Reasons to avoid Bush and Jones-Drew? (1 Viewer)

[Chase Stuart]

Last week, a poster here started a thread on how 2nd year QBs breakout. Many posters said that's what they expected after a year of seasoning, and that it simply confirmed what they already assumed. However, is that the case with RBs? History suggests being wary of guys like Bush, Jones-Drew and Addai.

Here's a link to the blog article: http://blog.footballguys.com/2007/08/15/re...-drew-part-iii/

Reading Parts I and II aren't necessary.

On Monday and Tuesday, we tried to decide who would be the better NFL RB, Reggie Bush or Maurice Jones-Drew. In the end, both were projected to have excellent careers. But let's take a look at their rookie seasons from a different angle now, one commonly promoted by fans of either as reason for optimism in '07.

From weeks 10 through 17 last year, Reggie Bush and Maurice Jones-Drew ranked as the 8th and 4th best fantasy RBs, respectively. This was a large improvement from the first half of the season, when Bush ranked 38th and Jones-Drew ranked 20th at the end of week nine. So it's easy to see why fantasy owners are excited about the prospects for Bush and Jones-Drew, but is it warranted? Bush's average draft position is towards the end of the first round, while MJD's is being selected int he early to middle parts of round two. In fantasy leagues that reward points per reception, both are drafted even earlier.

It's been argued many times over that the light went on for Reggie Bush, and he adjusted to the pro game in the middle of last year. If that was the case, then it certainly seems appropriate to expect Bush to play like the 8th best RB and not the 38th best. But remember that sometimes splits happen with no explanation at all. Further, Bush's big game of the season happened when Marques Colston was on the sidelines, and the 67 rushing yards in week 1 were his second highest total of the season. Bush's strong playoff performance shouldn't be ignored, but neither should the careers of Kevin Jones and William Green.

Like Bush, Green had a subpar YPC average as a rookie in 2002 (3.7), but the last seven weeks of the season he ran for 708 yards and averaged 4.2 yards per carry. It was certainly easy to claim that "the light went on" for Green, and in fact, many thought he'd be a stud in 2003. Green never regained the success from the second half of his rookie season, though, and was out of football last year.

Kevin Jones led the league with over 900 rushing yards in the second half of 2004, his rookie season. He averaged 5.3 YPC, and he was expected to be a stud in 2005. He was drafted as a top 12 RB that year, but was one of the biggest busts of the season.

It's easy to say that Bush and Jones-Drew are way better running backs than Green and Jones. But that's only because of what we've seen since the rookie years of Green and Jones. It's non-controversial to state that Bush has about a million times more talent than Willie Green did. But would you have said that after Green carried his Browns into the playoffs by rushing for 178 yards and two scores against the 9-5-1 Falcons in week 17?

Regardless, the question I want to look at today is whether rookie RBs that perform better at the end of the year play better the next season than those that hit the rookie wall.

Jones-Drew (13th best) and Reggie Bush (18th) were among the 26 rookie running backs since 1996 to total over 1,000 yards from scrimmage. The group was evenly split with respect to yards per carry average: twelve saw their YPC decrease as the season went on, twelve saw it increase, and two saw no change. When looking at fantasy points, the picture was much clearer: only seven saw their fantasy production decrease as the season went on, and only two or three of those seven were significant.

While some people like to use first and second half splits, the arbitrariness of those numbers often fails to reflect a true change in production. Instead, I like to use a weighted average formula to note progression:

Adjusted Fantasy Points =

1*(Game 1 FPs) + 2*(Gm 2 FPs) + 3*(Gm 3 FPs) + ... + 16*(Gm 16 FPs)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 + 2 + 3 + ... + 16

Here's a table of all 26 RBs, with the fantasy players that improved the most during their rookie seasons at the top. The "Improve" column is simply the adjusted FPs minus the actual fantasy points. The last column shows how many FPs each player scored in their sophomore season:
Name Year Team FP adjFP Improve Next YearClinton Portis 2002 den 289.2 354.3 65.1 274.5William Green 2002 cle 136.0 191.5 55.5 66.9Corey Dillon 1997 cin 198.8 241.4 42.6 160.8Maurice Jones-Drew 2006 jax 227.7 269.1 41.4 --Kevin Jones 2004 det 167.3 207.9 40.6 107.3Willis McGahee 2004 buf 207.7 247.7 40.0 172.5Jamal Lewis 2000 rav 202.0 241.2 39.2 --Dominic Rhodes 2001 clt 186.8 216.1 29.3 --Reggie Bush 2006 nor 178.7 207.4 28.7 --Anthony Thomas 2001 chi 178.1 201.3 23.2 124.4Mike Anderson 2000 den 255.6 278.1 22.5 96.4Edgerrin James 1999 clt 315.9 337.2 21.3 338.3Domanick Williams 2003 htx 186.2 207.3 21.1 261.6Fred Taylor 1998 jax 266.4 284.5 18.1 117.5Marcel Shipp 2002 crd 178.7 192.0 13.3 101.4Ricky Williams 1999 nor 117.6 128.3 10.7 194.9Eddie George 1996 oti 203.0 212.8 9.8 186.3Joseph Addai 2006 clt 188.6 193.9 5.3 --Olandis Gary 1999 den 173.8 178.1 4.3 9.0Cadillac Williams 2005 tam 161.9 160.0 -1.9 105.4Antowain Smith 1997 buf 149.7 144.9 -4.8 161.5Robert Edwards 1998 nwe 216.6 211.1 -5.5 --Karim Abdul-Jabbar 1996 mia 191.5 184.6 -6.9 211.3Warrick Dunn 1997 tam 186.0 175.6 -10.4 149.0Ronnie Brown 2005 mia 143.9 128.9 -15.0 158.4LaDainian Tomlinson 2001 sdg 220.3 194.4 -25.9 307.2Twenty of the 26 RBs played in the NFL the following season (Jones-Drew, Bush and Addai have yet to play their second seasons, while Jamal Lewis, Dominic Rhodes and Robert Edwards all suffered season-ending injuries before the next regular season). Olandis Gary tore his ACL in the season opener the next year, and Mike Anderson's role changed significantly, leaving just 18 runners to examine.Only Portis, Dillon and Green had better improvement as rookies than Jones-Drew. None of those three matched their rookie production the next year, though, and only Portis was close. William Green was a huge bust, and Dillon played nowhere near as well as he did towards the end of 1996. Further, the next big improvers -- Kevin Jones, Willis McGahee and Anthony Thomas -- also were busts as sophomores. Only Edge, Dom (Davis) Williams and Ricky Williams were able to even match their rookie production the following year.

