How Important Is Speed To A RB's NFL Success? (1 Viewer)

[Rodeojones]

This months ESPN The Magazine has Darren McFadden on the cover and article beginning on page 51. Kevin Lynch wrote a small "side bar" on the fastest 40 yard times for RB's and how it translated to success in the NFL.

As Darren McFadden zipped by in a blur of spandex, scouts at February's NFL combine looked at their stopwatches and shook their heads. His 4.3 40-yard time even left Deion Sanders in awe. Question is: How important is speed to a RB's NFL success? Not very, according to recent history. The chart (stats) below lists the 40 times of the fastest backs in each of the past five drafts, along with their rookie stats and career numbers. We also list the 40 times and numbers of the top rushers from each class. Turns out, speed matters only when it's attached to a runner who can break a tackle or two.

2003 Justin Fargas: 4.35 (40), 203 (rookie yards), 2025 (career yards)

Domanick Williams: 4.63 (40), 1031 (rookie yards), 3195 (career yards)

2004

Tatum Bell: 4.37 (40), 396 (rookie yards), 2524 (career yards)

Kevin Jones: 4.38 (40), 1133 (rookie yards), 3067 (career yards)

2005

J.J. Arrington: 4.40 (40), 370 (rookie yards), 467 (career yards)

Cadillac Williams: 4.50 (40), 1178 (rookie yards), 2184 (career yards)

2006

Reggie Bush: 4.33 (40), 565 (rookie yards), 1146 (career yards)

Joseph Addai: 4.37 (40), 1081 (rookie yards), 2153 (career yards)

2007

Chris Henry: 4.40 (40), 119 (rookie yards), 119 (career yards)

Adrian Peterson: 4.40 (40), 1341 (rookie yards), 1341 (career yards)

 

[KSkid]

Speed is just one small part of the picture. Emmitt Smith couldn't really have been called fast by any standard you want to use, but with the skills he did have combined with a great line his lack of speed didn't matter too much. Like you said, speed doesn't matter much if the guy can't reach the open field.

 

[gianmarco]

This months ESPN The Magazine has Darren McFadden on the cover and article beginning on page 51. Kevin Lynch wrote a small "side bar" on the fastest 40 yard times for RB's and how it translated to success in the NFL.

As Darren McFadden zipped by in a blur of spandex, scouts at February's NFL combine looked at their stopwatches and shook their heads. His 4.3 40-yard time even left Deion Sanders in awe. Question is: How important is speed to a RB's NFL success? Not very, according to recent history. The chart (stats) below lists the 40 times of the fastest backs in each of the past five drafts, along with their rookie stats and career numbers. We also list the 40 times and numbers of the top rushers from each class. Turns out, speed matters only when it's attached to a runner who can break a tackle or two.

2003 Justin Fargas: 4.35 (40), 203 (rookie yards), 2025 (career yards)

Domanick Williams: 4.63 (40), 1031 (rookie yards), 3195 (career yards)

2004

Tatum Bell: 4.37 (40), 396 (rookie yards), 2524 (career yards)

Kevin Jones: 4.38 (40), 1133 (rookie yards), 3067 (career yards)

2005

J.J. Arrington: 4.40 (40), 370 (rookie yards), 467 (career yards)

Cadillac Williams: 4.50 (40), 1178 (rookie yards), 2184 (career yards)

2006

Reggie Bush: 4.33 (40), 565 (rookie yards), 1146 (career yards)

Joseph Addai: 4.37 (40), 1081 (rookie yards), 2153 (career yards)

2007

Chris Henry: 4.40 (40), 119 (rookie yards), 119 (career yards)

Adrian Peterson: 4.40 (40), 1341 (rookie yards), 1341 (career yards)

Wow, what a horrible attempt at misrepresentation. Just because the "fastest" guy may not have been #1, look at the ones that were. In 2004, KJ was only .01 seconds slower than the fastest time. In 2006, Addai was only .04 seconds slower than Bush. Oh, and Bush is still no slouch with that fastest time. In 2007, AP ran the same as the fastest time. That's 3 out of 5 yrs where it seems the top guys were indeed very fast. Even Caddy, wasn't terrible. The only one out of that whole group is Dominick Williams, and where is he now? I'm not trying to say that speed is the most important at all, but that was a terrible gathering of facts and conclusions over a short time span and results that essentially show something different than they conclusions they tried to draw. Mind-boggling.

