quickly after 1600. Martin might be the next Edgerrin James (733 career VBD) instead of the next Frank Gore (410 VBD and counting). Still, which scenario would you rather bet on- Adrian Peterson being the next Faulk/Tomlinson/Smith/Sanders/Sweetness, or Martin being the next Clinton Portis or Edgerrin James, or Demaryius Thomas being the next Torry Holt? Or forget about Doug Martin or Demaryius, would you rather bet on Peterson or the guys going in the second in startups?Trade value is nice, but trade value should not be confused with value. Trade value will never win you leagues or games. Only points will do that. If you gave me a choice between the guy who would score more points, or the guy who would look a lot better on paper when I'm posting my team in the ACF, I'd rather have the guy who'll put up the points. And there are other considerations, too- shorter careers = freed up roster spots. Shorter careers = higher VBD per season, and as I've mentioned before, VBD becomes more valuable the more of it you have.

 

[EBF]

Size might make a difference, but scouts realize this, and if they take a small back, it's because they're not scared off by his size.

That's definitely not a safe assumption. I would take CJ Spiller over Shonn Greene if I were an NFL GM, but that doesn't mean I think he can carry the load. Guys like Bush and Spiller are prized for their ability to make game-changing plays. The fact that a team might deem those plays worthy of a top 15 pick doesn't mean that the player's lack of workhorse size isn't still a negative. To use a basketball analogy, if a team uses a top 10 pick on a point guard with great scoring ability who's a complete liability on defense, it doesn't mean that they are endorsing his defending. All it means is that they value his overall skill set enough to use that pick on him. NFL teams sometimes use a similar reasoning. You might take a pass rush specialist in the top 15 because the impact of his sacks outweighs the impact of his bad run support and other limitations. Likewise, you might spend a top 15 pick on a scat back because of his dynamic big play ability even if you don't project him as an every down runner. The Cowboys had this very discussion in their war room when they took Felix Jones over Mendenhall. It was workhorse vs. dynamic change of pace.

 

[EBF]

You're right. We don't know. Peterson might be more like Dickerson, who tailed off quickly after 1600. Martin might be the next Edgerrin James (733 career VBD) instead of the next Frank Gore (410 VBD and counting). Still, which scenario would you rather bet on- Adrian Peterson being the next Faulk/Tomlinson/Smith/Sanders/Sweetness, or Martin being the next Clinton Portis or Edgerrin James, or Demaryius Thomas being the next Torry Holt? Or forget about Doug Martin or Demaryius, would you rather bet on Peterson or the guys going in the second in startups?

I'd back Martin to outscore Peterson over the next 3-4 years. The fact that he could endure a slump and still retain value because of his youth and reputation (ala Mendenhall/Stewart) is just an added bonus. If Peterson struggles at all his value will bottom out immediately because of his age. And I wouldn't give up Thomas for Peterson in any of my leagues. Thomas is the kind of guy that you'd be praying you could trade Peterson for a year or two from now.

Trade value is nice, but trade value should not be confused with value. Trade value will never win you leagues or games.

Trade value absolutely WILL win you your league. That's because it's a fluid commodity that you can redeem at any time for any type of player at any position. I've got Marqise Lee in my pocket in one of my dev leagues. Is he irrelevant this year because he has no VBD this season? Of course not. I could trade him for any number of productive veterans to help me win more games now. To borrow someone else's analogy, drafting a guy like Peterson in your startup right now is like buying a new car. It loses half its value the minute you drive it off the lot. If he ends up winning you a couple titles then you probably won't care about what you might have been able to trade him for, but if you wind up in a situation where you want to convert his value into a younger player or a different position, you will basically be SOL because everyone you approach with an offer will say, "Well, he's 28, so..."

 

[JFS171]

The Cowboys had this very discussion in their war room when they took Felix Jones over Mendenhall.

I'm not a Cowboys fan, but was it not widely speculated/reported that Jerry's well-known, documented, and publicized ties to Arkansas heavily weighed in his decision to take Felix Jones?I don't *tremendously* disagree with your overarching point, but I think you're taking SSOG's point out of context and addressing the issue you can address from it. Overall, I side with the group saying there's not 1 archetype at the RB position, though. We've seen workhorses from various body types. Is the "archetype" sized player a potentially safer prospect to speculate on in dynasty rookie drafts? I'd maybe agree with that, depending on the merits of both players. But most rookie drafts, despite our best analysis, are less than rock solid. Many times, we just don't know till the player hits the NFL, gets in training camp, and starts playing against the best in the world.

 

[EBF]

The Cowboys had this very discussion in their war room when they took Felix Jones over Mendenhall.

I'm not a Cowboys fan, but was it not widely speculated/reported that Jerry's well-known, documented, and publicized ties to Arkansas heavily weighed in his decision to take Felix Jones?

I have a pretty strong recollection of seeing the actual moment where they made the call. Maybe I'm losing my mind here, but I think it was on Hard Knocks or maybe on ESPN's draft coverage that year.