On the other side, Antowain Smith, Karim Abdul-Jabbar, Ronnie Brown and Tomlinson were slow finishers that improved the next season. So four of the six strong starters improved on their <strong>overall</strong> rookie production, while only three of the thirteen fast finishers improved on their <strong>overall</strong> production. While it's worth noting that all three also bested their adjusted fantasy point totals, this evidence would seem to go strongly against intuition. We shouldn't expect to see the Reggie Bush or MJD from the second half of '06, and might be lucky to just see what we got out of them last year.

I used the same formula to compute adjusted yards per carry, but used Rushing Yards in the numerator and Carries in the denominator.

Adjusted YPC =

1*(Game 1 Rush Yards) + 2*(Gm 2 RYds) + 3*(Gm 3 RYds) + ... + 16*(Gm 16 RYds)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1*(Game 1 Rushes) + 2*(Gm 2 Rsh) + 3*(Gm 3 Rsh) + ... + 16*(Gm 16 Rsh)

Here's the full list, along with their sophomore production (min: 100 carries):
Name Year Team YPC adjYPC Improve Next YearReggie Bush 2006 nor 3.65 4.13 0.48 --William Green 2002 cle 3.65 4.05 0.40 3.94Olandis Gary 1999 den 4.20 4.56 0.36 --Clinton Portis 2002 den 5.52 5.80 0.28 5.49Maurice Jones-Drew 2006 jax 5.67 5.92 0.25 --Kevin Jones 2004 det 4.70 4.94 0.24 3.57Corey Dillon 1997 cin 4.85 4.98 0.13 4.31Willis McGahee 2004 buf 3.97 4.10 0.13 3.84Mike Anderson 2000 den 5.01 5.12 0.12 3.87Edgerrin James 1999 clt 4.21 4.32 0.11 4.42Robert Edwards 1998 nwe 3.83 3.91 0.08 --Karim Abdul-Jabbar 1996 mia 3.64 3.70 0.06 3.15LaDainian Tomlinson 2001 sdg 3.65 3.65 0.00 4.52Dominic Rhodes 2001 clt 4.74 4.74 0.00 --Joseph Addai 2006 clt 4.78 4.73 -0.05 --Jamal Lewis 2000 rav 4.41 4.35 -0.06 --Warrick Dunn 1997 tam 4.37 4.29 -0.08 4.19Cadillac Williams 2005 tam 4.06 3.93 -0.13 3.55Ricky Williams 1999 nor 3.49 3.35 -0.15 4.03Domanick Williams 2003 htx 4.33 4.18 -0.15 3.93Anthony Thomas 2001 chi 4.26 4.10 -0.16 3.37Ronnie Brown 2005 mia 4.38 4.21 -0.17 4.18Eddie George 1996 oti 4.08 3.88 -0.21 3.92Marcel Shipp 2002 crd 4.44 4.19 -0.25 3.64Fred Taylor 1998 jax 4.63 4.37 -0.26 4.60Antowain Smith 1997 buf 4.33 3.91 -0.42 3.75Reggie tops the list this time, as he really made great strides last year. But remember, William Green is second on that list. On the fast finishers side, of the eight RBs that played their sophomore seasons, only two of them improved. One was Green, who was still a big time bust for the Browns. The other was Edgerrin James. For the strong starters, only one out of ten -- Ricky Williams -- bested his rookie YPC average. Antowain Smith and Anthony Thomas ended the year poorly, and things never turned around for them the next season.So what's it all mean? Will Bush or Drew be the next Edgerrin James or the next William Green? Perhaps most notably, only four of the 18 RBs -- James, Ricky Williams, Dom Williams and Tomlinson -- had better years as sophomores. Fourteen RBs totaled over 1,000 yards as rookies, were poised to breakout, but then regressed the following year. And it doesn't look like the great finishes in 2006 by Bush or Jones-Drew should make them immune from suffering similar fates.

 

[NYGus]

Thanks for the number crunching and breakdown. I've been wondering about regression for Bush in his second season, but I think he is more of an elite talent like Tomlinson, not an ordinary RB like William Green.

I also believe he and Jones-Drew will both be top 10 backs this year.

 

[-jb-]

great read. i suppose i'm split by utter speculation only, but i see reggie bush improving and mjd taking a small step back. again, total speculation based on nothing but hunch and whim.

 

[Jayrod]

No how many of those guys were in a RBBC in both of their first two years?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Thanks for the number crunching and breakdown. I've been wondering about regression for Bush in his second season, but I think he is more of an elite talent like Tomlinson, not an ordinary RB like William Green. I also believe he and Jones-Drew will both be top 10 backs this year.

Even the most elite of talents -- Corey Dillon, Fred Taylor, McGahee, Cadillac Williams, Ronnie Brown -- regressed. But I agree that based on what we know now, Bush is a whole lot more talented than William Green. I remember the Ronnie Brown hype and the McGahee hype, and it's tough for anyone to forget the Kevin Jones hype. But Dillon had a bunch of hype too, along with Fred Taylor. One of the reasons Tomlinson improved was that he had a relatively low baseline, at least in terms of YPC. In that respect, Bush does too.

