JohnnyU
Footballguy
I think he has good burst the first 20 or so yards, but on that long run last night you could see a lack of top end speed.
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 Quinshon Judkins, CLE (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter JohnnyU
- Start date
TheDirtyWord
Footballguy
I thought Judkins was smart to transfer. Kiffin was running him into the ground at Oxford, and his physical style has only so many miles.
Under 200 carries in 3 more games than he played in 22-23 when he was in the 270-275 range.
Either way, he'll be a good banger.
Under 200 carries in 3 more games than he played in 22-23 when he was in the 270-275 range.
Either way, he'll be a good banger.
Mister CIA
Footballguy
He's fast, just not the fastest guy in the field, which is no crime with the way DBs are built these days. While I'm not suggesting he'll have the same HoF career, his size/speed combo and overall running style reminds me of Ladainian. If I'm drafting him as a rookie in dynasty I'm certainly hoping for that kind production, especially if he lands in the right spot.
And then some, it’s ridiculously deep and think some RB’s not in a lot of peoples top 5 will start getting consideration as such.
True, I almost mentioned top 10 as well. The year of the RB with some TE hopium.
So many RB's. I don't think the upper echelon of the class is on par with stuff groups like the 2017 RB class but I think it's in the conversation for the best depth.
I don't think the TE class is getting enough buzz. Some solid players past the top group, but I think 4 of them right now have fighting shots to be considered first round dynasty picks in TEP.
King of the Jungle
Footballguy
Who do you have at four (assuming Warren, Loveland, Fannin are in there)?
TLEF316
Footballguy
Getting caught on that long run waa a big red flag to me. Dude just completely ran out of gas and looked like he had a piano on his back the last 25 yards.
Don't think he is an elite talent, but he's fine. Certainly target worthy if he ends up in a good situation.
But he needs to stop with the cutoff booty shorts look.
Don't think he is an elite talent, but he's fine. Certainly target worthy if he ends up in a good situation.
But he needs to stop with the cutoff booty shorts look.
Last edited:
I've come across some info in the past week which leads me to believe Mason Taylor has that potential.
Dacomish
Footballguy
Officially declared for the draft:
www.espn.com
Ohio St. RB Judkins leaving early for NFL draft
Ohio State running back Quinshon Judkins tells ESPN he is leaving school early and declaring for the NFL draft.
Hankmoody
Footballguy
Not an issue for me at all, the rest of his game is rock solid. You have to expect 200 lb corners have speed to burn at the highest levels of the CFP
rockaction
Footballguy
I got a chance to take a decent look at this guy. He's not Henderson in terms of explosiveness, but he is very explosive and powerful and has enough long speed to get by. One run shouldn't count against him. That was a long season and long playoff run. He should be gassed. In all, it's probably fortunate he was able to do what he did.
Think about how NFL running backs look at the end of the year. It's like the M*A*S*H unit out there in the NFL on the reg by Week 14. This guy is good, IMO. I keep seeing his long speed in question, but it looks like he has plenty of juice to me, and I love forties and long speed.
Check his forty and his speed score from the NFL combine. Then you'll have a more complete picture. If he runs, that is.
Think about how NFL running backs look at the end of the year. It's like the M*A*S*H unit out there in the NFL on the reg by Week 14. This guy is good, IMO. I keep seeing his long speed in question, but it looks like he has plenty of juice to me, and I love forties and long speed.
Check his forty and his speed score from the NFL combine. Then you'll have a more complete picture. If he runs, that is.
Mister CIA
Footballguy
Without a lot of squinting, I see Ladanian Tomlinson in his game. If memory serves LT2 ran a 4.38 at slightly less weight (215).
I'm picking 8th overall I'm my league, so I'm just gonna move along.
I'm picking 8th overall I'm my league, so I'm just gonna move along.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
Tomlinson is closer to Jeanty, not Judkins.
Willie Mays Hayes
Footballguy
He helped his draft stock yesterday. Physically, he had as good of a combine as Omarion Hampton, who is most people's RB2 in this class. Similarly, Judkins was somewhere between RB4-7 for most. I'm curious if he elevates to RB3 especially with Kaleb Johnson testing poorly at the combine?
Agreed. If one wanted to do an absolute best-case scenario of similar type players, Judkins would be more similar to another Ohio State alum, in Ezekiel Elliott.