 

[Concept Coop]

The Cowboys had this very discussion in their war room when they took Felix Jones over Mendenhall.

I'm not a Cowboys fan, but was it not widely speculated/reported that Jerry's well-known, documented, and publicized ties to Arkansas heavily weighed in his decision to take Felix Jones?

I have a pretty strong recollection of seeing the actual moment where they made the call. Maybe I'm losing my mind here, but I think it was on Hard Knocks or maybe on ESPN's draft coverage that year.

You are right. It was on hard knocks. I don't think they ever said the player names, but they did have the conversation.Jerry asked Garret (OC at the time)what he thought about "the guys on the board". Garrett said something like, "One is a good 3 down back, the other is a special specialty player. We already have a 3 down back (Barber)".Not sure if the conversation went exactly like that, but I recall seeing it on Hard Knocks as well.ETA: Every mock that had Felix going to the Cowboys mentioned the ARK ties as a potential reason, but I never bought it. Felix was the first player drafted by Jerry from Arkansas.

 

[squistion]

Trade value is nice, but trade value should not be confused with value. Trade value will never win you leagues or games.

Trade value absolutely WILL win you your league. That's because it's a fluid commodity that you can redeem at any time for any type of player at any position. I've got Marqise Lee in my pocket in one of my dev leagues. Is he irrelevant this year because he has no VBD this season? Of course not. I could trade him for any number of productive veterans to help me win more games now.

And how many league championships have you won with this philosophy? You love bragging about players you recognized before most pundits (Big Ben) and those you predicted failure for (DMC) but I have seemed to have missed the listing of all your Dynasty league championship wins. Not saying your trophy case isn't full, but you have been conspicuously silent about that in this forum (perhaps you are being modest, but I find it rather odd that you never just happen to mention it in passing).Now, I would guess that you have won your share of league titles over the years (as have I and other regular posters in this thread) but I would really like see some specifics, particulary since you have now taken this a step further and are stating categorically and advising people that this "absolutely WILL win you your league." Quite frankly I would like to see that what you are preaching works not only in theory, but also in practice.

 

[EBF]

I would really like see some specifics, particulary since you have now taken this a step further and are stating categorically and advising people that this "absolutely WILL win you your league." Quite frankly I would like to see that what you are preaching works not only in theory, but also in practice.

I think you might have misunderstood the point I was making. I'm not Matthew Lesko selling you a fool-proof guarantee to win your league in 10 easy steps. I'm just saying that your team's trade value plays a role in determining the points that you can score. This is pretty obvious. For example, if you've got three first round picks in your pocket and you're in the hunt for a title, you're in much better position to bolster your squad for a stretch run than someone with an empty cupboard. The fact that trade value can be converted into points at any time before the trade deadline makes it a pretty significant consideration. As for my record, I play in leagues with lots of people from these forums. It's been a while since I won a league, but a lot of that comes down to match ups and luck in the playoffs. I won Zealots 18 a few years back and won the Zealots Masters League the next year. I've been a regular in the playoffs in my Misfits league. I had a 3-4 year playoff streak in HyperActive 1 until this year. I'm going on two consecutive playoff appearances in HyperActive 4. I'm currently in the final four in The Deep End league and Backyard Brawl III with lots of tough owners from these forums. I have a net winning record across all of my leagues this year. I even made the playoffs in my lone redraft league. I don't claim to be the greatest owner in the universe, but I win my fair share.

 

[SSOG]

Trade value absolutely WILL win you your league. That's because it's a fluid commodity that you can redeem at any time for any type of player at any position. I've got Marqise Lee in my pocket in one of my dev leagues. Is he irrelevant this year because he has no VBD this season? Of course not. I could trade him for any number of productive veterans to help me win more games now. To borrow someone else's analogy, drafting a guy like Peterson in your startup right now is like buying a new car. It loses half its value the minute you drive it off the lot. If he ends up winning you a couple titles then you probably won't care about what you might have been able to trade him for, but if you wind up in a situation where you want to convert his value into a younger player or a different position, you will basically be SOL because everyone you approach with an offer will say, "Well, he's 28, so..."

Trade value only has value insofar as it is a proxy which can be used to secure you points. Points are all that matter, and trade value is only useful insofar is it can lead to points. If you have a player worth X points, though, he's just as valuable as another player whose trade value is such that he can be traded for X points... regardless of the first player's trade value.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

And btw, in this marvelous stretch where Ingram is averaging an incredible 4.4ypc.....Chris Ivory is averaging 5.4.

Ivory doesn't have a single carry on 3rd or 4th down and less than 4 yards to go. Context, especially with such a small sample size. As easy as it is to say they are used the same; they're not. Ingram is the short yardage back.

Oh cool, this again.Removing those carries from Ingram's numbers, his YPC goes up to 4.68. Still well below Ivory's over the same span.

All these excuses just sounded great on paper, and I just knew he was going to be great. Ingram could go on to be good, and may represent great value right now. I can't really argue that because I can't predict the future. However, I've seen very little out of him other than lots and lots of reasons why it's not his fault. In those cases, we usually just end up with more reasons why that's the case than we do fantasy points.

