This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Yep.
Well that's going to be the case with any projection you make. A projection should take into account risks of injury, losing a job, ineffective play and other factors that would cause a player to fail to perform well. But those don't have to happen. You wouldn't have projected Tomlinson to play in 95 games in his first six years, either. Even if you thought he was highly durable, that's still something that's very difficult to reach. I like to think of projections as over/unders, where the line is set at what's most likely to happen. Certainly, some people will over and undershoot those numbers.(Look at Blair Thomas for a counterexample. 439 + (0.88 * 2600) + (4.49 * 620) = 5511. Thomas rushed for 2,236 yards in his career, so he's got lots of ground to make up
.)
Oof, thanks. I think I messed up when trying to format it for the MB. One moment...Fixed. Thanks.Recheck your charts, they're both the same.
I guess the only way to truly tell how accurate of a projection you have is to also show a standard deviation. If the deviation is too large for either high/low picks or for high/low yardage first year players then you may lose your confidence in how likely the projection is to be correct.Well that's going to be the case with any projection you make. A projection should take into account risks of injury, losing a job, ineffective play and other factors that would cause a player to fail to perform well. But those don't have to happen. You wouldn't have projected Tomlinson to play in 95 games in his first six years, either. Even if you thought he was highly durable, that's still something that's very difficult to reach. I like to think of projections as over/unders, where the line is set at what's most likely to happen. Certainly, some people will over and undershoot those numbers.(Look at Blair Thomas for a counterexample. 439 + (0.88 * 2600) + (4.49 * 620) = 5511. Thomas rushed for 2,236 yards in his career, so he's got lots of ground to make up.)
Are you saying scouts were unable to factor the quality of team play when deciding how gifted an athlete is? Or are you saying draft position shouldn't matter at all. That last position is untenable, as early picks that do well as rookies have better careers than late picks that do well as rookies, and early picks that don't do well as rookies have better careers than late picks that don't do well as rookies. One year of NFL data is not enough to dismiss draft status entirely.
That's a good point. And considering we have merely two factors in play -- draft value and rookie rushing yards -- I doubt you can be very confident in the projection. You shouldn't be. That being said, while it's unlikely that either player hits the career totals on the nose, I imagine this way is better than most (although I think tomorrow's work gets at it even better). Any projection is very unlikely to be correct, but at least we're not picking a number out of a hat, here. (And truth be told, I'm not doing it for projection purposes, per se. It's just a tool to get an idea of how RBs have looked in the past with similar features.)I guess the only way to truly tell how accurate of a projection you have is to also show a standard deviation. If the deviation is too large for either high/low picks or for high/low yardage first year players then you may lose your confidence in how likely the projection is to be correct.Well that's going to be the case with any projection you make. A projection should take into account risks of injury, losing a job, ineffective play and other factors that would cause a player to fail to perform well. But those don't have to happen. You wouldn't have projected Tomlinson to play in 95 games in his first six years, either. Even if you thought he was highly durable, that's still something that's very difficult to reach. I like to think of projections as over/unders, where the line is set at what's most likely to happen. Certainly, some people will over and undershoot those numbers.(Look at Blair Thomas for a counterexample. 439 + (0.88 * 2600) + (4.49 * 620) = 5511. Thomas rushed for 2,236 yards in his career, so he's got lots of ground to make up.)
Like these scouts are such great judges of talent. They're wrong half the time. Not saying I could do better but I'm certainly not going to take their word as "law". Do I need to go into all the examples of players who "shouldn't" have been great because of their draft status?Maurice Jones-Drew was better than Reggie Bush in every way last season but I'm supposed to believe that Reggie Bush will be better because he was drafted 2nd and MJD was drafted 60th? Maybe I'm screwed up in the head but that just doesn't make sense to me.Obviously it's too early to declare the race over so to speak as to who's the better player. As it stands right now though it's Bush that has to catch up to MJD(he has a long way IMO) and not the other way around.
Bush looked like a very below average runner. 3.6 ypc and 18 rushes over 10 yards, but none over 20. Bush was stuffed on 15% of his carries. MJD averaged 5.7 ypc and was explosive with 28 rushes over 10 yards and runs of 74 and 48. MJD was also consistent- he was stuffed on just 7% of his carries (4th best in the AFC). Jones-Drew moved the chains, picking up a 1st down on 28% of his carries (4th best in the AFC).
