RB Phillip Lindsay, IND (1 Viewer)

[zeeshan2]

Terrell Davis believes Phillip Lindsay can break his Broncos rushing record

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000964308/article/terrell-davis-lindsay-can-break-my-rushing-record

 

[BobbyLayne]

 this thread.

while you continue to worry about him eventually getting hurt, I'll keep putting him in at RB2 / flex and racking up the free points Im getting from him. 

which you've done exactly once so far, correct?

 

[Stuart Ullman]

 this thread.

while you continue to worry about him eventually getting hurt, I'll keep putting him in at RB2 / flex and racking up the free points Im getting from him. 

While I tend to agree with you, there's nothing wrong with selling high either.

God knows that would have been the way to go with Andre Ellington, Steve Slaton, Jahvid Best, etc.

In the league I have him in, I also have Alex Collins and Christian McCaferty. So I'm cool with a three headed monster while it lasts.

Was offered Kelvin Benjamin for him and declined.

 

[Don't Noonan]

While I tend to agree with you, there's nothing wrong with selling high either.

God knows that would have been the way to go with Andre Ellington, Steve Slaton, Jahvid Best, etc.

In the league I have him in, I also have Alex Collins and Christian McCaferty. So I'm cool with a three headed monster while it lasts.

Was offered Kelvin Benjamin for him and declined.

Kelvin Benjamin?  Heck, even I would decline that!

 

[Biabreakable]

I enjoyed reading that. 

You lost me at 215 lbs as a threshold. 

Theres a massive difference between 215 and 185. 

Literally 30 lbs, but football-wise, it’s a magnitude greater. 

The threshold should be more like under 200 lbs, and over 200 lbs. 

All due respect for a well-made argument, but data is funny - what you put in is usually what you get out. GIGO, in this case.

i’d be willing to bet that 2nd list of epic RBs gets a lot less epic by changing g that parameter to something that doesn’t include the ideal weight for an NFL RB (between 205-215)

if you really want to make a case for “the little guy” you should make the threshold 185, which is Lindsay’s weight. 

Appreciate the work you put into that, but I find your premise that 215 represents “the little guy” to be deeply flawed. 

You tried to gloss over this saying “you have to cut it off somewhere”, but honestly does anyone believe 215 is a small RB? In a topic about a 185 lb RB where the most frequent comparison has been Warrick Dunn?  

please do rework the data to split the lists into “below 186 lbs “ and “above 185 lbs” and let’s see who lands where. 

I don’t know anyone who thinks Edge James, Priest Holmes, Tiki Barber or Tomlinson or literally 75% of that list are “little” or “undersized” RBs - the type suggested as less durable. It’s instead a list of the prototypical NFL RB size/weight.one of them has the nickname “Cadillac” - pretty sure that’s not because he’s undersized?

It’s almost as though that 215 threshold skews results to prove a  conclusion. 

Using a threshold in line with the actual debate (Dunn, or Lindsay at 185) I’d bet the latter list above is far less “dangerously myopic”.  

I didn't choose the 215 threshold. Football Jones did. That is the last time I tried to delve into this discussion with research to present facts. I haven't looked at any of these players injury history, which was your premise, that the smaller RB are more prone to injury or wearing down. What I am trying to do with the sample is move this in the right direction by providing a list of players worth looking at as far as if they were injured or not.

The data is what it is, so I don't think that makes it garbage. How people use the data might make their analysis garbage, but I don't think the issue is the data itself, although the sample isn't perfect either, I detailed some of the issues with the data in the post you quoted already. There are some players in the sample who were drafted before 2000 which PFR does not have combine data for, so some of these players in the sample were heavier or lighter at the combine than what PFR lists them at. Those errors make the data imperfect. Also for the players drafted prior to 2000 in the list, I did not go back and look at how many 200 rushing attempt seasons they had prior to 2000. Those seasons are not in the sample if they were before 2000.