 

[Cookiemonster]

A larger sample size.

More than 2 backs from each class.

More years.

Agree completely that tackle breaking, vision, acceleration, patience, speed, elusiveness, in that order, make an NFL back.

 

[Weiner Dog]

Guys...

Timed speed isn't the entire equation, but the position is not called "running" back for the sheets and giggles of it, either.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

I agree. Horrible study. Someone else posted in another thread a link to a much better speed study here. They show a correlation between speed and success once you factor in weight.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

This may be the worst attempt at analysis I've seen since reading dot-com analyst reports in the late 90s.

 

[Wildman]

A plausible defense for this article is the sidebar probably got edited down to fit a desired space requirement in the magazine or web format. Either way, they demonstrated poor judgment as a result--it made much more sense to have a larger sample size.

BTW-D Williams didn't leave the league because he wasn't fast enough. I thought that was a good example. So was Caddy at 4.5. If he were coming out in this draft class, he'd be severely downgraded for his "slow" 40 time.

 

[Faust]

 

[Andy Herron]

Speed is just one small part of the picture. Emmitt Smith couldn't really have been called fast by any standard you want to use, but with the skills he did have combined with a great line his lack of speed didn't matter too much. Like you said, speed doesn't matter much if the guy can't reach the open field.

Well put.Julius Jones is much faster than Emmitt was, but can't break tackles OR find the open field.When he did show flashes, I can remember thinking "wow, I haven't seen that kind of speed from a Dallas running back since Tony Dorsett".Sure, you can throw Herschel in there. Dorsett was just the first name that popped in my head.Nonetheless, speed doesn't really do much for Jones' game, at least at this point.

 

[Maroney=Speed]

.

 

[Thorpe]

Th 40 time is important, but the style of running is more important. I'd take a guy who runs a 4.5 crouched down low and on his toes over a guy who runs 4.3 but is upright and back on his heals.

 

[craxie]

FootballOutsiders says that speed ADJUSTED FOR WEIGHT is a decent indicator of RB success

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3337822

The long and short of it is:

1. McFadden is an elite prospect

2. 40 time is the most strongly correlated stat

3. 40 time adjusted for weight is even better

4. vertical jump is the next most important stat

5. everything else (3 cone, shuttle, broad jump, bench press) is meaningless

The formula they came up with is:

(Weight * 200)/(40 Time^4)

all running backs: 98.5

all drafted running backs: 102.4

all 1st rd running backs: 112.1

McFadden's adjusted 40 score is a superb 120, 10th best in the past decade. Complaints about his weight or body mass index (BMI) being too low can be ignored, since neither has any sort of relationship with NFL success.

they didn't provide the numbers for the other prospects, but here's what i calculated up for those i could find with combine numbers*RB rankings are from http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/rankings/rb.html

Player		  40 time weight  result  rankingChris Johnson   4.24	197	 121.91  5Darren McFadden 4.33	211	 120.05  1Jon Stewart	 4.48	235	 116.68  2R. Mendenhall   4.45	225	 114.76  3Chad Simpson	4.42	216	 113.19  18Kevin Smith	 4.43	217	 112.69  8Jalen Parmele   4.47	224	 112.21  17Matt Forte	  4.46	217	 109.69  7Jamaal Charles  4.38	200	 108.68  9Felix Jones	 4.47	207	 103.7   4Tashard Choice  4.52	215	 103.02  10Cory Boyd	   4.51	213	 102.97  13Xavier Omon	 4.59	228	 102.73  22Ray Rice		4.44	199	 102.41  6Steve Slaton	4.44	197	 101.38  11Ryan Torain	 4.64	222	 95.79   19BJ Green-Ellis  4.63	219	 95.31   27Thomas Brown	4.55	204	 95.2	14Marcus Thomas   4.6	 213	 95.14   24Anthony Alridge 4.36	170	 94.09   20Dantrell Savage 4.5	 187	 91.21   26Mike Hart	   4.67	206	 86.62   15

 

[Chase Stuart]

FootballOutsiders says that speed ADJUSTED FOR WEIGHT is a decent indicator of RB success

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3337822

The long and short of it is:

1. McFadden is an elite prospect

2. 40 time is the most strongly correlated stat

3. 40 time adjusted for weight is even better

4. vertical jump is the next most important stat

5. everything else (3 cone, shuttle, broad jump, bench press) is meaningless

The formula they came up with is:

(Weight * 200)/(40 Time^4)

all running backs: 98.5

all drafted running backs: 102.4

all 1st rd running backs: 112.1

McFadden's adjusted 40 score is a superb 120, 10th best in the past decade. Complaints about his weight or body mass index (BMI) being too low can be ignored, since neither has any sort of relationship with NFL success.

they didn't provide the numbers for the other prospects, but here's what i calculated up for those i could find with combine numbers*RB rankings are from http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/rankings/rb.html

Player 40 time weight result rankingChris Johnson 4.24 197 121.91 5Darren McFadden 4.33 211 120.05 1Jon Stewart 4.48 235 116.68 2R. Mendenhall 4.45 225 114.76 3Chad Simpson 4.42 216 113.19 18Kevin Smith 4.43 217 112.69 8Jalen Parmele 4.47 224 112.21 17Matt Forte 4.46 217 109.69 7Jamaal Charles 4.38 200 108.68 9Felix Jones 4.47 207 103.7 4Tashard Choice 4.52 215 103.02 10Cory Boyd 4.51 213 102.97 13Xavier Omon 4.59 228 102.73 22Ray Rice 4.44 199 102.41 6Steve Slaton 4.44 197 101.38 11Ryan Torain 4.64 222 95.79 19BJ Green-Ellis 4.63 219 95.31 27Thomas Brown 4.55 204 95.2 14Marcus Thomas 4.6 213 95.14 24Anthony Alridge 4.36 170 94.09 20Dantrell Savage 4.5 187 91.21 26Mike Hart 4.67 206 86.62 15

That's a really interesting post. I've got two questions, though:1) How did they derive the formula? Does it best fit certain data, or is there some particular theory behind it?

2) I don't really agree with their BMI point. I wonder if part of the reason they think BMI isn't correlated with success is because it appears to be correlated in a non-linear way (that is; high BMI RBs do poorly, low BMI RBs do poorly, but medium BMI RBs do well.)

 

[BuckeyeArt]

That's a really interesting post. I've got two questions, though:1) How did they derive the formula? Does it best fit certain data, or is there some particular theory behind it? 2) I don't really agree with their BMI point. I wonder if part of the reason they think BMI isn't correlated with success is because it appears to be correlated in a non-linear way (that is; high BMI RBs do poorly, low BMI RBs do poorly, but medium BMI RBs do well.)

Just a guess, but I don't think there was anything special behind the formula, other than light guys should be able to run faster than heavy guys. My guess was it was trial and error and they took weight and divided by time, then time^2, then time^3, etc.., until they found a maximum. The (*200) looks like it is there to make everything center around '100', since that's an easy number for people to grasp.I don't think they really made a siginificant statement about BMI. I'd love to see what would happen if they substituted BMI in for weight in their formula. It seems like that might produce higher correlations. The only statement they made about BMI was this:

Complaints about his weight or body mass index (BMI) being too low can be ignored, since neither has any sort of relationship with NFL success

That just says weight or BMI by itself doesn't correlate. Substituting BMI probably accounts for the Westbrook example without having to look for a lower 40 time.

 

[coolnerd]

This thread has extensive talk about body mass index as a measurement tool.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...ive+measurement

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

That's a really interesting post. I've got two questions, though:1) How did they derive the formula? Does it best fit certain data, or is there some particular theory behind it? 2) I don't really agree with their BMI point. I wonder if part of the reason they think BMI isn't correlated with success is because it appears to be correlated in a non-linear way (that is; high BMI RBs do poorly, low BMI RBs do poorly, but medium BMI RBs do well.)

I actually wrote to Bill Barnwell and asked the 2nd question (indirectly). I wanted to know if he'd looked at a dummy variable for BMI under 29 or under 28 - and he had. He said it still wasn't predictive of success or failure.Either way, we'll find out with this draft class. IMO the only thing that would keep McFadden, Forte and Kevin Smith from being successful is the low BMI. I think Charles is too borderline to use as a test case if he fails, but obviously if he succeeds it helps kill off the BMI idea.On the first question, I think it was just a way to create an index score. I don't know enough about transformations to know if the formula they created is legit or not, but I did like the idea.Also... one thing that's interesting here... their 40-speed index is useful BEFORE you know where the player was drafted, and it's strongly correlated with draft position (which suggests NFL scouts are mentally doing something similar re: the size/speed combination they see in a player), but after the draft that index score isn't very useful - draft position tells you a lot more. So for FF purposes you don't need to worry about combine performance unless you're drafting before the NFL draft.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