 

[John Mamula]

So where do you have them ranked Chase?

 

[The Man with the Plan]

I wonder how the team play affected those players. I know that Buffalo went from 9-7 to 6-10. The Bears went from 13 wins to 4 the next season and were decimated by injuries. Bad teams aren't good for running back production. I think it's important to look at why those running backs fell off and not just say since they did MJD and Bush will too.

I don't think it's fair to put Fred Taylor on that list because he was hurt the next season. He missed like 5 games and had to split carries with James Stewart. Maybe history repeats itself in Jacksonville. I doubt it.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I wonder how the team play affected those players. I know that Buffalo went from 9-7 to 6-10. The Bears went from 13 wins to 4 the next season and were decimated by injuries. Bad teams aren't good for running back production. I think it's important to look at why those running backs fell off and not just say since they did MJD and Bush will too.I don't think it's fair to put Fred Taylor on that list because he was hurt the next season. He missed like 5 games and had to split carries with James Stewart. Maybe history repeats itself in Jacksonville. I doubt it.

Bad teams aren't always bad for running back production, either. Look at Gore last year. The question of cause and effect is still relevant, too. Perhaps those teams declined in part because the running backs declined.While Taylor was hurt, he wasn't as effective when healthy, either. And he wouldn't have split time had he been more effective. He stopped catching the ball and stopped scoring, too.

 

[Chase Stuart]

No how many of those guys were in a RBBC in both of their first two years?

Portis was not. Green was not. Dillon was not. Jones was not. McGahee was not. A-Train was not. Mike Anderson was in year two (which is why I excluded him from the FP list, but his large decrease in YPC was still noteworthy). Edge was not. Dom Williams was not. Fred Taylor was, although it's debatable what the cause of the RBBC was (some combination of his injury, a decrease in effectiveness, and strong play out of James Stewart).Shipp was not. Ricky Williams was not. George was not. Cadillac was not. Antowain Smith was in a RBBC in year one, but not in year two, although his YPC dropped notably. Karim Abdul-Jabbar was not. Warrick Dunn was. Ronnie Brown was his first year, not his second (which makes his only slight improvement disconcerting). Tomlinson was not. Really, only Warrick Dunn was in a committee both years. He's probably the most like Jones-Drew or Bush on this list. But I don't think who was in a RBBC is that relevant; the more important point here is that lots of rookie RBs finish strong, and then don't even maintain their season average as sophomores, much less the higher second half production.

 

[Chase Stuart]

So where do you have them ranked Chase?

That's a good question, bagger. I like MJD a lot. I like Bush, too. As you might know, I don't submit rankings to the website. I haven't had my first draft yet, so I haven't had a need to really finalize my cheat sheet. I didn't write that article to drop them in my rankings, but more so to temper my optimism. It's easy to see what Bush did (88 receptions!) or MJD did (5.7 YPC!) and get giddy and project crazy numbers for them. An exercise like this reminds me not to do that.Most notably, I think the people that mention Bush's great second half are the ones that really need to reign in the optimism. The second half of the season doesn't matter any more than the first.

 

[strykerpks]

No how many of those guys were in a RBBC in both of their first two years?

Portis was not. Green was not. Dillon was not. Jones was not. McGahee was not. A-Train was not. Mike Anderson was in year two (which is why I excluded him from the FP list, but his large decrease in YPC was still noteworthy).

Edge was not. Dom Williams was not. Fred Taylor was, although it's debatable what the cause of the RBBC was (some combination of his injury, a decrease in effectiveness, and strong play out of James Stewart).

Shipp was not. Ricky Williams was not. George was not. Cadillac was not. Antowain Smith was in a RBBC in year one, but not in year two, although his YPC dropped notably. Karim Abdul-Jabbar was not. Warrick Dunn was. Ronnie Brown was his first year, not his second (which makes his only slight improvement disconcerting). Tomlinson was not.

Really, only Warrick Dunn was in a committee both years. He's probably the most like Jones-Drew or Bush on this list. But I don't think who was in a RBBC is that relevant; the more important point here is that lots of rookie RBs finish strong, and then don't even maintain their season average as sophomores, much less the higher second half production.

Excellent work Chase, this was a good read!But I do think that the fact that Bush and MJD are in a RBBC is relevant, just not in the way this study was done. I would like to think that perhaps the splitting of touches, whether right down the middle or not, will play a factor into thier production this year. Having "fresher" legs could play a factor and allow for better production in thier 2nd year, or at least go against the norm of this statistical analysis.

Do I think they will meet and/or surpass their production from last year? I think its possible but unlikely. But the data used for your study was mostly starting RBs. Is it fair to compare the two? That cannot be ignored completely here.

FWIW, I will be keeping MJD for a 4th...so I may be somewhat biased.

 

[packersfan]

Most notably, I think the people that mention Bush's great second half are the ones that really need to reign in the optimism. The second half of the season doesn't matter any more than the first.

It does if it shows an awareness by the player to begin to adapt to the NFL and use the skills he has to the best of his ability. I think that's definitely what happened with Bush. For lack of a better description, I think the light bulb went on in the Pittsburgh game and after that it was like a different player was on the field. He ran harder, with more authority and was more effective. He always was productive as a receiver but the big plays started to emerge as well. I'm not saying you should take his second-half numbers and project them out to 16 games (that's a foolish thing to do with any player in my opinion) but I do think it bodes well for Bush's potential to improve his production given the rather dramatic improvement he made as a player in the second half of last season.