But wait a minute that can't be true. I see Reggie Bush on all these commercials. ESPN keeps telling me he's the best thing since sliced bread. He's gotta be the better running back right? I mean who cares what happens on the field?
Moral of the story: Don't believe the hype.
FYI, MJD's 74 yarder was a fluke play when ran into the back of his blocker at the line of scrimmage, fell down, and then defense stopped playing because they thought the play was over. Bush is by far the more legit home run threat imo.
ONLY as a receiver. And I would say only marginally so. Bush can't run between the tackles all that well. Remember the line he played behind in college didn't open holes, they opened hallways. He had all kinds of room to run. Now he has to adjust and learn how to run when the whole is small and only stays open for a biscuit. He can learn to hit those holes and make things happen, but it will take time. MJD is way ahead of the curve on that front and Reggie has some catching up to do and that should take some time....
Not a long way. Look at my post below - by the end of the season they weren't so far off, and MJD benefited from playing on a better rushing team.
And he's also a more legit threat to strike out. Last year, Bush had 22 rushes for a loss(plus 3 more in the playoffs). Jones-Drew had 12.
All three of these analogies are bad. No comparisons should be made to LT. The guy is a uniquely gifted and talented athlete that is heads and shoulders better than every other RB in the league (at least till this point). SJax and LJ both played behind established pro-bowlers and didn't get much playing time. Some will argue that both Bush and MJD played behind established starters as well, but neither Fred or Deuce have ever held the single season TD record and gotten an MVP like Faulk and Holmes.
My point is that rookie years are only rookie years. Sometimes they're indicative of future perfomance. Sometimes they're not. If you want my personal opinion, I've always viewed Bush a suped-up version of Tiki Barber or Brian Westbrook. Neither of those guys was a stud from day one.
Bush was incredibly polarizing, EBF. No matter what you say, they ain't gonna listen. Reggie will prove himself for many years as long as he stays healthy. A couple frustrating aspects of debating him with Drew fans is how good both these guys are. They are both freaks. MJD is going to have a great career if he stays healthy. Bush is probably better, but it's a lot closer than some think. It always was.Bloom, Drew is every bit the breakaway threat Bush is. They are probably the two most dangerous RBs in the open field in the league. Another frustrating thing is all this stat crunching cannot address they way they were used and defensed. MJD was used as a surprise. He was snuck into key situations and just roasted unprepared defenses. Bush was used to move the defense and set up the rest of the offense. I cannot remember seeing defenses scheme against one player as much as Reggie last year. Dallas's game plan was ridiculous and part of the reason NO just destroyed the Boys. Drew was not the focus of defensive game plans. He will be this year. They are my two favorite RBs and own neither.
Fantastic, and well-balanced post. They are both going to have great careers. I happen to have Maurice Drew's back a little more because I've watched him since HS, but Bush is an incredible talent, as well.The only part of your post I disagree with is the bolded section. Drew may have surprised some initially (he shouldn't have considering the tape all NFL teams had on him from college and in the preseason when he busted long TD's), but this is the NFL here...not 8-man HS football. After he burned the first team (or, for some poorly coached teams, after he burned the second team), Drew was no longer flying under the radar of NFL Defensive Coordinators. It's their job to know about all the teams they are going to face and they spend every waking hour preparing for it or they'll be out of a job.Bush was incredibly polarizing, EBF. No matter what you say, they ain't gonna listen. Reggie will prove himself for many years as long as he stays healthy. A couple frustrating aspects of debating him with Drew fans is how good both these guys are. They are both freaks. MJD is going to have a great career if he stays healthy. Bush is probably better, but it's a lot closer than some think. It always was.
Bloom, Drew is every bit the breakaway threat Bush is. They are probably the two most dangerous RBs in the open field in the league.
Another frustrating thing is all this stat crunching cannot address they way they were used and defensed. MJD was used as a surprise. He was snuck into key situations and just roasted unprepared defenses. Bush was used to move the defense and set up the rest of the offense. I cannot remember seeing defenses scheme against one player as much as Reggie last year. Dallas's game plan was ridiculous and part of the reason NO just destroyed the Boys. Drew was not the focus of defensive game plans. He will be this year.
They are my two favorite RBs and own neither.