Faust
MVP
The 33rd Team
How Quinshon Judkins’ combine workout compares to another former Ohio State RB
Similar size and speed, with explosiveness turned up a notch
rockaction
Footballguy
Yeah, this guy just looked explosive from the highlights I saw of him. This is a more extraordinary performance at the Combine than people are talking about. I don't see how he isn't anything but RB3 after all this.
Jeanty
Hampton
Judkins
Henderson
I left off Kaleb Johnson because he also tested how he looked, which isn't that fast nor explosive.
Jeanty
Hampton
Judkins
Henderson
I left off Kaleb Johnson because he also tested how he looked, which isn't that fast nor explosive.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
I was down on Johnson before the combine, but what scares me if I pass on him is his Derrick Henry upside. Once he builds up his speed he is a beast and will be tough to bring down. Also, even though he wasn’t that great in the receiving game, he could have capable hands enough, just as Henry does and could surprise. He’s still intriguing to me even with my negative thoughts all winter.
pinkstapler
Footballguy
I read in several places, and then agreed after watching; Johnson excels in an outside zone scheme. And most of his above average/excellent talents coordinate well with that (and won't show as well in the combine). I would never argue he's fast, but I do think he showed a lot of explosion on film. It's just it was tempered by a Leveon Bell tier of patience and vision behind the line. But when the lane opened, he'd explode through with a low center and a forward lean that had him breaking arm tackles on a regular basis and ALWAYS falling forward through contact. I'd say he's more landing spot/scheme dependent than some of the other backs in this tier like Judkins. But if he were to land with a team like the Vikings who already run a scheme like that... look out. At that point I think his biggest negative would be his pass pro which would potentially hold him off the field IMO before his receiving ability/hands.
Faust
MVP
Austin Abbott
Quinshon Judkins at 18 Years Old:
275 Attempts
In 2022, Judkins was the ONLY Running Back in CFB to hit these marks:
He accomplished this as a TRUE FRESHMAN on LESS than 50% of Ole Miss’ Rushing Attempts..
rockaction
Footballguy
Worried about his broken tackle rate, which is an indicator of future success. Waiting for David Zach's grade on this guy, but right now Zach has him in the "watch out" category. Do with that what you will, but I'm waiting to see and waiting on the explanation and the numbers behind Zach's assertion.
But something to look out for with Judkins.
But something to look out for with Judkins.
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
Yeah, maybe. I haven’t seen evidence that David Zach’s grades demonstrate any predictive validity.
rockaction
Footballguy
I think they are correlated. And fairly significantly. I’ll have to dig further, but that’s what I remember.
barackdhouse
Footballguy
Yeah that is his Red Flag generator, no? If the prospect's broken tackle rate was lower than a certain threshold it is a red flag, that is the argument yes? I think that's a fairly strong metric in an ocean of garbage metrics. The list I saw for 2024 was compelling, but I'd like to see a 10 year set.
Last edited:
rockaction
Footballguy
Yeah, I think it’s broken tackles taking strength of schedule into account. Why SOS? I don’t know, but it makes intuitive sense. Take Jeanty for instance. He should get dinged for his SOS otherwise he’s freaking Jim Brown circa 2025, and we know that’s not likely the case.
But yeah, I’d like to see a larger sample and its correlation to fantasy points in the NFL.
barackdhouse
Footballguy
Oh yeah that's right, I remember he had it adjusted for SOS. That is actually a muddy ingredient I don't like as much. Not with broken tackles anyway. I like the idea of wanting to adjust for it, but it's pretty slippery. Nevertheless, applying the "wrong" sub-metric, but doing it consistently, can actually yield a useful result, in spite of being flawed. So even if somebody picked apart the SOS portion and said this isn't right, it still might work if it's applied faithfully across the board. Hehe ok more coffee for me as I continue my RB scouting. I know next to nothing about any of these guys.
I'm also curious about his broken tackle rate metric specifically because I can quickly think of at least 3 easy ways to eff that one up. And a lot of analysts now days are data mining that stat from other analysts. But broken tackle rate doesn't mean the same thing to one person as it does the next, per se. So it is possible that there are flawed methodologies being replicated.
I know these conversations happen ad nauseum in other threads and on X etc., but the method by which the data are collected, and the definition by which Broken Tackle Rate is being used, matter a great deal. Again, if it's "wrong" but applied evenly, then it isn't so bad. TLDR I am curious specifically about David Zach's methods because I do think he is onto something here conceptually.