 

[ceo3west]

This is a good analysis, however in regards to Bush there are two factors that I believe make him an exception to the norm:

* He is in a top 3 offense in the NFL

* He is arguably the most talented RB to come out since Barry Sanders

In the situation of guys like W. Green, Dillon and K. Jones, almost the exact opposite was true. They were on terrible offenses, and were relatively unheralded coming out of college. A player's situation plays a HUGE role in these outcomes IMO, and guys like Bush and Addai are in situations that really couldn't get much better for them.

As for MJD, I would tend to think this analysis would apply more to him. His situation is average and beleive he has a greater chance of regressing based on this factor AND the results you have outlined above.

 

[lawrence phillips]

I'm in the camp that believes each guy is a different case and the success or failures of Bush and MJD has nothing to do with what guys like William Green, Robert Edwards, Kareem Abdul Jabar and Olandis Gary have done. We're talking different players, different strengths, different attitudes, different talent levels, different systems, different years, different offensive lines and as in the case of Robert Edwards no beach flag football. I'm not going to worry about drafting Reggie Bush as he's a good a bet as any RB to see 70+ receptions and in a PPR league that is money. His rushing improved as the season went on and he'll be running inside more this year, so I'll base my opinions on Bush on that instead of the fact that Antowain Smith regressed a decade ago.

 

[John Mamula]

So where do you have them ranked Chase?

That's a good question, bagger. I like MJD a lot. I like Bush, too. As you might know, I don't submit rankings to the website. I haven't had my first draft yet, so I haven't had a need to really finalize my cheat sheet. I didn't write that article to drop them in my rankings, but more so to temper my optimism. It's easy to see what Bush did (88 receptions!) or MJD did (5.7 YPC!) and get giddy and project crazy numbers for them. An exercise like this reminds me not to do that.Most notably, I think the people that mention Bush's great second half are the ones that really need to reign in the optimism. The second half of the season doesn't matter any more than the first.

I agree that you should never just take a portion of a season and annualize it out for projections. I like MJD to be right around the #9 RB in either PPR or non PPR, but have been taking him in the 2nd if he is available. Essentially that is a form of risk mitigation of taking him a round later than my projections say I should take him, and if he is taken earlier, at least I did not overpay. This has been the case where I have been picking in the middle to end of drafts.Bush I like much more in PPR than non PPR. I have Bush around #8-9 in PPR, but 16 in non PPR. With his ADP Bush's hype is just too great for me to take, as much as I love him from a fan standpoint. Partially this discrepency in my rankings is due to me thinking that Deuce will be more of a likely factor in RBBC than Taylor. With Taylor hitting 31 this year the odds of him being hurt (ignoring the wrap he has gotten in the past) starts to really increase, or at least him taking himself out of situations to save himself. I think Deuce still has a lot of juice in the tank and Bush has another year to wait to really break out. Just like Steven Jackson who took a couple years in the league behind Faulk to break out, I think Bush will have a similar wait.

 

[Willowdoc]

I wonder how the team play affected those players. I know that Buffalo went from 9-7 to 6-10. The Bears went from 13 wins to 4 the next season and were decimated by injuries. Bad teams aren't good for running back production. I think it's important to look at why those running backs fell off and not just say since they did MJD and Bush will too.I don't think it's fair to put Fred Taylor on that list because he was hurt the next season. He missed like 5 games and had to split carries with James Stewart. Maybe history repeats itself in Jacksonville. I doubt it.

Bad teams aren't always bad for running back production, either. Look at Gore last year. The question of cause and effect is still relevant, too. Perhaps those teams declined in part because the running backs declined.While Taylor was hurt, he wasn't as effective when healthy, either. And he wouldn't have split time had he been more effective. He stopped catching the ball and stopped scoring, too.

You reinforce my feelings about MJD, I feel like I am the only person who has him ranked outside of their top 20 RBs. His numbers were such outliers for the amount of work he got that everything seems inflated. I just don't see double digit touchdowns again for a second string back who will lose red zone carries to Greg Jones. The great thing about being wrong on a player who you don't like is that it only really hurts when he significantly ouperforms the position he is taken in. Only an injurty to notsofragile Freddy will allow that.I will probably take Bush in the first round of at least one league I am in, but that league rewards boom/bust players - no head to head (total points only) and large rewards for weekly wins. Your analysis probably reinforces that I would not take him in a traditional fantasy league where I would need to to get him.

 

[Bad_Mo]

So where do you have them ranked Chase?

That's a good question, bagger. I like MJD a lot. I like Bush, too. As you might know, I don't submit rankings to the website. I haven't had my first draft yet, so I haven't had a need to really finalize my cheat sheet. I didn't write that article to drop them in my rankings, but more so to temper my optimism. It's easy to see what Bush did (88 receptions!) or MJD did (5.7 YPC!) and get giddy and project crazy numbers for them. An exercise like this reminds me not to do that.Most notably, I think the people that mention Bush's great second half are the ones that really need to reign in the optimism. The second half of the season doesn't matter any more than the first.

Can I get a copy of that cheatsheet, Chase? I always look to you as one with great insight.

 

[redman]

This has probably been asked already, but:

1) how many of those RB's missed games due to injury their 2nd season?

2) what were the winning %'s of their teams in year 1 versus year 2?

3) what were the yards per carry of their teams in year 1 versus year 2?

4) how many of those RB's were the projected starters for their teams in year 1 versus year 2?

I think that these are important factors that should be considered before we simply accept the #'s at face value. Guys like Dominick Rhodes and Olandis Gary could not fairly be considered to have been expected to repeat their rookie performances given that they weren't really supposed to be the starters to begin with.

 

[Pnishthm]

So where do you have them ranked Chase?

Most notably, I think the people that mention Bush's great second half are the ones that really need to reign in the optimism. The second half of the season doesn't matter any more than the first.