Regression analysis (aka statistical analysis aka math trickery). Those are the numbers that make the input data (draft slot and rookie yardage) best predict the output (career yardage) when using past data. Because the author posted it, I assume including draft slot made the equation more accurate. In other words, historically, player draft slot DOES give you additional information beyond just rookie rushing yards, whether or not you think it matters in Bush vs MJD. What the draft slot variable actually REPRESENTS is open for debate, though. (e.g. Do higher draft picks get longer to prove themselves before getting dumped?)While it's less data, it might be interesting to run the same analysis on RBs more similar to Reggie and MJD, say top 2 rounds and at least 500 yards rushing the rookie season.Of course, there are two more parts left in the series, so I'm guessing there's more good stuff to come.
Two things I noticed from watching these video clips:1 - Reggie's clip was against college teams, but MJD's was vs NFL teams
Bush had 243 touches last season, which counted for 23% of the Saints offensive plays. MJD had 212 touches, which counted for 22% of the Jaguars offensive plays. It looks to me like they were used in a similar amount.
Are you saying that Byron Leftwich, David Garrard, Fred Taylor, Reggie Williams, Matt Jones, Ernest Wilford and George Wrightster took more of the defense's focus than Drew Brees, Deuce McAllister, Marques Colston, Joe Horn, Devery Henderson and Terrence Copper? Seriously? I'm not sure how it's even debatable that Bush was more central to the Saints offense than Jones-Drew to the Jaguars offense. Bush was surrounded by a Pro Bowl QB, rookie of the year candidate WR, former Pro Bowl RB and former Pro Bowl WR. MJD was surrounded by a former Pro Bowl RB and a pile of nothing.
MJD is my 3rd RB this year after Henry and Thomas Jones....I get a big grin just thinking about it actually. MJD will break and juke tackles to get to 2nd level....Reggie jukes or turns the corner. I like the chances of the tackle breaker than the speedster long term.
MJD's clip is impressive. Hopefully, the league learned last year that he cannot be armed tackled.At the same time, getting to play the Colts twice last year sure does pad the highlight reel.
It's easy to say the Saints were loaded in hindsight, but that wasn't the general opinion going into the season last year. Colston was a nobody, Henderson was a disappointment, Horn was over the hill, Copper was a Dallas washout, McAllister was coming off an ACL tear, and Brees was recovering from injury issues of his own. Obviously the team has some talent, but it's not like they were the '99 Rams. There's a reason why they had the 2nd pick in the draft.
WOW, this arguement again, isn't this getting alittle old by now. You say USC opened up hallways for the USC rb's to run through but I would argue Bush went to the outside and outran people for most of his big runs. I agree the "HALLWAYS" helped Lendale run off tackle but if you watched Reggie alot in college, like I did, you would know that his big runs were to the outside. You can definetly say he doesn't run good between the tackles but I would argue why do it if you can run GREAT around the corner. The arguement is all in the eyes of the beholders. I can't sit here and say Reggie is more talented or vice versa, you've seen one year of both guys in the pros. The only reason I can believe Bush is more talented is pro scouts who get paid for a living selected Bush and then selected Jones Drew 58 picks later. Every once in awhile great surprises happen and Jones Drew was a great surprise but I would rather take the more skilled player in the eyes of experts than the surprise player. Just my 2 cents.
Do you think what Terrell Davis, Olandis Gary, Mike Anderson, Clinton Portis, Reuben Droughns, Tatum Bell and Mike Bell have done in the past has ANYTHING to do with what Travis Henry will do this year. If you do, it's because you've seen what Denver RBs have done in the past, and even though Travis Henry is his own unique person, history can tell us something.Similarly, before Reggie Bush played a down, I could tell you he was more like O.J. Simpson and Barry Sanders than Joe Bryant, based on him having won the Heisman Trophy and been a top three draft pick. If I told you that Reggie Bush was going to rush for 3,000 yards this year, you might tell me that no RB has ever come even close to that. Would a response of "those past RBs have absolutely NOTHING to do with Reg" be accurate?
Denver has had the same system for each of those RBs. The surrounding casts may have changed, but the coach has remained the same and has proven the ability to identify and develop RB talent. Last I checked Mo and Reg don't have anything other than draft position or first year numbers in common with the players in your analysis. Apples and oranges.And Reg is a great player, which is why he won the heisman, was drafted #2 and is performing and will continue to perform. He won the awards because he is a great player, not the other way around. I'm sure there are examples of players who won the heisman and were drafted there that didn't make it. And even more examples who did neither and were big time NFL players.Sorry to deflate your analysis. It seems you've worked hard on it and you are clearly taking offense to my position. But players from 20 years ago are much less relevant to analyzing Reg and Mo than the basic circumstances of THESE TWO players... TALENT + MOTIVATION + OPPORTUNITY. Occam's Razor, my friend.