While I agree with you that I have never considered Edge or LT little (LT is in the above 215 lbs group anyways) but according to FJ's parameters they were below 215.

Tiki Barber was considered a smaller RB. He had to split with other RB for his first 3 seasons and did not get 200 rushing attempts until his 4th season in the league. He came in at 200 lbs. Part of why he didn't become a feature RB early on in his career was because he had an issue with fumbling, but part of it was the head coach had a similar view of who can be a featured RB and he didn't think Tiki could. Well Barber proved later on in his career that he could.

I actually did change the threshold in discussion with Bojang to only talk about RB 200 lbs or less. in a follow up post. It is a short list. It doesn't include players who I know were considered small RB as rookies, such as Clinton Portis, MJD, DeAngelo Williams who certainly were considered small RB before they proved themselves, anyhow here are the guys who came into the league at 200 or less who had more than one 200 rushing attempt seasons:

Tiki Barber 
Reggie Bush 
Brian Westbrook 
Jamaal Charles 
Ahmad Bradshaw 
Chris Johnson 
Ray Rice 
C.J. Spiller 
Charlie Garner 
Warrick Dunn 

Some fantastic RB careers from this small sample of players below 200 lbs who did have more than one 200 rushing attempt season. I do think there are enough examples that to dismiss a RB because of their weight is short sighted. At the same time the examples of lighter RB having 200 rushing attempts is so small that it is sucker bet to take a light RB against the rest of the field.

 

[Dismattle]

Yeah, I myself do not believe this is a player to "sell high!"  Broncos have a semi-solid defense  While their passing game may be a concern overall its safe to say the OLine is legit  

" O-line helped Lindsay average 7.6 yards per carry on the way to becoming Pro Football Focus' top-ranked run-blocking unit of the week. " http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000964141/article/offensive-line-of-the-week-falcons-unit-boosts-rushing-attack

 

[Hilts]

Yeah, I myself do not believe this is a player to "sell high!"  Broncos have a semi-solid defense  While their passing game may be a concern overall its safe to say the OLine is legit  

" O-line helped Lindsay average 7.6 yards per carry on the way to becoming Pro Football Focus' top-ranked run-blocking unit of the week. " http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000964141/article/offensive-line-of-the-week-falcons-unit-boosts-rushing-attack

Football outsiders also ranks Lindsay as the #1 rb, and in their metrics he goes no lower than #4 in any of the categories. 

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/rb

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I didn't choose the 215 threshold. Football Jones did. That is the last time I tried to delve into this discussion with research to present facts. I haven't looked at any of these players injury history, which was your premise, that the smaller RB are more prone to injury or wearing down. What I am trying to do with the sample is move this in the right direction by providing a list of players worth looking at as far as if they were injured or not.

The data is what it is, so I don't think that makes it garbage. How people use the data might make their analysis garbage, but I don't think the issue is the data itself, although the sample isn't perfect either, I detailed some of the issues with the data in the post you quoted already. There are some players in the sample who were drafted before 2000 which PFR does not have combine data for, so some of these players in the sample were heavier or lighter at the combine than what PFR lists them at. Those errors make the data imperfect. Also for the players drafted prior to 2000 in the list, I did not go back and look at how many 200 rushing attempt seasons they had prior to 2000. Those seasons are not in the sample if they were before 2000.

While I agree with you that I have never considered Edge or LT little (LT is in the above 215 lbs group anyways) but according to FJ's parameters they were below 215.

Tiki Barber was considered a smaller RB. He had to split with other RB for his first 3 seasons and did not get 200 rushing attempts until his 4th season in the league. He came in at 200 lbs. Part of why he didn't become a feature RB early on in his career was because he had an issue with fumbling, but part of it was the head coach had a similar view of who can be a featured RB and he didn't think Tiki could. Well Barber proved later on in his career that he could.

