How do you define a "small" RB? (1 Viewer)

[EBF]

When Reggie Bush and Maurice Drew were draft prospects, it was widely assumed that Bush was the superior talent and that he would have the better career. Bush was the 1.01 pick in every rookie draft, while Drew often fell into the second round because people viewed him as more of a gimmick and role player than potential starter. Obviously it didn't work out that way. Bush has had a solid career, but MJD has been vastly superior by just about every performance metric.

Since that time we've seen numerous other "small" RBs like Ray Rice, Darren Sproles, and Ahmad Bradshaw rise to varying levels of FF prominence. All of this has caused me to question whether or not there is a general flaw in the way people define RB size. I've thought for a long time that weight-per-height is a much more important data point than height or weight alone. And while I've taken lots of flak for those "BMI" posts, the effectiveness of a player like Ray Rice and the seeming inability of thin players like Jamaal Charles and Darren McFadden to endure a full workload suggests that maybe I wasn't totally off-base (although Mendenhall, one of the high BMI guys, has also had significant durability issues).

At any rate, what you realize with success stories like Rice, Sproles, and Jones-Drew is that they are only small if you look at their weight or height in a vacuum. When you look at them in terms of weight-per-height, they are all actually "big" backs. Here are some figures using actual combine heights and weights to get a BMI calculation.

Darren Sproles - 5'6.1" 187 - BMI = 30.1

Maurice Jones-Drew - 5'6.6" 207 - BMI = 32.8

Ray Rice - 5'8.0" 199 - BMI = 30.3

Compare those numbers to some more conventional big backs:

Peyton Hillis - 6'0.6" 240 - BMI = 32.0

Steven Jackson - 6'1.4" 231 - BMI = 30.1

Adrian Peterson - 6'1.4" 217 - BMI = 28.3

By this metric, Maurice Jones-Drew is actually a bigger back than Peyton Hillis. Ray Rice is bigger than Steven Jackson. Darren Sproles is bigger than Adrian Peterson. Other successful "small" backs like Ahmad Bradshaw (28.9 BMI), LeSean McCoy (29.0 BMI), and Brian Westbrook (30.1 BMI) also score pretty well.

I'm not going to say that this is a bulletproof predictor of NFL success or failure. There have been some light backs in recent years who achieved huge FF value. Chris Johnson, Jamaal Charles, Darren McFadden, and even Adrian Peterson, who is not huge from this standpoint. However, I definitely think this provides food for thought for people who are quick to label any RB below 5'10" as "small." I think that's a gross oversimplification of things.

As far as what this means going forward, there are two lightly-hyped backs in last year's rookie class who fit the Sproles/Rice mold.

JacQuizz Rodgers - 5'5.7" 197 - BMI = 31.9

Dion Lewis - 5'6.5" 193 - BMI = 30.7

There is another player like this in college named Branden Oliver, who I am also a fan of. I think all three of these guys have a chance to replicate the Bradshaw/Sproles career path as unheralded change of pace backs who turn out to be much more than that. If you can acquire them for cheap in a dynasty league, I would recommend it. And just for kicks, here's how some of this year's notable rookies stack up:

Trent Richardson - 5'9.1" 228 - BMI = 33.6

Doug Martin - 5'9.1" 223 - BMI = 32.8

Robert Turbin - 5'9.5" 222 - BMI = 32.3

David Wilson - 5'9.5" 206 - BMI = 30.0

Lamar Miller - 5'10.7" 212 - BMI = 29.8

LaMichael James - 5'8.0" 194 - BMI = 29.5

Ronnie Hillman - 5'9.1" 200 - BMI = 29.4

Isaiah Pead - 5'9.7" 197 - BMI = 28.5

Richardson is really high on the scale. Right up there with Michael Turner as one of the biggest backs in the league. Just one more reason to be bullish on him. Also, kind of eerie that Richardson and Martin are the exact same height to the tenth of an inch.

 

[offdee]

To me, it's simply about weight, and height doesn't matter all that much.

I consider a RB "small" if they are less than 195lbs.

- 240+ lbs = too big

- 230-239lbs = big

- 210-229lbs = ideal

- 195-209lbs = acceptable

- 185-194lbs = small

- lower than 185lbs = too small

 

[LawFitz]

BMI is a decent metric to consider, but you seem to look at it in too small a vacuum.

McFadden for example. I'd argue his injury problems have way more to do with is running style than his BMI.

What was Marcus Allen's BMI? Or Dickerson's? Those guys had similar frames and talent to DMC, but didn't run with anywhere near the same ferocity and thus each had several full seasons.

