Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
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!
RB Ashton Jeanty, LV (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter elguapo07
- Start date
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
I am a big Jeanty fan, but I'm beginning to question the legitimacy of this stat. Just watching the highlights there are a number of runs where he's not contacted until he's way downfield. I don't see how it's even possible to end up at 140 yards after contact unless he had like 8 runs where he took a punter snap and got immediately hit but broke the tackles and got back to the line of scrimmage. It just doesn't add up.
rockaction
Footballguy
When I posted one that was similar in here about a week ago I said that it seemed fantastical. "Wild" was the word I think I used because I also doubted its extremity. It sounds very incorrect and I think it should be viewed or read with suspicion.
rockaction
Footballguy
No, I'm not saying they are lying. What I am wondering is what they define as "after contact" and how that defintion is applied and counted. This is unlike a definition that is pretty hard and fast, like where an RB gains "yards," or a quarterback has a "completion." Those are pretty easy to define and count and not many people would have a differing opinion as to what was and what wasn't a yard or a completion. But "after contact" is a judgment call. The "yards before contact" and "yards after contact" and "forced tackles missed" all require a set of eyeballs to make a judgment. For the stat to matter, that definition has to approximate a reasonable understanding of what is "after contact" and that definition needs to be consistently applied by all of the watchers who judge whether or not it has been met in each particular case.
That's trickier than you might think.
rockaction
Footballguy
Yeah, I agree the line is bad. I'm not arguing against Jeanty's talent. i think he's already a very good RB. I think he was the 1.01 in dynasty and #7 overall in the NFL for a reason, and Hampton also went in the first of the NFL for a reason.
I'm doubting the extreme nature of the stats. "After contact" means just that, and I had an eye on the game. I have hard time believing he was hit that deep or that often in the backfield. He has more "after contact" yards counted than he does rushing yards. That is suspect, in my opinion. I was just commenting off-the-cuff because his yards before contract was so extreme that I doubted that stat also.
I'll have to look into it.
rockaction
Footballguy
Uh, if you're saying they blocked well for him then how did he have more YAC than rushing yards overall?
I am not knocking Jeanty and I think you might be hung up on that.
If he had more yards after contact than yards overall, then they must have been hitting him behind or close to the line of scrimmage. On nearly every carry.
Think about it for a moment.
He totally had a great game and "balled out," but I'm not sure that he gained more yards after contact than he had total yards rushing. That would be a ridiculous feat and it would mean his line sucked that game.
rockaction
Footballguy
Sure. Go ahead. But you're also saying they blocked well when if you believe the stat, they couldn't possibly have done so.
If you want to believe in the accuracy of a stat that they don't make publicly available for scrutiny, and it only comes from one author in one article (I looked) who cites nothing but refers to "NFL Next Gen Stats" then feel free. I will say that the writer is at NFL.com, so it is plausible and maybe a touch believable with that in mind but there's no transparency by either author, website, or the entity it claims it is deriving the stat from.
That, to me, is suspect in a myriad of ways.
rockaction
Footballguy
And so you're telling me his yards before contact improved by an average of 1.1, but his overall yards rushing compared to his yards after contact was still a negative two?
I'm spitting the hook out. Have at it.
rockaction
Footballguy
No, the stat about "yards after contact" that you specifically chimed in about comes from the Tweet by one Dan Loya and was reposted by Next Gen Stats Twitter for the NFL at NFL.com.
That's the 140 yards after contact. It comes from one NFL article. I traced it.
You might be citing the Yards Before Contact from PFF, but I'm saying that the Yards After Contact you're arguing with me about come from the NFL and their Next Gen Stats.
It doesn't matter. Take care .
rockaction
Footballguy
Fair enough. It's cool. Just . . . if you're going to debate, try and keep track. I know it gets busy and this isn't be-all end-all, but I seriously like Jeanty and have no ulterior motive. I think the stat is legitimately hinky.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
Yeah like I said, I am president of the Jeanty fanclub so not trying to disparage him in any way. Dude breaks tackles like a machine and his line sucks.
It's just this yards after contact stat from one company has suddenly blown up. Not just for Jeanty but every player, every forum, podcast, etc all of the sudden everyone is referencing it and it's making every player look good.
But honestly, it kind of seems like BS. Like they're using some weird measuring trick to calculate it because the numbers don't add up.
I mean, even from a pure math perspective, they're reporting that he averaged 1.1ypc before contact in that game, but then also saying he had 140 yards after contact on 138 total yards, which doesn't math.
And then there's just the eyeball test too. We can very easily pick out a small handful of plays where he picked up like 30 yards before contact. So that would mean on the rest of the plays he'd have to average getting hit 5 yards behind the line of scrimmage to make those numbers work, which clearly wasn't happening.
There's just something fishy going on with this stat where all of the sudden everyone in the league has an insanely low YBC (yards before contact). And it doesn't jive with any other stat trackers. PFF aren't the only ones that measure YBC, just somehow their numbers for that metric are way out of line with everyone else. And again, it doesn't pass the sniff test because if I add it up with my eyes it's nowhere close.
It's just this yards after contact stat from one company has suddenly blown up. Not just for Jeanty but every player, every forum, podcast, etc all of the sudden everyone is referencing it and it's making every player look good.
But honestly, it kind of seems like BS. Like they're using some weird measuring trick to calculate it because the numbers don't add up.
I mean, even from a pure math perspective, they're reporting that he averaged 1.1ypc before contact in that game, but then also saying he had 140 yards after contact on 138 total yards, which doesn't math.
And then there's just the eyeball test too. We can very easily pick out a small handful of plays where he picked up like 30 yards before contact. So that would mean on the rest of the plays he'd have to average getting hit 5 yards behind the line of scrimmage to make those numbers work, which clearly wasn't happening.
There's just something fishy going on with this stat where all of the sudden everyone in the league has an insanely low YBC (yards before contact). And it doesn't jive with any other stat trackers. PFF aren't the only ones that measure YBC, just somehow their numbers for that metric are way out of line with everyone else. And again, it doesn't pass the sniff test because if I add it up with my eyes it's nowhere close.
rockaction
Footballguy
Okay, this is what I did with my morning so I feel like I can correct you a bit.
The yards after contact is a next gen NFL stat. Next Gen Stats from the NFL.
The yards before contact, I think, is the PFF stat. So saying that they conflict and therefore invalidate each stat is incorrect. They're coming from two different companies.
Scratch that. I cannot find the yards before contact. This is just dumb now.
Last edited:
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
But nonetheless confirms that there is either a lot of subjectivity that goes into the stat or different ways of measuring it (probably both).
The stat isn't new, but it has absolutely blown up in conversations this year. My best guess is someone new jumped into measuring it or changed the way they measure it to make it appear much more extreme than with other companies, probably for exactly this reason.
Like you said, if we look up something like YPC and all the different companies measuring it, they all give the same number.
If we look at YAC and all the different companies measuring it, they give different numbers, with one of them being a huge outlier compared to the rest.
That outlier is the one that appears to be suddenly getting quoted all over the place this year. They either are VERY generous in how they selectively apply it, or are using some definition of it that is different than everyone else's.
The Frankman
Footballguy
Similar threads