I actually did change the threshold in discussion with Bojang to only talk about RB 200 lbs or less. in a follow up post. It is a short list. It doesn't include players who I know were considered small RB as rookies, such as Clinton Portis, MJD, DeAngelo Williams who certainly were considered small RB before they proved themselves, anyhow here are the guys who came into the league at 200 or less who had more than one 200 rushing attempt seasons:

Tiki Barber 
Reggie Bush 
Brian Westbrook 
Jamaal Charles 
Ahmad Bradshaw 
Chris Johnson 
Ray Rice 
C.J. Spiller 
Charlie Garner 
Warrick Dunn 

Some fantastic RB careers from this small sample of players below 200 lbs who did have more than one 200 rushing attempt season. I do think there are enough examples that to dismiss a RB because of their weight is short sighted. At the same time the examples of lighter RB having 200 rushing attempts is so small that it is sucker bet to take a light RB against the rest of the field.

Thanks for the clarification. 

That updated list is far less impresssive. 

Would love to see it with the cut-off at 185. 

Interwstingly, the list above is full of guys labeled “injury prone” for their careers - Charles, Westbrook, Spiller, Bush, CJ. Garner blew out his knee, which isn’t really size-related.

but yeah - health was a concern for most of those cats most of their careers.

and “GIGO” is an old expression for data. It doesn’t meant the data itself is garbage - just that if an inaccurate data set is used the end result will also be inaccurate. In this case the premise that 215 lbs repressents a “small” RB. 

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Would love to see it with the cut-off at 185. 

Why we all know that there haven't been many NFL featured RBs at 185 or less. It wouldn't be eye opening to see the list.

Interwstingly, the list above is full of guys labeled “injury prone” for their careers - Charles, Westbrook, Spiller, Bush, CJ. Garner blew out his knee, which isn’t really size-related.

Charles was not injury prone at all. The only two seasons his missed time were from ACL tears which are bad luck and have nothing to do with size. In his first seven years in the league, (taking out the 2011 season where he tore an ACL with no contact), he missed three games to injury.  

Chris Johnson missed one game in his first seven seasons in the league. When he hit age 30 he then missed five games that season - but is that age or size related? I think the first seven years of his career answers that.

Westbrook missed four games in the three seasons (2006-2008) where he saw feature back heavy workloads. So he was less "injury prone" when he was seeing heavy touches (averaged 250.3 carries and 73.6 receptions those three seasons). Otherwise he missed 20 games in his other six seasons which seems a little below average.  

Charlie Garner missed 2 games in his first five seasons and that was because he blew out his ACL. He only played one more season after that.

Bush - sure you could label him injury prone and maybe Spiller, but he sucked anyway.

So actually that list shows some pretty durable "small" backs that handled heavy workloads. Anyway we would need to compare to how "injury prone" bigger backs were in order to determine the issue.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Why we all know that there haven't been many NFL featured RBs at 185 or less. It wouldn't be eye opening to see the list.

Charles was not injury prone at all. The only two seasons his missed time were from ACL tears which are bad luck and have nothing to do with size. In his first seven years in the league, (taking out the 2011 season where he tore an ACL with no contact), he missed three games to injury.  

Chris Johnson missed one game in his first seven seasons in the league. When he hit age 30 he then missed five games that season - but is that age or size related? I think the first seven years of his career answers that.

Westbrook missed four games in the three seasons (2006-2008) where he saw feature back heavy workloads. So he was less "injury prone" when he was seeing heavy touches (averaged 250.3 carries and 73.6 receptions those three seasons). Otherwise he missed 20 games in his other six seasons which seems a little below average.  

Charlie Garner missed 2 games in his first five seasons and that was because he blew out his ACL. He only played one more season after that.

Bush - sure you could label him injury prone and maybe Spiller, but he sucked anyway.

So actually that list shows some pretty durable "small" backs that handled heavy workloads. Anyway we would need to compare to how "injury prone" bigger backs were in order to determine the issue.

So where’s the 185 lbs list?

if we’re evaluating Lindsay, that’s the one that’s relevant.