I'm not taking offense; I just disagree with your analogy to flipping a coin. Put it this way: how many career rushing yards do you expect MJD and Bush to have? And what was the analysis that brought you to such a conclusion?
I tend to think in terms of year to year b/c I don't play in dynasty leagues. Also, I don't analyze RBs on rushing stats alone as every league I've ever played in rewards the same for receiving yardage and also rewards .5 PPR. Plus these two (especially Mo) get lots of return yardage, which is also rewarded. Based on this, I think of RBs in terms of total yards from scrimmage and all purpose yards.I think both guys are tremendous players. I haven't thought about projecting their careers, but if I did I would probably give Reg the edge b/c he plays for the better offense and was more durable in college. I think that durability has been a reflection of his more elusive running style. I think at some point some coach is more likely to put Mo in a more traditional between the tackles role, while I can see Reg used as a WR hybrid his entire career. He will probably always be used alongside a more traditional RB and that will hold back his rushing stats, but will give him prolific total yardage.To me trying to project careers numbers with any sort of accuracy is futile. Just reflect back to talent/opportunity/motivation and then compare with peers on a similar level to rank alternatives. Make an adjustment for age and perceived/projected durability and there you go. In the end this is a game about relativity among contemporaries rather than comps to players of the past.
I don't disagree with what you said. But the question of how many career rushing yards you expect them each to get is a legitimate one. It may be one that you haven't thought about or find uninteresting, but it's a legitimate one with an answer that is most likely to be correct. It may be 1/1000, but that's still better than 1/2000, etc.
That's the nature of averages. Some exceed the average, some fail to reach the averages. If everyone just got exactly that number of total yards, it wouldn't be an average, now would it?
Like that's so much better? Tell me who you think are faster, college LBs or NFL LBs? College DBs or NFL DBs? How many NFL-caliber defenders did Bush face in any given week in college? Because he faces 11 a week in the pros. Being able to outrun everyone to the corner in college doesn't mean a whole lot in the NFL.
Football Outsiders makes their living by comparing players today to what happened to players in the past. Their entire projection method is based on historical data. Funnily enough, Football Outsiders' formula has proven itself better at predicting the outcome of games year after year than "expert analysis" that takes into account all sorts of stuff like circumstance and injuries and whatnot. From what I hear, their RB projections wound up being the best in the business last year, too.Maybe historical precedent can tell us more about present situations than you'd care to admit.Edit: Chase, I just thought of something that I'd like to see to complete any sort of analysis on the subject. I think that people wind up using the phrase "most likely to succeed" as if it's interchangeable with "likely to succeed the most", when in reality, it's not. This initial analysis suggests that Reggie Bush is likely to succeed the most, but it doesn't necessarily suggest that he's most likely to succeed. Let's say for instance that the historically "Bush-like" RBs averaged 5,000 additional yards, but only 33% wound up getting 3,000 or more (i.e. they have higher outliers, but are less consistently successful), and the "MJD-like" RBs averaged 4,500 additional yards yards, while 66% wound up getting 3,000 or more yards. It looks to me like this series will suggest who is likely to succeed the most, but not address who is most likely to succeed. Any chance of a future article on the subject while you have the data handy?
If I told you that I think Reggie Bush will run for 20,000 yards in his career, wouldn't the heart of your response be that tons of talented RBs have never even come close to that? You'd look to what past players have done more than anything. Similarly, if I said I think Reggie Bush is too short to succeed in the NFL, wouldn't you look to the careers of Barry Sanders and Brian Westbrook to prove that my theory is flawed?Once again, I understand not liking what I've done. That's certainly fair...but it begs the question: how would you go about determining how many career rushing yards or fantasy points Bush will score?kensat30 said:
From the PFR Blog comments:Jeff Pasquino said:
I haven't checked the veracity of that statement, but it seems about right to me. Doesn't that list seem pretty incredible? Three of the all time best RBs of all time, the 5th all time leading rusher, and two guys that seemed like HOF locks had they only stayed with their original teams (and still might make the HOF, anyway). It's hard to ignore that MJD rushed at 5.67 yards per carry and scored 13 TDs as a 21 year old rookie. There's a reason his dynasty value is so high, and I think it's mostly because he's awesome.