I would agree with this for 2nd year players and above. But I would think a solid second half of the season for a rookie would be more telling than the first half of the season.

 

[j3r3m3y]

Thanks for the number crunching and breakdown. I've been wondering about regression for Bush in his second season, but I think he is more of an elite talent like Tomlinson,

As an athlete sure.As a running back As far as running backs go, he is a great wide receiver.

 

[j3r3m3y]

So where do you have them ranked Chase?

Most notably, I think the people that mention Bush's great second half are the ones that really need to reign in the optimism. The second half of the season doesn't matter any more than the first.

I would agree with this for 2nd year players and above. But I would think a solid second half of the season for a rookie would be more telling than the first half of the season.

See Kevin Jones.

 

[John Mamula]

Thanks for the number crunching and breakdown. I've been wondering about regression for Bush in his second season, but I think he is more of an elite talent like Tomlinson,

As an athlete sure.As a running back As far as running backs go, he is a great wide receiver.

 

[packersfan]

So where do you have them ranked Chase?

Most notably, I think the people that mention Bush's great second half are the ones that really need to reign in the optimism. The second half of the season doesn't matter any more than the first.

I would agree with this for 2nd year players and above. But I would think a solid second half of the season for a rookie would be more telling than the first half of the season.

See Kevin Jones.

My personal belief is Bush is a more talented RB than Jones. And as much as I like Mooch, I think Payton is a FAR superior playcaller who will do a much better job of taking advantage of Bush's talent than Mooch did with Jones. I think the situation for Bush is much better than it was for Jones in his second season.

 

[LawFitz]

I'm in the camp that believes each guy is a different case and the success or failures of Bush and MJD has nothing to do with what guys like William Green, Robert Edwards, Kareem Abdul Jabar and Olandis Gary have done. We're talking different players, different strengths, different attitudes, different talent levels, different systems, different years, different offensive lines and as in the case of Robert Edwards no beach flag football. I'm not going to worry about drafting Reggie Bush as he's a good a bet as any RB to see 70+ receptions and in a PPR league that is money. His rushing improved as the season went on and he'll be running inside more this year, so I'll base my opinions on Bush on that instead of the fact that Antowain Smith regressed a decade ago.

There are WAY too many differing variables between situations to make this type of analysis meaningful. If somebody wants to compare Reggie Bush to Marshall Faulk, I'll buy it. But comparing him to Olandis Gary and Fatwon Smith is a farce.Statistical analysis is great for relatively homogeneous environments like electoral sampling. But for instances like this with TREMENDOUS differences in situation on MULTIPLE levels, comparing Reg and Mo to these past guys tells me almost nothing about these particular two going forward. Maybe for a wider sample of rookie RBs over time it has greater meaning to help determine an average rate of success, but both of these guys are far from the average IMO.Bush is a stud. Period. So is Mo.

 

[j3r3m3y]

So where do you have them ranked Chase?

Most notably, I think the people that mention Bush's great second half are the ones that really need to reign in the optimism. The second half of the season doesn't matter any more than the first.

I would agree with this for 2nd year players and above. But I would think a solid second half of the season for a rookie would be more telling than the first half of the season.

See Kevin Jones.

My personal belief is Bush is a more talented RB than Jones. And as much as I like Mooch, I think Payton is a FAR superior playcaller who will do a much better job of taking advantage of Bush's talent than Mooch did with Jones. I think the situation for Bush is much better than it was for Jones in his second season.

You may be right, but the odds are against you according to the OP. Then again it could just be too small a sample size to matter.

 

[gianmarco]

I think a lot of people are misinterpreting the point of Chase's thread. He is not saying that MJD or Bush are going to fail. In fact, he stated he is still big fans of both. But the #'s and analysis he posted don't lie. It is definitely indicative of a trend. Take it with a grain of salt. Understand that MJD and Bush may not be the locks that 98% of the fantasy world is making them out to be. Yes, they are fantastic talents and yes there are many reasons to think they will do well. But I can assure you that the same was thought for some of the above players that regressed in their 2nd year. Everyone keeps repeating the names of William Green and Olandis Gary, but there were other successful RB's listed that suffered similar fates.

This thread isn't meant to discourage drafting these guys or even to drop them in the rankings. But it's something to be aware of and to possibly temper expectations. To completely dismiss it because of all the different variables and situations and what not isn't wise. Take the info with a grain of salt.

 

[GDogg]

It would be pretty tough to find this out, but it would be helpful if we could see what changes in the OL and schedule there were between Year 1 and Year 2.

I would guess William Green's Cleveland line was terrible and playing in the same division as the Ravens and Steelers probably didn't help his cause. And, since I got screwed by Kevin Jones, I KNOW his OL was terrible, but so was the offensive scheme (Mariucci got fired in the middle of the season). However, I recall one of Jones' saving graces was supposed to be his fantastic RB SOS.

So, I would imagine Green had the double whammy - bad OL with a tough RB SOS. And, Jones got hit really hard with the OL/offensive scheme, but should have been helped by the SOS.

How do Bush and Drew compare?

Well, I won't give away premium content, but let's just say that they are in much better 2nd year situations than the above two RB's. I got burned badly by Kevin Jones, but I don't really blame him for the lack of production because I watched all of those painful Lions games and it taught me a valuable lesson - the OL is very, very important in analyzing how a RB is going to do during the season.

 

[j3r3m3y]

Well, I won't give away premium content, but let's just say that they are in much better 2nd year situations than the above two RB's.

Doesn't that also mean that their first year performance was even more remarkable?