 

 

[Dr. Octopus]

So where’s the 185 lbs list?

if we’re evaluating Lindsay, that’s the one that’s relevant.

 

If you say so. He's 190 and all those guys were about the same.

ETA: If that's your takeaway from what was presented there's no need to continue this really. You have your mind made up.

I don't think the book is written on Lindsay by any means - but it seems foolish to dismiss him because he may get injured because he's small.

 

[cloppbeast]

Reaction time matters way more than weight.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

If you say so. He's 190 and all those guys were about the same.

ETA: If that's your takeaway from what was presented there's no need to continue this really. You have your mind made up.

I don't think the book is written on Lindsay by any means - but it seems foolish to dismiss him because he may get injured because he's small.

I like Lindsay - I’m not at all saying he’s going to get hurt. 

The discussion evolved to “little RBs getting hurt is a myth” 

then a data set was used to illustrate that, but set the threshold at 215, which I find preposterous, since it’s not apples to apples comparison.

the other issue I take is with the selective definition of “injury prone” using the criteria of “missed games”. As a guy who’s had Tiki, Westbrook, CK2K, Charles & other small-Ish back, I can attest that they were more often “questionable, [insert body part here] and played through. Sometimes to lesser effectiveness. 

While that’s true for a lot of big backs too, that they didn’t miss games doesn’t mean they didn’t get banged up.

what I’d like to see is how effective small (ok, 190 lbs) backs have been historicaly vs big backs when playing through injury, frequency of appearance on the injury report, etc. 

we don’t have that information handy, so what we’re left with is an incomplete data set & a largely accepted group-think that “little RBs can’t hold up to the pounding of feature back duties”. 

This isn’t a new belief - it’s been the belief of NFL teams for many decades. 

Maybe Lindsay will be one of those rare guys who proves it to be wrong. Or maybe not - it’s only week 2.  

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Reaction time matters way more than weight.

Everyone gets hit eventually, regardless of how elusive. Busted plays happen, and players run into a wall. 

Sometimes the wall runs into them.  

 

[Dr. Octopus]

the other issue I take is with the selective definition of “injury prone” using the criteria of “missed games”. As a guy who’s had Tiki, Westbrook, CK2K, Charles & other small-Ish back, I can attest that they were more often “questionable, [insert body part here] and played through. Sometimes to lesser effectiveness. 

If we want to make up subjective parameters for "injury prone" that's just not useful. Missed games is objective at least.

What harm was there that those guys, in your mind, were questionable every week if they then went out and played and put up 125 total yards and a TD or two?

 

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

 this thread.

while you continue to worry about him eventually getting hurt, I'll keep putting him in at RB2 / flex and racking up the free points Im getting from him. 

Are you doing that this weekend against an up and down, unpredictable (so far this year) BAL D?

 

[zftcg]

So who are we starting him over this week? Toying with him over Lewis (who has a tough matchup with Jax) in non-PPR, but given that Lindsay himself doesn't have a great match-up, I think I want to see one more week of production before I'm fully confident.

 

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

And I love the discussion, but for us Lindsay owners, let's start fading the "He's liable to get injured" discussion if only because I don't need that bad mojo for a guy I'm depending upon to contribute to my injury-riddled team.

TIA.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

If we want to make up subjective parameters for "injury prone" that's just not useful. Missed games is objective at least.

What harm was there that those guys, in your mind, were questionable every week if they then went out and played and put up 125 total yards and a TD or two?

That’s the rub though - sometimes they’d be questionable and underperform. 

Sometimes they’d do as you suggest. 

But if ws’re really trying to evaluate whether size plays a role in durability, injury reports & tags should be considered. And that can be objectively compared with specific metrics like YPC, or overall production. As you say, if they go out and put up 125/1, clearly the injury didn’t matter.

if they go out and put up 67/0, maybe it did. 

But since we don’t have that data, we can’t definitively say whether smaller RBs are more or less liklely to get hurt.

were I an NFL GM, I’d be looking at prototypical RBs.