Quick example, if a ball carrier drags 5 guys with him that are hanging on him and gains extra yardage doing so... is it a broken tackle? Is it 5? Or 0? Even if he turns it into a 1st down? Does it count when the defenders never broke contact but simply got trucked? Is there any kind of correction or allowance in the metric for ball carriers that are more inclined to take on tacklers vs those more inclined to try to make them miss? Instead of correcting for SOS how about the OL? We can go on and on about it but at some point you have to make a decision and say THIS is what the metric measures. Well I know these analysts have done that but do I agree with it? From a football perspective, not just a statistical analysis POV? Not really sure because I haven't dove in, but my experience tells me most analysts get this stuff wrong.
A 10 year sample *might* cut through all of that because we know the results. If his method shows a 10 year pattern of red flag predictability then we need to run with this. If it doesn't.....
rockaction
Footballguy
I couldn't agree with you more. Not just saying that, either. How do you measure what counts as a broken tackle and how do you quantify that?
I get what you're saying about ten years. If you can demonstrate that it has been correlated that long, then you're on to something.
I will say this: I think they're mining it from PFF. I don't talk about it very often, but I know a bit about how PFF works. PFF has many levels to how they gather these stats—at least two people or more oversee the film watchers and stat compilers. It's a large operation. I'm confident in how they count player participation, routes run, personnel formations, all that stuff. I cannot speak to grading and stats like broken tackles or YAC or yards before contact or stuff like that. But I'm confident in certain things they do for reasons I don't really want to go into due to privacy concerns, etc.
So if they're mining it from PFF, it's likely accurate. Now, what you're asking is a bit different than that, but if you agree with their methodology, then their method of watching film and being accurate with that methodology is probably more accurate than one would think.
barackdhouse
Footballguy
No that's basically it. I definitely have tons of faith in the consistency of the method as it is applied there for PFF, just don't know what the method is for broken tackles. But I like what they've done with drops and other metrics. Problem is we can't just create a 10 year database ourselves (without a bit more effort than I'm willing) unless we know the method and watch the film ourselves, create our own method and watch the film ourselves, or datamine and not be informed about what the method is.
So IDK maybe a sub to PFF is all it takes. I mean I know broken tackle rate is out there so is there anything like a 10 year database we could pull from if we had the right sub?
rockaction
Footballguy
Sorry. I crossed swords there. We’re saying the same thing. They will consistently apply their methodology and we think that is likely to be consistent; it’s just that we don’t know what their methodology is.
I don’t think a sub is all it takes. I think that’s proprietary and they wouldn’t or don’t make it publicly available that far back. You’d have to have had it in your own database from their database going back some years. They likely only go a few years back on their website for subscribers. That’s a guess and I can’t say for sure.
barackdhouse
Footballguy
haha yes well there is data collection methodology (DC) and there is analysis methodology and there is accuracy there is precision there is consistency. All words with specific meanings but get used loosely by everyone, including me.
Within DC methodology, I have confidence that PFF is using their proprietary brokent tackle definition in a way that is consistently collected as they watch film. I'm also confident in their ability to record those findings consistently even if private (it's an underrated source of error in DC - the ability to diligently record what you're observing). So yes they are consistently applying their method that we don't know. And that is part of the method itself, so it quickly can become a word salad.
Side note, you could be a HOF caliber data collector and be dog **** at analysis. Different worlds. And lots of people fit into those categories in that fashion in FF in my opinion. Great at one possibly terrible at the other.
A given method can be applied consistently or not (the way PFF sits around and watches film and records observations). That method has the ability to collect data within a certain level of precision (that is the broken tackle metric which aside from where we might argue the definition, it's pretty objective and straight not unlike measuring distance on a ruler down to the 1/16th of an inch we can say yes or no that was or wasn't a broken tackle), and the results display a certain level of accuracy between expected vs actual. Only way to really assess that accuracy is to fully test the hypothesis which is the red flag predictor and if we looked at 10 years we'd probably have a good answer. If there isn't a correlation, then we may say ok well where did we argue about broken tackles and did it matter? And we may say that the predictor really isn't a predictor at all. The expectation is a certain threshold and the actual results should reflect that. If they don't, then the accuracy of the data as a predictor is in question.