 

[Chase Stuart]

This has probably been asked already, but:1) how many of those RB's missed games due to injury their 2nd season?2) what were the winning %'s of their teams in year 1 versus year 2?3) what were the yards per carry of their teams in year 1 versus year 2?4) how many of those RB's were the projected starters for their teams in year 1 versus year 2? I think that these are important factors that should be considered before we simply accept the #'s at face value. Guys like Dominick Rhodes and Olandis Gary could not fairly be considered to have been expected to repeat their rookie performances given that they weren't really supposed to be the starters to begin with.

Dom Rhodes, Olandis Gary, Jamal Lewis, Mike Anderson and Robert Edwards were excluded for those obvious reasons. All of the other RBs were the projected starters for their teams in year 2. A few RBs missed games due to injury, but I don't think that biases the results. I did not look at team winning percentage or team yards per carry average.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

So where do you have them ranked Chase?

That's a good question, bagger. I like MJD a lot. I like Bush, too. As you might know, I don't submit rankings to the website. I haven't had my first draft yet, so I haven't had a need to really finalize my cheat sheet. I didn't write that article to drop them in my rankings, but more so to temper my optimism. It's easy to see what Bush did (88 receptions!) or MJD did (5.7 YPC!) and get giddy and project crazy numbers for them. An exercise like this reminds me not to do that.Most notably, I think the people that mention Bush's great second half are the ones that really need to reign in the optimism. The second half of the season doesn't matter any more than the first.

Doesn't the Adjusted Fantasy Points you created in the exercise do just that? Weight each game more as the season goes along?

 

[(HULK)]

I wonder how the team play affected those players. I know that Buffalo went from 9-7 to 6-10. The Bears went from 13 wins to 4 the next season and were decimated by injuries. Bad teams aren't good for running back production. I think it's important to look at why those running backs fell off and not just say since they did MJD and Bush will too.

I don't think it's fair to put Fred Taylor on that list because he was hurt the next season. He missed like 5 games and had to split carries with James Stewart. Maybe history repeats itself in Jacksonville. I doubt it.

Bad teams aren't always bad for running back production, either. Look at Gore last year. The question of cause and effect is still relevant, too. Perhaps those teams declined in part because the running backs declined.While Taylor was hurt, he wasn't as effective when healthy, either. And he wouldn't have split time had he been more effective. He stopped catching the ball and stopped scoring, too.

You reinforce my feelings about MJD, I feel like I am the only person who has him ranked outside of their top 20 RBs. His numbers were such outliers for the amount of work he got that everything seems inflated. I just don't see double digit touchdowns again for a second string back who will lose red zone carries to Greg Jones. The great thing about being wrong on a player who you don't like is that it only really hurts when he significantly ouperforms the position he is taken in. Only an injurty to notsofragile Freddy will allow that.I will probably take Bush in the first round of at least one league I am in, but that league rewards boom/bust players - no head to head (total points only) and large rewards for weekly wins. Your analysis probably reinforces that I would not take him in a traditional fantasy league where I would need to to get him.

Ahhh, my head explodes!!!Why on earth will MJD lose redzone carries to Greg Jones? Please give me 1 good reason.

 

[Tau837]

Even the most elite of talents -- Corey Dillon, Fred Taylor, McGahee, Cadillac Williams, Ronnie Brown -- regressed. But I agree that based on what we know now, Bush is a whole lot more talented than William Green. I remember the Ronnie Brown hype and the McGahee hype, and it's tough for anyone to forget the Kevin Jones hype. But Dillon had a bunch of hype too, along with Fred Taylor. One of the reasons Tomlinson improved was that he had a relatively low baseline, at least in terms of YPC. In that respect, Bush does too.

You should remove Taylor from this discussion IMO. He missed 6 games, with 2-3 distinct injuries during the season, and had 4 other games bunched around the two injuries where he had single digit touches, presumably the games in which he was injured and his first game back after each injury.

 

[Chaka]

None of the RBs on that list (except maybe LT) come anywhere near Reggie Bush's receiving ability. Reggie looks like a young Ronnie Harmon and I think his downside is on the level of Eric Metcalf at the absolute worst.

I also don't think that Reggie should be compared exclusively with RBs from year 1 to year 2, his skill set and the way he is utilized in the Saints offense is also comparable to the best WRs in the game. What do the numbers say for improvement from year 1 to year 2 for top notch receivers?

 

[Maik Jeaunz]

Chase, would it be possible to include in the chart the # that each player was drafted during the NFL draft?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Well, I won't give away premium content, but let's just say that they are in much better 2nd year situations than the above two RB's.

Doesn't that also mean that their first year performance was even more remarkable?

That's sort of my thinking. It's not like Cleveland or Detroit (or Cincinnati with Dillon, or Buffalo with McGahee, or Tampa Bay with Cadillac Williams or Miami with Ronnie Brown) had great offensive lines during the RB's rookie season. And players like Mike Anderson and Fred Taylor played behind excellent offensive lines, but still saw declines. Taylor's TD and reception rate fell down significantly, and Anderson's YPC averaged dropped a ton.

 

[Tau837]

As for Dillon, he missed one game. And the Bengals brought in Neil O'Donnell between his first and second seasons, and it appears the focus of the offense shifted a bit from running focused to passing focused. Do we expect factors like this to influence MJD or Bush?

 

[Sabertooth]

Thanks for the number crunching and breakdown. I've been wondering about regression for Bush in his second season, but I think he is more of an elite talent like Tomlinson, not an ordinary RB like William Green. I also believe he and Jones-Drew will both be top 10 backs this year.

So basically "thanks for the facts, I'll ignore them."

 

[Chase Stuart]

As for Dillon, he missed one game. And the Bengals brought in Neil O'Donnell between his first and second seasons, and it appears the focus of the offense shifted a bit from running focused to passing focused. Do we expect factors like this to influence MJD or Bush?