As an aside, I wonder why no one’s mentioned Doug Martin? He was a beast one year, then kept getting hurt. “Muscle hamster” was kind of undersized IIRC.  Now he’s a backup in Oakland, but he had a hard time staying on the field in Tampa Bay. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Are you doing that this weekend against an up and down, unpredictable (so far this year) BAL D?

I’d probably start him at Baltimore. Their defense isn’t 100% & losing Moseley hurts them against the run.

he might not be as good, but IMO he’ll be RB2/Flex-worthy. 

I don’t have him, but I’d start him if I did. 

 

[Dr. Octopus]

That’s the rub though - sometimes they’d be questionable and underperform. 

Sometimes they’d do as you suggest. 

Considering they were some of the most productive backs in recent history I don't think they underperformed very often.

 

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

So who are we starting him over this week? Toying with him over Lewis (who has a tough matchup with Jax) in non-PPR, but given that Lindsay himself doesn't have a great match-up, I think I want to see one more week of production before I'm fully confident.

The way I am thinking about it is based on your alternate's matchup and your team's predicted score vs opponent.

If you look like you are much stronger in predicted points, and/or your alternate is facing a run-D that can play as stout as BAL, risk is somewhat mitigated and so it's easier to start 'em and bank predicted points.

If you have a tighter matchup and/or your alternate has a juicy run matchup, seems easier to bench Lindsay to mitigate BAL reverting to expected/better form at their home stadium.

ETA: Given how dynamic Lindsay looks, and the fact that what we've seen in usage and splits looks more like trend than anomaly, I'd lean to start him until he proves otherwise.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

As an aside, I wonder why no one’s mentioned Doug Martin? He was a beast one year, then kept getting hurt. “Muscle hamster” was kind of undersized IIRC.  Now he’s a backup in Oakland, but he had a hard time staying on the field in Tampa Bay. 

Doug Martin is 220+ pounds.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Considering they were some of the most productive backs in recent history I don't think they underperformed very often.

Until they weren’t. 

Which brings up the question of longevity.  Another useful data set would be how long little backs played vs big backs.  

Just playing devil’s advocate here. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Doug Martin is 220+ pounds.

Ah - that’s not little. Just sucky. lol

 

[Football Jones]

We already know he can produce when he's on the field.  We've seen it for 2 straight weeks.  The question is can he stay healthy given that many touches.  That is what the last 3 pages have all been about. 

I was talking about Cook, but Lindsay is a whole other ballgame. Cook is a MUCH better prospect.

I haven't weighed in on Lindsay & probably won't other than to say his chances of being a long-term feature back are near zero (we're talking percentage points).

I've noticed this thread is real "snarky" so before anyone gets their panties in a wad, LOL, Lindsay has some things going for him & it's very possible he can carve out a long-term role in the NFL.

 

[Bojang0301]

As someone who brought up the 185lb side of the argument, I say ride it out. Most RB’s are a 50/50 shot away from blowing up a knee every single play. I’d treat his value how he produces and would want compensation equal to that. The only thing I was suggesting is there is something to correlate between RB finishes and size. It’s easy to see that it probably doesn’t relate to “injury proneness” and is more likely to correlate that there are very few backs at the size Lindsay is. I’m hoping Silva is correct and Warrick Dunn is the comparable. Lindsay has a greater BMI and both were workhorses in college (albeit Dunn at a better program) with similar all purpose yards.

 

[Football Jones]

As far as durability, I don't necessarily believe smaller RBs are more apt to get injured. 

With enough touches, all RBs have a high risk of injury, but some, regardless of size, seem to be able to stay healthy. It probably has more to do with their knack for staying injury free & some DNA, as well.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Here’s the thing about this “underdsized RB” discussion - as entertaining as it’s been, and as solid as everyone’s points are, I’m actually closer aligned with @Dr. Octopus.