Charles and Chris Johnson have both been decently healthy. Are you really going to blame Charles' ACL tear on his BMI?

Lastly, in regards to Jacquizz... What were his speed and agility metrics compared to MJD? Might want to make that comp as well if you're going to project him along a similar path just because he's short and stout.

 

[Xue]

It's not just measuremants. Some RBs play "small" and some play "big". This can only be seen by actually watching tape, not crunching BMI. MJD plays like he's 240. While some 240-pounders have never shown the power MJD has.

Also, you have to look at a RB's actual build and stature while considering his BMI. Some guy are "heavy" yet look thin and vice versa.

 

[EBF]

To me, it's simply about weight, and height doesn't matter all that much.I consider a RB "small" if they are less than 195lbs.- 240+ lbs = too big- 230-239lbs = big- 210-229lbs = ideal- 195-209lbs = acceptable- 185-194lbs = small- lower than 185lbs = too small

I think height is a huge factor.For a football player, being 6'1" 200 is worlds apart from being 5'8" 200 pounds. It's a completely different type of body.

 

[az_prof]

My view is that it used to be 210 or less was questionable. But not anymore. If a guy is less than 200 pounds, however, he bears a bit more scrutiny. In that case, two other things I consider are his height and his running style. I prefer shorter, more compact backs if the guy is lightweight. My impression is that the "small" backs who succeed often are short too--sort of bowling balls types. This means that they are built in a more compact way too and I think can take a beating better than a tall and thin guy. Second, do they run low to the ground, with their head down, or do they run upright. A small guy who runs too upright is just going to get killed. A small guy who runs low to the ground will be more powerful than his weight might suggest and is less likely, IMO, to get hurt.

 

[EBF]

BMI is a decent metric to consider, but you seem to look at it in too small a vacuum.McFadden for example. I'd argue his injury problems have way more to do with is running style than his BMI. What was Marcus Allen's BMI? Or Dickerson's? Those guys had similar frames and talent to DMC, but didn't run with anywhere near the same ferocity and thus each had several full seasons.

Dickerson and Allen played a long time ago. Players are constantly getting bigger and faster, so you can't really compare them across eras. As for DMC, he's a twig whose body can't handle the rigors of NFL football. There's no doubting his talent, but through the first four years of his career he has averaged 138 carries per season. And it's not a parallel situation to someone like Turner or Sproles, who were stuck behind a star back. He's had every opportunity to be the man for Oakland and he hasn't been able to hold it down for even a full season. If you are built like Michael Turner or Jonathan Stewart, you can run hard and live to talk about it. If you are built like McFadden, you will wind up on the DL.

Charles and Chris Johnson have both been decently healthy. Are you really going to blame Charles' ACL tear on his BMI?

Can't argue against Johnson. As for Charles, he only has one good, complete FF season to his name. He looks like another player who can't handle a full workload without breaking down. His coaches limited his carries and he still got hurt. Was it a freak thing or something related to his frame? There is no way of knowing, but through four years he doesn't look like a reliable workhorse back. Dynamic? Definitely, but not a guy you can count on to be your whole running game.

Lastly, in regards to Jacquizz... What were his speed and agility metrics compared to MJD? Might want to make that comp as well if you're going to project him along a similar path just because he's short and stout.

I never said he would be MJD. Just that he's not small, and that his frame won't prevent him from being a major FF contributor. Ray Rice and Ahmad Bradshaw weren't workout warriors. Quickness, strength, agility, and vision are more important than 40 times and workout numbers for RBs.

 

[JPeso]

It's all in the eyes. I'm not comfortable with a metric for this ever-changing landscape.

 

[Xue]

You're only using examples of guys who have been successful. Are they successful because of their BMI or because they are actually talented? How many RB's in the NFL have a 30+ BMI AND are successful?

Jonathan Stewart hasn't exactly been "healthy" for most of his NFL career.

 

[EBF]

I think people are misunderstanding my point.

I am not saying that every high BMI back is going to be great and that every thin back is going to be garbage.

My main point is that automatically dismissing a RB who is low on the height or weight scale as "too small" is a gross oversimplification of the things that actually matter. Backs like Darren Sproles and Maurice Drew aren't small. They are just short. There is a key difference there, as their success demonstrates.

As for Stewart, I don't want to get too far out on that tangent, but he has been healthy enough to play in 62 of the 64 possible regular season games in his NFL career. I'd say someone who's healthy for 97% of his career has been pretty durable. We can say he was "limited" in some of those games maybe, but being healthy enough to play and average 4.8 YPC over that time seems fine.