FootballOutsiders says that speed ADJUSTED FOR WEIGHT is a decent indicator of RB success

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3337822

The long and short of it is:

1. McFadden is an elite prospect

2. 40 time is the most strongly correlated stat

3. 40 time adjusted for weight is even better

4. vertical jump is the next most important stat

5. everything else (3 cone, shuttle, broad jump, bench press) is meaningless

The formula they came up with is:

(Weight * 200)/(40 Time^4)

all running backs: 98.5

all drafted running backs: 102.4

all 1st rd running backs: 112.1

McFadden's adjusted 40 score is a superb 120, 10th best in the past decade. Complaints about his weight or body mass index (BMI) being too low can be ignored, since neither has any sort of relationship with NFL success.

they didn't provide the numbers for the other prospects, but here's what i calculated up for those i could find with combine numbers*RB rankings are from http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/rankings/rb.html

Player		  40 time weight  result  rankingChris Johnson   4.24	197	 121.91  5Darren McFadden 4.33	211	 120.05  1Jon Stewart	 4.48	235	 116.68  2R. Mendenhall   4.45	225	 114.76  3Chad Simpson	4.42	216	 113.19  18Kevin Smith	 4.43	217	 112.69  8Jalen Parmele   4.47	224	 112.21  17Matt Forte	  4.46	217	 109.69  7Jamaal Charles  4.38	200	 108.68  9Felix Jones	 4.47	207	 103.7   4Tashard Choice  4.52	215	 103.02  10Cory Boyd	   4.51	213	 102.97  13Xavier Omon	 4.59	228	 102.73  22Ray Rice		4.44	199	 102.41  6Steve Slaton	4.44	197	 101.38  11Ryan Torain	 4.64	222	 95.79   19BJ Green-Ellis  4.63	219	 95.31   27Thomas Brown	4.55	204	 95.2	14Marcus Thomas   4.6	 213	 95.14   24Anthony Alridge 4.36	170	 94.09   20Dantrell Savage 4.5	 187	 91.21   26Mike Hart	   4.67	206	 86.62   15

So Chris Johnson is a better prospect than McFadden?

 

[GregR_2]

 

[Mr Capicollo]

FootballOutsiders says that speed ADJUSTED FOR WEIGHT is a decent indicator of RB success

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3337822

The long and short of it is:

1. McFadden is an elite prospect

2. 40 time is the most strongly correlated stat

3. 40 time adjusted for weight is even better

4. vertical jump is the next most important stat

5. everything else (3 cone, shuttle, broad jump, bench press) is meaningless

The formula they came up with is:

(Weight * 200)/(40 Time^4)

all running backs: 98.5

all drafted running backs: 102.4

all 1st rd running backs: 112.1

McFadden's adjusted 40 score is a superb 120, 10th best in the past decade. Complaints about his weight or body mass index (BMI) being too low can be ignored, since neither has any sort of relationship with NFL success.

they didn't provide the numbers for the other prospects, but here's what i calculated up for those i could find with combine numbers*RB rankings are from http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/rankings/rb.html

Player		  40 time weight  result  rankingChris Johnson   4.24	197	 121.91  5Darren McFadden 4.33	211	 120.05  1Jon Stewart	 4.48	235	 116.68  2R. Mendenhall   4.45	225	 114.76  3Chad Simpson	4.42	216	 113.19  18Kevin Smith	 4.43	217	 112.69  8Jalen Parmele   4.47	224	 112.21  17Matt Forte	  4.46	217	 109.69  7Jamaal Charles  4.38	200	 108.68  9Felix Jones	 4.47	207	 103.7   4Tashard Choice  4.52	215	 103.02  10Cory Boyd	   4.51	213	 102.97  13Xavier Omon	 4.59	228	 102.73  22Ray Rice		4.44	199	 102.41  6Steve Slaton	4.44	197	 101.38  11Ryan Torain	 4.64	222	 95.79   19BJ Green-Ellis  4.63	219	 95.31   27Thomas Brown	4.55	204	 95.2	14Marcus Thomas   4.6	 213	 95.14   24Anthony Alridge 4.36	170	 94.09   20Dantrell Savage 4.5	 187	 91.21   26Mike Hart	   4.67	206	 86.62   15

So Chris Johnson is a better prospect than McFadden?