Well we should probably expect the Saints offense to not pass as well this year. The Bengals offense actually was a better passing team during Dillon's rookie season than during his sophomore slump.

 

[Tau837]

I don't think it's fair to put Fred Taylor on that list because he was hurt the next season. He missed like 5 games and had to split carries with James Stewart. Maybe history repeats itself in Jacksonville. I doubt it.

Bad teams aren't always bad for running back production, either. Look at Gore last year. The question of cause and effect is still relevant, too. Perhaps those teams declined in part because the running backs declined.While Taylor was hurt, he wasn't as effective when healthy, either. And he wouldn't have split time had he been more effective. He stopped catching the ball and stopped scoring, too.

See my last post on Taylor. He was clearly healthy for only 6 games, during which he had 671 total yards and 5 TDs. That scales to 1800 total yards and 13 TDs in 16 games. Sure, that wasn't the same pace he had as a rookie, but it is good enough that I wouldn't see such a regression as a negative.

 

[GDogg]

Well, I won't give away premium content, but let's just say that they are in much better 2nd year situations than the above two RB's.

Doesn't that also mean that their first year performance was even more remarkable?

Whose first year performance was even more remarkable?

 

[lawrence phillips]

I think a lot of people are misinterpreting the point of Chase's thread. He is not saying that MJD or Bush are going to fail. In fact, he stated he is still big fans of both. But the #'s and analysis he posted don't lie. It is definitely indicative of a trend. Take it with a grain of salt. Understand that MJD and Bush may not be the locks that 98% of the fantasy world is making them out to be. Yes, they are fantastic talents and yes there are many reasons to think they will do well. But I can assure you that the same was thought for some of the above players that regressed in their 2nd year. Everyone keeps repeating the names of William Green and Olandis Gary, but there were other successful RB's listed that suffered similar fates. This thread isn't meant to discourage drafting these guys or even to drop them in the rankings. But it's something to be aware of and to possibly temper expectations. To completely dismiss it because of all the different variables and situations and what not isn't wise. Take the info with a grain of salt.

No, I understand where he's coming from and I appreciate the work put in. I just choose not to use it. The only thing that Bush and MJD have in common with those guys is that they are NFL running backs that had early success. It ends there. That's really all these trends have to do with. I like both players, but there are some things I don't like about them, none of which are the fact that Antowain Smith struggled after his early success. That's like saying you should temper your expectations on Reggie Bush because out of all the running backs picked 2nd in the draft who have had good rookie years had bad years after that. I take into consideration what is going on now with each player and I don't consider William Green's fate when I am mulling over Reggie Bush. Any player, young or old who have had only 1 good season should be approached with more caution than guys that have done it for a few years. MJD worries me a little more b/c I think his TD numbers will be difficult to repeat.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I think it's time for some theory...stats are nice, but without a theory, they don't mean much.

There are two questions we want to isolate: does a rookie being a fast finisher/strong starter matter, and why do rookie RBs regress?

1) I don't think there is ANY evidence to suggest that fast finishing rookies do better than slow starting rookies. There's evidence pointing the other way, although I don't think it's overwhelming. The very fastest finishers were busts the next year. Willie Green, Corey Dillon, Kevin Jones, Willis McGahee and Anthony Thomas had great second half splits and then fell off. I don't think there's much to the theory that the light goes on. Think of it the other way...does the light "go off" for rookie RBs that start strong? That doesn't make much sense, does it? Additionally, when a player does really well late in the season, the question of the strength of competition comes into play. Lots of players are injured or banged up by then, and players -- think Bush -- that weren't used much in the beginning are a lot fresher. At the start of season two, this advantage is negated.

I don't think there's much to the "light goes on" theory. Conversely, Bush did have the best improvement w/r/t yards per carry as any RB in the study. But we're talking awfully small sample sizes, splits can happen randomly for no reason, and Bush's great game when Colston was on the sidelines raises a red flag about his future production. I see no reason to value the second half of the year any more than the first.

2) Why do good rookie RBs regress? This is definitely the harder question. On some level, there's natural regression to the mean for any group of players that hit the 1K mark. They stay healthy, they break big runs, they're involved in the team's offense....some things that are out of their control are going well. Things that aren't in your control, however, can change pretty easily from year to year.

We might hypothesize that a rookie that excels might get a big head and blow off conditioning/training in the off-season. Or maybe NFL teams will really focus on the player now, based off the one stud season. Another possible factor is workload. Kevin Jones, Willie Green, McGahee, Dillon (39 carries in one game), Olandis Gary, Mike Anderson and Anthony Thomas had tough workloads. Either 30+ carry games or lots of 20+ carry games. Does that have a negative impact for them going forward? Workload issues are very difficult to understand. But maybe rookies aren't ready for those high workloads. Did Willie Green ever recover from 197 carries in 8 games? On the other hand, players like Dickerson, Martin, Sanders, Tomlinson and James had very high workloads and didn't miss a beat. It's a perplexing issue.

None of the three rookie studs last year (Addai included) had very large workloads. To the extent that high workloads and not big egos/attention of other teams is the reason for the regression by prior RBs, that bodes well for our sophomores.

 

[Chase Stuart]

The only thing that Bush and MJD have in common with those guys is that they are NFL running backs that had early success. It ends there. That's really all these trends have to do with. ...MJD worries me a little more b/c I think his TD numbers will be difficult to repeat.

Is that MJD statement based off what other NFL runnings backs that had early success have done?

 

[GDogg]

Well, I won't give away premium content, but let's just say that they are in much better 2nd year situations than the above two RB's.

Doesn't that also mean that their first year performance was even more remarkable?