This is really just a rant about nothing; it's you deciding what is an excuse and what is not, and applying it how you decide. Reasoning to support not writing off a 22 YO 1st round RB isn't simply a collection of excuses. If you've written him off, fine. But don't discredit others who haven't without more than "stop using excuses or trying to analyze; he's a bum." It sounds a lot like the Spiller talk a little more than a year ago, which produced a classic thread with owners making horrible moves.

There is a distinct difference between excuses and reasons. Namely, excuses are fabricated and have obvious evidence to the contrary, but said evidence is completely ignored so an owner can convince themselves to believe in a player that is not performing.The above is the perfect example. Saying Ingram's YPC is only lower because he's a short yardage back is an excuse, not a reason. Why is it an excuse? Because if you remove everyone's short yardage carries his YPC is still significantly lower.

Saying that his YPC is low because it's always a running play when he's in the game is an excuse (at least in last year's context), because Ivory faced the same thing last year and still excelled in it.

Saying that his per touch numbers are bad because he's in a bad situation to put up good efficiency numbers is an excuse because literally everyone else that the Saints have put back there has put up insanely good efficiency numbers.

Saying that Sean Payton only used RBBC because he never had a capable workhorse back was an excuse because he had had multiple workhorse backs and used them in a RBBC.

Saying that Sean Payton wouldn't draft a RB in the first round to share time was an excuse because he had done it twice previously with RBs drafted higher than Ingram.

I'm all for finding the under appreciated players and buying them low, and I'm not saying Ingram won't be one of those guys. What I am saying is that the logic people are using to talk themselves into it is entirely flawed. At this point we've pretty much cherry picked the best possible numbers we can for Ingram (only counting his best games, removing all short yardage carries) and he's still under-performed at everything except short yardage work compared to his peers on the same team, none of whom are thought to be all-pro caliber backs.

Given Payton's history of using RBBC even when he DID have people that deserved to be workhorses (Tiki, Deuce), what reason does he have to use Ingram in that mold when everyone else on the team is outplaying him at everthing other than short yardage conversions?

 

[Concept Coop]

There is a distinct difference between excuses and reasons. Namely, excuses are fabricated and have obvious evidence to the contrary, but said evidence is completely ignored so an owner can convince themselves to believe in a player that is not performing.

I suggest you watch Ingram play and decide for yourself. The fact that his backup has a 5+YPC means something different to you than it does to me. Mark Ingram is the starting RB, is likely to be next year, and has produced well and looked the part over the last half of this season. That is not soemthing I use to convince myself to believe in a player that is not performing.

 

[Texas989]

There is a distinct difference between excuses and reasons. Namely, excuses are fabricated and have obvious evidence to the contrary, but said evidence is completely ignored so an owner can convince themselves to believe in a player that is not performing.

I suggest you watch Ingram play and decide for yourself. The fact that his backup has a 5+YPC means something different to you than it does to me. Mark Ingram is the starting RB, is likely to be next year, and has produced well and looked the part over the last half of this season. That is not soemthing I use to convince myself to believe in a player that is not performing.

Ingram deserves to be the starter. They should try what the pats are doing and establish more of a ground game to go with their pass heavy offense. Ingram is very talented and i think he is a real good back. More talented then pierre Thomas for sure and Ivory. Could emerge like Ridley next year... Saints situation is very similar to Pats RBBC last year, IMO.

 

[EBF]

Food for thought...

Rookie A: 155 carries, 637 yards (4.1 YPC), 40 catches, 308 yards

Rookie B: 67 carries, 357 yards (5.3 YPC), 27 catches, 272 yards

Rookie C: 107 carries, 454 yards (4.2 YPC), 33 catches, 273 yards

Rookie D: 88 carries, 461 yards (5.2 YPC), 19 catches, 124 yards

The identities of these mystery players...

A.) LeSean McCoy

B.) Jamaal Charles

C.) Ray Rice

D.) Daryl Richardson

I'm not in any way saying that Richardson is on their level, but he's quietly having a pretty great rookie year in limited action. And he finds himself in a pretty similar situation to what these other guys faced as rookies. Time share back stuck behind an aging veteran who likely doesn't have much in the tank.

There are a few big differences though. McCoy, Charles, and Rice were all high draft picks. And none of them really had to compete with another young high pick at their position like Richardson does with Pead. Also, they were all a little bit more effective than him in the passing game as rookies. I still think his value could pop if Jackson leaves or suffers a big drop in performance. Richardson is the best athlete of the lot on paper with his ridiculous 40.5" vert and 11'3" broad jump. And so far the workout numbers have translated into excellent production on the field.

Could be an interesting offseason trade target. I doubt that he will ever reach the Rice or McCoy level, but not a lot of people were really banging the drum for those guys being can't-miss superstars after their rookie years and Richardson.

Some highlights of #26 mixed in with other Rams rookies:

 

[lbouchard]

Ingram goes for 90 yards and a TD on 14 carries (6.4 YPC) against the league's best run D as Saints roll.