It's only predictive if size and speed are your only two criteria for NFL RB success. I don't think it works that way, despite the obvious importance of those two traits.

 

[GregR_2]

FootballOutsiders says that speed ADJUSTED FOR WEIGHT is a decent indicator of RB success...

So Chris Johnson is a better prospect than McFadden?

If, to you, the words "is a decent indicator of RB success" means it should be used as the sole determining factor of who is the better prospect, then yes. I don't think it means that to the rest of us though.

 

[Jedimaster21]

Speed won't make a player effective at the RB position. But if a player has all the other necessary tools to be a good RB, then elite speed added to that equation cannot be ignored.

 

[EBF]

I've said this a few times this offseason, but RB isn't a pure speed position. It's a hybrid speed/power position like linebacker or strong safety. The reason guys like MJD, Tomlinson, Portis, Edge, and Peterson are effective isn't just because they're fast, but also because they're powerful runners. That's why I think McFadden will be a disappointment and why Mendenhall and Stewart are the clear top two in this class. McFadden doesn't have the lower body bulk to be an elite pro RB, whereas Mendenhall and Stewart have the stocky 215-235 pound frame and 4.4-4.5 speed combination that you look for in a first round RB.

Speed in the absence of power does not work for NFL backs, which is why guys like Michael Bennett and Tatum Bell are warming the bench. I think McFadden can be another Robert Smith, but when you look at this year's prospects and you ask yourself which guys are most likely to handle the kind of workload generally needed to become a top 10 FF RB, the answer is Mendenhall and Stewart.

 

[EBF]

By the way, I don't know where they got that 40 time for Kevin Jones. Everyone thought KJ would run a fast time, but he only clocked between 4.5-4.6 at his pro day. It was one of the bigger workout stories of that draft from an FF perspective. He may have been a 4.3 guy in his first season at Va Tech, but by the time he left for the NFL he had morphed from a 205 pound speed back into a 225 pound power back.

 

[switz]

FootballOutsiders says that speed ADJUSTED FOR WEIGHT is a decent indicator of RB success

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3337822

The long and short of it is:

1. McFadden is an elite prospect

2. 40 time is the most strongly correlated stat

3. 40 time adjusted for weight is even better

4. vertical jump is the next most important stat

5. everything else (3 cone, shuttle, broad jump, bench press) is meaningless

The formula they came up with is:

(Weight * 200)/(40 Time^4)

all running backs: 98.5

all drafted running backs: 102.4

all 1st rd running backs: 112.1

McFadden's adjusted 40 score is a superb 120, 10th best in the past decade. Complaints about his weight or body mass index (BMI) being too low can be ignored, since neither has any sort of relationship with NFL success.

they didn't provide the numbers for the other prospects, but here's what i calculated up for those i could find with combine numbers*RB rankings are from http://www.nfldraftcountdown.com/rankings/rb.html

Player		  40 time weight  result  rankingChris Johnson   4.24	197	 121.91  5Darren McFadden 4.33	211	 120.05  1Jon Stewart	 4.48	235	 116.68  2R. Mendenhall   4.45	225	 114.76  3Chad Simpson	4.42	216	 113.19  18Kevin Smith	 4.43	217	 112.69  8Jalen Parmele   4.47	224	 112.21  17Matt Forte	  4.46	217	 109.69  7Jamaal Charles  4.38	200	 108.68  9Felix Jones	 4.47	207	 103.7   4Tashard Choice  4.52	215	 103.02  10Cory Boyd	   4.51	213	 102.97  13Xavier Omon	 4.59	228	 102.73  22Ray Rice		4.44	199	 102.41  6Steve Slaton	4.44	197	 101.38  11Ryan Torain	 4.64	222	 95.79   19BJ Green-Ellis  4.63	219	 95.31   27Thomas Brown	4.55	204	 95.2	14Marcus Thomas   4.6	 213	 95.14   24Anthony Alridge 4.36	170	 94.09   20Dantrell Savage 4.5	 187	 91.21   26Mike Hart	   4.67	206	 86.62   15

I'd love to see this type of calculation applied across the top-10 drafted RBS in the last ten years (only 100 prospects which is still small) to see how accurate it is. My initial reaction is that this is meaningless.