It is the reason why I’ve had so many of them on my rosters from year to year. Ray Rice in his breakout season won me a championship. 

And the reality is that even if Lindsay gets hurt this week (knock on wood) it’s hardly proof of anything other than one guy getting unlucky one week. 

But it’s an interesting debate.  

 

[Hilts]

Sometimes people do something because the data bears it out. Other times people do something because it's the way it's always been and nobody thinks to try another way, because of the whole of it ain't broke mentality. 

It's possible some rb's under 200 pounds would be fine players and they simply don't get a chance because popular beliefs push them into other positions thinking they'd never be able to handle the load. But if we don't have a sizeable sample to look at, it's hard to know which is which. 

Being that we don't have any kind of real sample size to compare Lindsay to, I think it's foolish to try doing so. Most smaller backs would have never made it to where he is now. He's already an outlier by being in the position he is. What undrafted running backs, regardless of size, have done what he's done? I think any talk of his size serves no real benefit as there's nothing we can really draw from it other than he's on the smaller side. 

Maybe he'll break down. But until that happens, is there any reason the coaches should stop giving him as much work as they have been? 

 

[Football Jones]

Here's the thing...

Some type of injuries, like impacts, muscle mass & bone density can help prevent a broken bone or something. Size is probably a factor in some injuries, but soft tissue injuries, which make up the vast majority of injuries, affect all sizes. 

In general, I believe what I stated several posts up. Some guys have a knack for staying healthy by "going with the flow" when getting hit for a lack of a better phrase. However, the biggest factor might be what you have no control over & that's your DNA. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Here's the thing...

Some type of injuries, like impacts, muscle mass & bone density can help prevent a broken bone or something. Size is probably a factor in some injuries, but soft tissue injuries, which make up the vast majority of injuries, affect all sizes. 

In general, I believe what I stated several posts up. Some guys have a knack for staying healthy by "going with the flow" when getting hit for a lack of a better phrase. However, the biggest factor might be what you have no control over & that's your DNA. 

Like drunk drivers in car accidents. 

So the logical conclusion here is that NFL running backs should all play drunk to avoid serious injury. 

 

[Football Jones]

Like drunk drivers in car accidents. 

So the logical conclusion here is that NFL running backs should all play drunk to avoid serious injury. 

LOL. I simply meant I'm quite confident there's a "knack" factor in staying healthy. Absolutely.

"Going with the flow" might be a poor analogy, but I think you get my point.

 

[Football Jones]

As far as Lindsay the player, he's just going to have a very difficult time doing the things he needs to do as a feature back at his size (weight).

Long-term? No way. Short-term feature back? It's possible. 

Outstanding role player? Certainly possible & maybe even likely.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

LOL. I simply meant I'm quite confident there's a "knack" factor in staying healthy. Absolutely.

"Going with the flow" might be a poor analogy, but I think you get my point.

Yes, but I never let a sound, logical argument get in the way of something hilarious that cracks me up. 

 

 

[Dismattle]

As far as Lindsay the player, he's just going to have a very difficult time doing the things he needs to do as a feature back at his size (weight).

Long-term? No way. Short-term feature back? It's possible. 

Outstanding role player? Certainly possible.

OR You could just admit to yourself that the man can do things that other backs just cannot do.  Seriously the dude can probably get lower pad level than some backs on their knees

 

[barackdhouse]

Reggie Bush 
Brian Westbrook 
Jamaal Charles 
Ahmad Bradshaw 
Chris Johnson 
Ray Rice 
C.J. Spiller 
Charlie Garner 
Warrick Dunn 

Rookie years from 1994 thru 2010 here.  Another way to look at this particular list is to say that we can add a name to the list roughly every two years.  And we may be overdue for another.  Or two.  Doesn't mean it will happen or that it has to.  But it certainly shouldn't be shocking.