 

[Warrior]

If BMI is a predictor of RB success, it's maybe 1% of the equation...almost completely irrelevant.I'm sure if you take the BMI of the last 100 drafted RBs, you'll find almost no correlation to success, except that the incredibly low and high BMIs probably don't translate well.

My main point is that automatically dismissing a RB who is low on the height or weight scale as "too small" is a gross oversimplification of the things that actually matter. Backs like Darren Sproles and Maurice Drew aren't small. They are just short. There is a key difference there, as their success demonstrates.

This is a textbook example of a strawman argument. Nobody is "automatically dismissing" a RB based on size, like you suggest. RB scouts take way more into account than height/weight...sorry to break it to you. This isn't the revelation you seem to think it is.You created an argument in order to counter that argument. Then you cherry-picked 2-3 recent examples in an attempt to disprove that position that you created out of thin air. Hopefully you didn't spend much time on this.

 

[LawFitz]

EBF,

My eye test told me that Jacquizz was not only straight line slow compared to MJD/Rice/Bradshaw but also not as agile. The 3 cone data seems to support that.

Bradshaw -

Height: 5094

Weight: 198

40 Yrd Dash: 4.55

3-Cone Drill: 6.70

Rodgers -

Height: 5057

Weight: 196

40 Yrd Dash: 4.59

3-Cone Drill: 7.31

MJD -

Height: 5066

Weight: 207

40 Yrd Dash: 4.39

3-Cone Drill: 7.08

Rice -

Height: 5080

Weight: 199

40 Yrd Dash: 4.42

3-Cone Drill: 6.65

I get your point that BMI is probably a better measure of "size" than weight. I think I generally agree with that.

I just think there are many more factors than "size" that play a role in RB success. And I think we're on the same page in this regard.

 

[EBF]

This is a textbook example of a strawman argument. Nobody is "automatically dismissing" a RB based on size, like you suggest. RB scouts take way more into account than height/weight...sorry to break it to you. This isn't the revelation you seem to think it is.

I'm not so sure about that. My recollection with players like MJD and Sproles is that they fell far in my rookie drafts. Farther than a typical 2nd or 4th round RB would've. People were pretty high on Rice, and he went high in my leagues, but even so you could argue that he was undervalued given how good he turned out to be.It also makes me wonder if the NFL itself isn't guilty of underrating short backs. Looking at their draft position:MJD - 2nd roundRice - 2nd roundSproles - 4th roundBradshaw - 5th roundObviously the draft as an imperfect process and there are always going to be players like Brandon Marshall and Tom Brady who are drafted way below what their talent warrants, but this very small sample size suggests that the NFL personnel departments might be underselling short backs a bit. Not one of these guys is a first round talent? Hard to buy that in hindsight, and makes me a little more optimistic that guys like Quizz and Lewis could be players down the road even though they didn't get the seal of approval from the draft process.

 

[beef]

So if Charles had a higher BMI he wouldn't have tore his ACL? And when you rush for 6+ ypc you dont need a lot of carries to be sucessful.

 

[beef]

The problem with combine weights is a lot of guys tend to lose weight to run faster. Most GMs don't care what they weigh as long as it's not too low because they know they will add muscle after getting on a pro workout schedule. By training camp it's not uncommon for a rookie RB to be 5 pounds heavier, and 10 by next season.

 

[werdnoynek]

good stuff here EBF. i've looked at guys similarily using bmi myself in evaluations and think people dismiss players because of their height too often... i think jacquizz will be surprising folks this year and it'll be too late to get him when it happens.

 

[EBF]

The problem with combine weights is a lot of guys tend to lose weight to run faster. Most GMs don't care what they weigh as long as it's not too low because they know they will add muscle after getting on a pro workout schedule. By training camp it's not uncommon for a rookie RB to be 5 pounds heavier, and 10 by next season.

If that's true then it's a moot point since it would apply to all backs, not just the thin ones.

 

[beef]

The problem with combine weights is a lot of guys tend to lose weight to run faster. Most GMs don't care what they weigh as long as it's not too low because they know they will add muscle after getting on a pro workout schedule. By training camp it's not uncommon for a rookie RB to be 5 pounds heavier, and 10 by next season.

If that's true then it's a moot point since it would apply to all backs, not just the thin ones.

It still makes combine weights less accurate compared to playing weights.

 

[Xue]

I think people are misunderstanding my point.

I am not saying that every high BMI back is going to be great and that every thin back is going to be garbage.

My main point is that automatically dismissing a RB who is low on the height or weight scale as "too small" is a gross oversimplification of the things that actually matter. Backs like Darren Sproles and Maurice Drew aren't small. They are just short. There is a key difference there, as their success demonstrates.