It's kind of nebulous I know. A more concrete simple straight forward example is the ruler analogy. The consistency of the DC would be how consistent are you or anyone else at making distance measurements with a ruler. Well, should be pretty high. The precision of the ruler is how fine a measurement can the human eye discern with that device? 1/16th of an inch or maybe half that because if that is the smallest tick mark, our eyes can probably see in between the marks and which tick it's closer to. So maybe 1/32nd of an inch precision on a standard household ruler. And accuracy is basically truth vs observed. If we measure something that is a known distance, and measure it against our own observation, how close is it to the truth? If you are cutting a 2x4 and need to make an adjustment for the width of the cutting blade, how close is the finished product to your measurement?
Ok I'm off the rails now you got me talking about accuracy and precision I need to step out!
rockaction
Footballguy
barackdhouse
Footballguy
it's just blabber
InDitkaWeTrust
Footballguy
If you have 10 extra hours per week for their training program, it might be pretty fun to actually work as a data collector:
Jobs at PFF
www.pff.com
barackdhouse
Footballguy
dude. I mean. Not to put to fine a point on it, but I'm a fed that's been RIF'd. I am actually looking, and can probably spare 10 hours as long as it's remote (which it is). thank you for sharing.If you have 10 extra hours per week for their training program, it might be pretty fun to actually work as a data collector:
Jobs at PFF
rockaction
Footballguy
If you have 10 extra hours per week for their training program, it might be pretty fun to actually work as a data collector:
Jobs at PFF
@barackdhouse
If you're being serious I have a bit of background on that opportunity.
The training is interesting. You have to make a cut in order to do games, and they cut a lot (and I mean a lot) of people. You have to be good at watching football and know the game. Then you have to forget all that and train yourself to do what they need. It takes almost all summer to go through it. If you're selected, then you're ready by fall to work actual games.
I can assure you that "fun" isn't really the word. It's interesting to see how the sausage is made, but the actual work is difficult and somewhat tedious. And you don't really get to watch the games like you think you would. You are there to enter data accurately and very quickly, which requires a whole different skill set than you might think. You can't just groove and watch the game. You need two monitors, a video program that allows you to pause, rewind, and fast-forward in precise increments, and a good attention span and eye for detail.
It's interesting, though. I don't talk about it much, but I went through it. I made the cut for player participation data collection and entry, but decided not to work in the fall because the pay isn't great and it was fairly high-stress, time-consuming, and there were other things to where I decided against it.
But I really appreciated and enjoyed the process, the people, and the company. I think their internal data control is pretty good considering how many games they chart and what they chart. It's freaking remarkable, actually, what a big operation it is and what a big part-time workforce they have. It's genuinely surprising.
InDitkaWeTrust
Footballguy
I wonder if the data collectors get access to the entirety of the PFF database? A guy like @barackdhouse could probably crush devy leagues with that kind of data at his fingertips.If you have 10 extra hours per week for their training program, it might be pretty fun to actually work as a data collector:
Jobs at PFF
@barackdhouse
If you're being serious I have a bit of background on that opportunity.
The training is interesting. You have to make a cut in order to do games, and they cut a lot (and I mean a lot) of people. You have to be good at watching football and know the game. Then you have to forget all that and train yourself to do what they need. It takes almost all summer to go through it. If you're selected, then you're ready by fall to work actual games.
I can assure you that "fun" isn't really the word. It's interesting to see how the sausage is made, but the actual work is difficult and somewhat tedious. And you don't really get to watch the games like you think you would. You are there to enter data accurately and very quickly, which requires a whole different skill set than you might think. You can't just groove and watch the game. You need two monitors, a video program that allows you to pause, rewind, and fast-forward in precise increments, and a good attention span and eye for detail.
It's interesting, though. I don't talk about it much, but I went through it. I made the cut for player participation data collection and entry, but decided not to work in the fall because the pay isn't great and it was fairly high-stress, time-consuming, and there were other things to where I decided against it.
But I really appreciated and enjoyed the process, the people, and the company. I think their internal data control is pretty good considering how many games they chart and what they chart. It's freaking remarkable, actually, what a big operation it is and what a big part-time workforce they have. It's genuinely surprising.
rockaction
Footballguy
You definitely get a subscription. I'm not sure how in-depth you're allowed to get after that. I would imagine that their writers do get access to those statistics (they sort of have to), and I think their writers come through the data portal. I'm not positive on that progression (through the data portal only), though, so don't quote me.