 

[Football Jones]

OR You could just admit to yourself that the man can do things that other backs just cannot do.  Seriously the dude can probably get lower pad level than some backs on their knees

I like Lindsay. He's been impressive, but he's not going to be able to be a long-term feature back at his size (weight) in today's NFL.

I wouldn't put anything else past him, though.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Rookie years from 1994 thru 2010 here.  Another way to look at this particular list is to say that we can add a name to the list roughly every two years.  And we may be overdue for another.  Or two.  Doesn't mean it will happen or that it has to.  But it certainly shouldn't be shocking.

A good point. 

Only time will tell how it bears out. Lindsay has two things going for him in opportunity & situation. He’s getting the touches, (though seemingly on the lower end compared to the backs on that list) and he’s in a great situation with the Denver run blocking line & offensive philosophy.

And so far he’s delivering. 

Assuming continued success/health & looking ahead to 2019, his size may even make him a value pick in redraft. He might put up 1st rounder numbers but slip to the 2nd or 3rd. 

The perception that little backs can’t stay healthy did the same for many of the players on that list until they had enough of a track record. 

 

[Dismattle]

It seems strange almost odd reading over several posts.  Hoping to accomplish a buy or a sell?  Hello!  It’s about more than size for running backs  I don’t really care to argue some things.  One example is hard hits.  College ball is full of solid hits.  Granted there may be in fact more opportunity to see a devestating blow in the NFL. Think it’s almost safe to say a College back like Lindsay has been there done that   Not only lived through it but really produced and it appears continuing to do the same now.  Guys wanna just talk smack on smaller backs may just want to consider the Cohen thread.  (Howard owns that backfield!).  

 

[Team Smokin']

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000964308/article/terrell-davis-lindsay-can-break-my-rushing-record

Break TD's record?

 

[Dismattle]

I like Lindsay. He's been impressive, but he's not going to be able to be a long-term feature back at his size (weight) in today's NFL.

I wouldn't put anything else past him, though.

Disagree   I believe his size makes it possible to play longer and at a higher level.  One example just being conditioning in that the heart must work harder based on such things as height and size.  Quite possibly his conditioning at 35 would rival most backs at 30

 

[barackdhouse]

Ok so one thing that's been glossed over is the lack of targets in the passing game to any of the 3 Denver backs. I'm looking forward to seeing this change. If they continue to get so few targets, it does slow the train down for me a lot. Still early to tell.

 

[Biabreakable]

Thanks for the clarification. 

That updated list is far less impresssive. 

Would love to see it with the cut-off at 185. 

Interwstingly, the list above is full of guys labeled “injury prone” for their careers - Charles, Westbrook, Spiller, Bush, CJ. Garner blew out his knee, which isn’t really size-related.

but yeah - health was a concern for most of those cats most of their careers.

and “GIGO” is an old expression for data. It doesn’t meant the data itself is garbage - just that if an inaccurate data set is used the end result will also be inaccurate. In this case the premise that 215 lbs repressents a “small” RB. 

Yes I know what gigo means as this is something very relevant to my work as a geospatial analyst. I am sensitive to that and I try to avoid it as much as possible.

It is a bit easier to do for my work than it is regarding football which has a lot of variables affecting results such as rushing attempts. The weight of the players is also always changing. Especially young players. They tend to gain or lose weight after they enter the NFL. The weight that teams list their players at after the combine are usually inaccurate. The tendency is to list Rb as heavier than they are on depth charts and team roster pages. For really heavy players they are often listed as lighter than they actually are.

Their weight at the combine is the only measure that I have confidence in being accurate. But I know their weights change after the combine commonly.

 

[Biabreakable]

Rookie years from 1994 thru 2010 here.  Another way to look at this particular list is to say that we can add a name to the list roughly every two years.  And we may be overdue for another.  Or two.  Doesn't mean it will happen or that it has to.  But it certainly shouldn't be shocking.

Yeah if anyone wants to expand on what I started the data sample could be improved. It just would take more time to look at the years prior to 2000.