As for Stewart, I don't want to get too far out on that tangent, but he has been healthy enough to play in 62 of the 64 possible regular season games in his NFL career. I'd say someone who's healthy for 97% of his career has been pretty durable. We can say he was "limited" in some of those games maybe, but being healthy enough to play and average 4.8 YPC over that time seems fine.

The key difference is that those two guys are actually good. MJD has two teammates with great BMI's: DuJuan Harris and Deji Karim. But why aren't they successful? Because they simply suck, regardless of BMI.Bobby Rainey is roughly the same height and weight as MJD, but he's nowhere near as powerful as MJD, nor have the same muscularly thick build. Rainey's BMI probably did allow him to carry the ball for a staggering 709 carries in his last two seasons in college though.

Some more short RBs with 30+ BMI's from the 2012 draft class you probably never heard of:

Davin Meggett, 5-8.125, 211: 32.0Keola Antolin, 5-7.25, 196: 30.5Lance Dunbar, 5-8.125, 205: 31.1Princeton McCarty, 5-7.375, 197: 30.5Paris Cotton, 5-6.625, 190: 31.0Austin Minefee, 5-8.375, 204: 30.7Each of these guys run a 4.55 or better, some of them in the mid-high 4.4x's.The way I see it, BMI probably becomes less important the heavier you get.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Bradshaw - 5th round

Bradshaw was a 7th rd pick

 

[Uruk-Hai]

This is a textbook example of a strawman argument. Nobody is "automatically dismissing" a RB based on size, like you suggest. RB scouts take way more into account than height/weight...sorry to break it to you. This isn't the revelation you seem to think it is.

I'm not so sure about that. My recollection with players like MJD and Sproles is that they fell far in my rookie drafts. Farther than a typical 2nd or 4th round RB would've. People were pretty high on Rice, and he went high in my leagues, but even so you could argue that he was undervalued given how good he turned out to be.It also makes me wonder if the NFL itself isn't guilty of underrating short backs. Looking at their draft position:MJD - 2nd roundRice - 2nd roundSproles - 4th roundBradshaw - 5th roundObviously the draft as an imperfect process and there are always going to be players like Brandon Marshall and Tom Brady who are drafted way below what their talent warrants, but this very small sample size suggests that the NFL personnel departments might be underselling short backs a bit. Not one of these guys is a first round talent? Hard to buy that in hindsight, and makes me a little more optimistic that guys like Quizz and Lewis could be players down the road even though they didn't get the seal of approval from the draft process.

I think RBs in general are not valued highly by the NFL anymore, regardless of size. 30 years ago, Adrian Peterson (hell, Bush & McFadden too) would've been a no-brainer #1 or #2. The fact that a near-lock HOFer and the best RB prospect since Sanders (according to the experts when he came out) "fell" to #7 says a lot about how personnel guys view RBs these days. I'm guessing size does play a bit of a role, but Rice or MJD going in the 2nd is hardly the slap in the face it would've been in 1981.That said, I do think your theory has some merit. I'm just not smart enough to say how much when combined with other factors. I'm not nearly the talent evaluator some here are, but some guys just stand out to me as "football players" (which is probably my vague combination of the metrics & "gut") - Ray Rice at Rutgers was one of those (one of the rare instances where I've actually pegged a player correctly; I traded UP one year to draft Eric Shelton uke.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

My view is that it used to be 210 or less was questionable. But not anymore. If a guy is less than 200 pounds, however, he bears a bit more scrutiny. In that case, two other things I consider are his height and his running style. I prefer shorter, more compact backs if the guy is lightweight. My impression is that the "small" backs who succeed often are short too--sort of bowling balls types. This means that they are built in a more compact way too and I think can take a beating better than a tall and thin guy. Second, do they run low to the ground, with their head down, or do they run upright. A small guy who runs too upright is just going to get killed. A small guy who runs low to the ground will be more powerful than his weight might suggest and is less likely, IMO, to get hurt.

Good post. BTW, Barry Sanders fit this type pretty well.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

So if Charles had a higher BMI he wouldn't have tore his ACL? And when you rush for 6+ ypc you dont need a lot of carries to be sucessful.

If his BMI was higher he would have landed with a greater force on the out of bounds marker, thus it would not have slipped as much and he would not have torn his ACL.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Bradshaw - 5th round

Bradshaw was a 7th rd pick

and Bradshaw slipped because of character concerns (plus he went to s "small" school). He was arrested in college and actually spent time in jail during offseasons in the pros becuase of his college transgression.