That's sort of my thinking. It's not like Cleveland or Detroit (or Cincinnati with Dillon, or Buffalo with McGahee, or Tampa Bay with Cadillac Williams or Miami with Ronnie Brown) had great offensive lines during the RB's rookie season. And players like Mike Anderson and Fred Taylor played behind excellent offensive lines, but still saw declines. Taylor's TD and reception rate fell down significantly, and Anderson's YPC averaged dropped a ton.

That's why I asked the question. Did you look up the OL info or are you just assuming they didn't have good OL's or do you know who was on the OL's of all these teams in Year 1 and Year 2 just off the top of your head? I also specifically mentioned another factor on top of just the OL - SOS.I don't know who was on their OL's and I don't know what their SOS's were.

 

[Chase Stuart]

So where do you have them ranked Chase?

That's a good question, bagger. I like MJD a lot. I like Bush, too. As you might know, I don't submit rankings to the website. I haven't had my first draft yet, so I haven't had a need to really finalize my cheat sheet. I didn't write that article to drop them in my rankings, but more so to temper my optimism. It's easy to see what Bush did (88 receptions!) or MJD did (5.7 YPC!) and get giddy and project crazy numbers for them. An exercise like this reminds me not to do that.Most notably, I think the people that mention Bush's great second half are the ones that really need to reign in the optimism. The second half of the season doesn't matter any more than the first.

Doesn't the Adjusted Fantasy Points you created in the exercise do just that? Weight each game more as the season goes along?

Yes, that's exactly what it does. And the fact that players with really positive adjusted fantasy points ratings didn't do better (and often did worse) than players with negative adjusted ratings helps to confirm that.

 

[Joe T]

It looks like at least seven of the RB's listed have FP that go up from season 1 to season 2. There are several that are relatively flat.

Am I missing something?

I'm failing to see the regression trend...

 

[Chase Stuart]

Well, I won't give away premium content, but let's just say that they are in much better 2nd year situations than the above two RB's.

Doesn't that also mean that their first year performance was even more remarkable?

That's sort of my thinking. It's not like Cleveland or Detroit (or Cincinnati with Dillon, or Buffalo with McGahee, or Tampa Bay with Cadillac Williams or Miami with Ronnie Brown) had great offensive lines during the RB's rookie season. And players like Mike Anderson and Fred Taylor played behind excellent offensive lines, but still saw declines. Taylor's TD and reception rate fell down significantly, and Anderson's YPC averaged dropped a ton.

That's why I asked the question. Did you look up the OL info or are you just assuming they didn't have good OL's or do you know who was on the OL's of all these teams in Year 1 and Year 2 just off the top of your head? I also specifically mentioned another factor on top of just the OL - SOS.I don't know who was on their OL's and I don't know what their SOS's were.

I remember the OLs for most of the teams. I do not know about their SOS, but with a large enough sample, you don't have to worry about SOS.

 

[GDogg]

Well, I won't give away premium content, but let's just say that they are in much better 2nd year situations than the above two RB's.

Doesn't that also mean that their first year performance was even more remarkable?

That's sort of my thinking. It's not like Cleveland or Detroit (or Cincinnati with Dillon, or Buffalo with McGahee, or Tampa Bay with Cadillac Williams or Miami with Ronnie Brown) had great offensive lines during the RB's rookie season. And players like Mike Anderson and Fred Taylor played behind excellent offensive lines, but still saw declines. Taylor's TD and reception rate fell down significantly, and Anderson's YPC averaged dropped a ton.

Also, I just looked it up and I don't know that we can throw William Green in a traditional bust category - he only played in 7 games because of a shoulder injury and then suspension. Through the 7 games he actually played in, he actually had a better ypc, and was on pace for 1277 yards rushing on the year.This goes without saying, but actually playing in games is probably a huge factor in whether you do well in Y2.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Perhaps most notably, only four of the 18 RBs -- James, Ricky Williams, Dom Williams and Tomlinson -- had better years as sophomores. Fourteen RBs totaled over 1,000 yards as rookies, were poised to breakout, but then regressed the following year.

That is pretty interesting -- and I suspect it is related to the 2nd-year WR curse ("Whenever a player is first among his peers in some statistical category, it is likely that extraordinary skill and extraordinary luck came together to produce that exceptional result. While extraordinary skill may carry over from year to year, extraordinary luck tends not to -- and a decline in luck translates into a decline in production overall.")Whenever a player out-performs expectations over a short duration (such as one year), it is generally likely that he'll fall back to the pack a bit after that. For the most part, rookie RBs who gained over 1,000 yards outperformed expectations by doing so; so on average, as a group, they should decline the following year.

This phenomenon is explained well by Bayes' theorem. I need to get off my butt and finish my article on that. (Or actually, I need to stay on my butt . . . .)

 

[GDogg]

Well, I won't give away premium content, but let's just say that they are in much better 2nd year situations than the above two RB's.

Doesn't that also mean that their first year performance was even more remarkable?

That's sort of my thinking. It's not like Cleveland or Detroit (or Cincinnati with Dillon, or Buffalo with McGahee, or Tampa Bay with Cadillac Williams or Miami with Ronnie Brown) had great offensive lines during the RB's rookie season. And players like Mike Anderson and Fred Taylor played behind excellent offensive lines, but still saw declines. Taylor's TD and reception rate fell down significantly, and Anderson's YPC averaged dropped a ton.

That's why I asked the question. Did you look up the OL info or are you just assuming they didn't have good OL's or do you know who was on the OL's of all these teams in Year 1 and Year 2 just off the top of your head? I also specifically mentioned another factor on top of just the OL - SOS.I don't know who was on their OL's and I don't know what their SOS's were.

I remember the OLs for most of the teams. I do not know about their SOS, but with a large enough sample, you don't have to worry about SOS.

Why wouldn't we? If the ones that fared poorly in Y2 had very tough run schedules, then wouldn't that raise a flag that it might have been a factor?