We might prefer touches to rushing attempts as well. That would add guys like Woodhead and others to the lists.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Yes I know what gigo means as this is something very relevant to my work as a geospatial analyst.

That sounds impressive! What exactly does a geospatial analyst do? 

We used it a lot in project management (my past life) - when evaluating scope & especially ROI of a project, far too often proposals would contain a data point (or multiple) that skewed results favorably in attempt to justify a project that would otherwise get shot down.

We didn’t say it as an insult - just became a catch-all for a far-too-frequent flaw in presentations.  

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Yeah if anyone wants to expand on what I started the data sample could be improved. It just would take more time to look at the years prior to 2000.

Honestly, all devil’s advocate type stuff aside, I’m not sure it would bear any more fruit. It may even hurt the cause because of the lack of undersized backs. It’s an old stigma that’s only started to change in recent history, so IMO 18 years is plenty of data.

We might prefer touches to rushing attempts as well. That would add guys like Woodhead and others to the lists.

Absolutely. The more data the better. Number of touches is definitely more relevant than just carries. Any time a player can get hit is the important part. 

I recall reading a great article about 300+ touch RBs some years back, and the correlation between # of touches & the likelihood of injury/ineffectiveness the following season. 

Also, times appearing on the injury report, and YPC following such a report. e.g. were they hurt more often than “big” backs, and/or how did their production suffer as a result. 

It would take a pretty comprehensive study, and at the end I’m still not sure it would effectively prove or disprove anything since it’s such a case by case kind of thing. 

Coming full circle here, If lindsay gets hurt this week, it doesn’t prove smaller backs can’t be successful/stay healthy. And if Lindsay goes all season, has 250 touches and stays healthy/productive it doesn’t entirely dispel the myth either.

it just proves it for Lindsay. 

 

[Biabreakable]

That’s the rub though - sometimes they’d be questionable and underperform. 

Sometimes they’d do as you suggest. 

But if ws’re really trying to evaluate whether size plays a role in durability, injury reports & tags should be considered. And that can be objectively compared with specific metrics like YPC, or overall production. As you say, if they go out and put up 125/1, clearly the injury didn’t matter.

if they go out and put up 67/0, maybe it did. 

But since we don’t have that data, we can’t definitively say whether smaller RBs are more or less liklely to get hurt.

were I an NFL GM, I’d be looking at prototypical RBs.

As an aside, I wonder why no one’s mentioned Doug Martin? He was a beast one year, then kept getting hurt. “Muscle hamster” was kind of undersized IIRC.  Now he’s a backup in Oakland, but he had a hard time staying on the field in Tampa Bay. 

Doug Martin was actually heavier than Cedric Benson at the combine but you are right some considered him small because of his height or the eyeball test. I don't think anyone thought Benson was a small rb. Peoples perceptions of this vary.

 

[Football Jones]

The problem with going too far back (& it doesn't have to be very far), is the NFL has changed & IS changing.

More defensive sub packages has resulted in faster personnel on the field. Long gone are the days a typical 200 pound RB has a speed/quickness advantage over everyone but CBs.

You also have the dynamic of D personnel being bigger on average at each position than in years past. Bigger, stronger, faster, quicker on D, but there's still a lot of RBs coming into the league at 200 - 210 without the traits needed to be long-term feature backs.

Unless they have elite escapability skills or are huge outliers for power-to-size ratio, or a good combination of both, the speed & size of defenders makes it extremely difficult for the smaller RB. They tend to get swallowed up.

 

[Biabreakable]

That sounds impressive! What exactly does a geospatial analyst do? 

We used it a lot in project management (my past life) - when evaluating scope & especially ROI of a project, far too often proposals would contain a data point (or multiple) that skewed results favorably in attempt to justify a project that would otherwise get shot down.

We didn’t say it as an insult - just became a catch-all for a far-too-frequent flaw in presentations.  

Depends on the clients needs. Google maps is a well known example of a geographic information system. I make things like that.