 

[ShaHBucks]

Could be a good indicator on durability and how one guy takes care of his body, I wouldn't say so about skills or ability. Peyton Hillis at 240 running at 4.4 speed isn't the same as Ray Rice at 200. Would be cool to see a lot of data on this relating to career caries.

 

[beef]

So if Charles had a higher BMI he wouldn't have tore his ACL? And when you rush for 6+ ypc you dont need a lot of carries to be sucessful.

If his BMI was higher he would have landed with a greater force on the out of bounds marker, thus it would not have slipped as much and he would not have torn his ACL.

 

[karmarooster]

I remember when Priest Holmes was a small RB at 5'9'' 215 lbs.

 

[gordonjerry]

I consider a RB "small" if his body frame is thin and his weight is under 185.

 

[Xue]

Montario Hardesty and Ben Tate have BMI's over 30, why did they get injured?

 

[jurb26]

Montario Hardesty and Ben Tate have BMI's over 30, why did they get injured?

If they had a BMI one point higher they too would have avoided injury...

 

[LawFitz]

BMI is probably a better measure of an RB's ability to inflict injury rather than to avoid it.

 

[EBF]

Montario Hardesty and Ben Tate have BMI's over 30, why did they get injured?

Where did I say that every stocky RB will be perfectly healthy?Hint: nowhere. I have never argued that point, or disputed that thin RBs can't have periods of great success.

 

[EBF]

So if Charles had a higher BMI he wouldn't have tore his ACL? And when you rush for 6+ ypc you dont need a lot of carries to be sucessful.

If his BMI was higher he would have landed with a greater force on the out of bounds marker, thus it would not have slipped as much and he would not have torn his ACL.

More like, if his BMI was higher he might have averaged more than 13 carries per game over the past three seasons.

 

[Cookiemonster]

I've followed EBF's opinions for quite a while, and agree with him for the most part. What his BMI argument is doing, is taking short RBs and qualifying them as "too thin," or "just right." It is a measure to decide if a guy that you think has talent but is considered "small," is actually safe to draft. It's more about red flagging RBs that are too thin rather than too "small."

One side note, I will also look at a guy's build coming out of college to make an opinion about whether the guy can add weight to his frame. McFadden, no. Ray Rice, yes (guessing he has gotten up to 212-217). Recent small backs that I also expect to add significant weight are Jamal Charles and LaMichael James. RBs that also run track in college don't get to and don't want to spend as much time with the heavy weights during the offseason. Once in the NFL, track is over and they can start lifting heavy for probably the first time in their lives. Instead of the usual 5-10 pounds these kids usually add over their first few years, I'll expect the track guys to add 10-15 pounds.

For RBs under 230, 3 cone drill seems to be the most predictive measurement. Eyeball test has been the initial qualifier for me. I then go to size and 3 cone and draft position. 40 be damned.

 

[Xue]

So if Charles had a higher BMI he wouldn't have tore his ACL? And when you rush for 6+ ypc you dont need a lot of carries to be sucessful.

If his BMI was higher he would have landed with a greater force on the out of bounds marker, thus it would not have slipped as much and he would not have torn his ACL.

More like, if his BMI was higher he might have averaged more than 13 carries per game over the past three seasons.

It's not his fault his head coach doesn't "trust" him with more carries. If Charles played for Jeff Fisher, he'd be run into the ground like Chris Johnson. But Charles doesn't need 300 carries. He's so effective and efficient as it is already.

 

[beef]

So if Charles had a higher BMI he wouldn't have tore his ACL? And when you rush for 6+ ypc you dont need a lot of carries to be sucessful.

If his BMI was higher he would have landed with a greater force on the out of bounds marker, thus it would not have slipped as much and he would not have torn his ACL.

More like, if his BMI was higher he might have averaged more than 13 carries per game over the past three seasons.

and also averaged 2000 yard seasons with his 6+ ypc. You should change your screen name to BMI. Never seen anyone have such a hardon for it like you.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

To me, it's simply about weight, and height doesn't matter all that much.I consider a RB "small" if they are less than 195lbs.- 240+ lbs = too big- 230-239lbs = big- 210-229lbs = ideal- 195-209lbs = acceptable- 185-194lbs = small- lower than 185lbs = too small

I think height is a huge factor.For a football player, being 6'1" 200 is worlds apart from being 5'8" 200 pounds. It's a completely different type of body.

I agree that both are different body types but I wouldn't call either small. Small to me is a guy who is shorter and they have thinner legs, like a Reggie Bush. I wouldn't call Barry or Emmitt small but I'd call them short.Kevin Smith for the Lions is small, Felix Jones used to be small. When you have those thick legs and broad shoulders I don't think those guys are small even though short.