The most valuable 2007 NFL RB (not Fantasy RB) is... (1 Viewer)

[wilked]

According to Football Outsiders ( www.footballoutsiders.com ), Brian Westbrook, and it's not close. For those not familiar, FB Outsiders does some serious statistical work on the NFL and computes various things. For RBs, they have two measures that interest me:

DPAR: Defense-adjusted Points Above Replacement. This number represents the total number of points scored due to plays where this RB carried/caught the ball, compared to a replacement-level RB in the same game situations

DVOA: Defense-adjusted Value Over Average - Basically spits out a % that the RB is better than an NFL-average RB (after adjusting for quality of defense. It is scaled by carries, so a RB that does a lot with a handful of carries a game (think MJD 2006) will be better then a RB that does 'solid' for a bunch of carries

DPAR shows who helped win the game the most, bottom line. DVOA showed who did the most with the oppotunities given to them.

Numbers from here

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/rb.php

I have summarized into two tables below:

DPAR

Player	Team	DPAR	Runs	Yards	TD36-B.Westbrook	PHI	44.9	271	1291	721-L.Tomlinson	SD	35.8	280	1311	1424-M.Barber	DAL	34	197	990	1029-J.Addai	IND	28.7	257	1045	1228-A.Peterson	MIN	28.2	228	1307	1239-L.Maroney	NE	25.1	166	789	427-B.Jacobs	NYG	24	186	950	428-F.Taylor	JAC	22.9	223	1225	533-K.Watson	CIN	22.7	157	694	634-E.Graham	TB	22.2	222	898	1025-R.Grant	GB	22	182	899	736-K.Keith	IND	20.9	118	521	321-F.Gore	SF	19.5	237	1008	523-R.Brown	MIA	18.2	119	602	432-J.Norwood	ATL	17.9	89	555	129-C.Brown	TEN	16.7	94	442	444-N.Davenport	PIT	16.4	95	473	431-J.Lewis	CLE	16.2	272	1176	925-J.Fargas	OAK	16	222	1009	432-M.Jones-Drew	JAC	14.7	167	770	9

DVOA

Player	Team	DVOA	Runs	Yards	TD32-J.Norwood	ATL	32.30%	89	555	124-M.Barber	DAL	27.50%	197	990	1029-C.Brown	TEN	26.00%	94	442	436-K.Keith	IND	25.30%	118	521	344-N.Davenport	PIT	23.30%	95	473	436-B.Westbrook	PHI	22.60%	271	1291	723-R.Brown	MIA	22.40%	119	602	434-S.Morris	NE	20.20%	85	384	339-L.Maroney	NE	20.10%	166	789	433-K.Watson	CIN	19.40%	157	694	628-A.Peterson	MIN	18.10%	228	1307	1227-B.Jacobs	NYG	17.40%	186	950	421-L.Tomlinson	SD	15.90%	280	1311	1425-R.Grant	GB	14.00%	182	899	729-J.Addai	IND	12.40%	257	1045	1235-S.Young	DEN	12.20%	108	633	134-D.Williams	CAR	12.00%	124	596	228-F.Taylor	JAC	10.90%	223	1225	534-E.Graham	TB	9.20%	222	898	1034-D.Ward	NYG	7.70%	125	598	3

 

[SSOG]

Westy was the most valuable fantasy RB, too. He finished #1 in a lot of scoring systems (including mine) despite missing a game, and even in standard scoring (where he's second to Tomlinson), he still averaged more PPG, meaning assuming you have even a decent backup, you would have scored more total points from the RB position with Westbrook.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Even before they crunched the numbers.... I hope they new this already.

 

[DropKick]

This is not a shot at Westbrook. And this has certainly been an unusual year with respect to the number of RB injuries. But what does it say for the value of a running game, when the "most valuable NFL back" plays for a losing team?

Have we seen a significant shift in offensive strategy? Is the popular fantasy concept of "stud RB" flawed?

 

[SSOG]

This is not a shot at Westbrook. And this has certainly been an unusual year with respect to the number of RB injuries. But what does it say for the value of a running game, when the "most valuable NFL back" plays for a losing team? Have we seen a significant shift in offensive strategy? Is the popular fantasy concept of "stud RB" flawed?

Passing success just correlates better with winning than running success. I remember the season that the Dolphins featured the NFL's leading rusher *AND* leading sack artist and failed to make the playoffs.I think Westbrook might be the most unheralded "stud RB" in the league. Can you name another RB that finished in the top 2 in fantasy with so little fanfare? Even when Tiki Barber, Mr. Underrated, pulled off the feat, everyone was talking about how underrated he is. With Westy it's like he's off the radar entirely.

 

[JohnnyU]

Ryan Grant

Disclaimer: I don't own him in any fantasy league either.

 

[Colin Dowling]

I think that's the site that tried to take me to task a couple years ago for saying I didn't put much stock in a methodology that put Ladell Betts (or Najeh Davenport or whoever, I forget exactly) as a top-20 back. This time around, I take exception to the idea that Chris Brown did the most with his opportunities as 40% of his production came in one game. Similarly, the fact that Najeh Davenport ends up on the list at all is a little misleading. Are we to believe that Davenport is more valuable to the Steelers then Willie Parker, who was leading the league in rushing when he was injured?

 

[SSOG]

I think that's the site that tried to take me to task a couple years ago for saying I didn't put much stock in a methodology that put Ladell Betts (or Najeh Davenport or whoever, I forget exactly) as a top-20 back. This time around, I take exception to the idea that Chris Brown did the most with his opportunities as 40% of his production came in one game. Similarly, the fact that Najeh Davenport ends up on the list at all is a little misleading. Are we to believe that Davenport is more valuable to the Steelers then Willie Parker, who was leading the league in rushing when he was injured?

Is it really so hard to envision a scenario where aggregate stats don't necessarily paint an accurate picture of someone's contributions to a team? Imagine a hypothetical where a team has 2 third-down RBs. One comes in exclusively on 3rd and 10. Every time he gets the ball, he rushes for exactly 9 yards, and then the team punts. The other comes in exclusively on 3rd and 1. Every time he gets the ball, he rushes for exactly 1 yard. Who would you say was more valuable to the team, the guy averaging 9 yards per carry or the guy who gets a first down every time he touches the ball?Football Outsiders never claims that their numbers say "Player X is worth so much", the numbers just claim that "Player X, running behind his offensive line, with his QB and WRs keeping defenses honest, and with opposing defenses keyed into whoever they are keyed into, is worth so much". Najeh Davenport might have better per-play numbers than Parker without being the better RB because defenses key into Parker more, for instance. Still, when Parker's averaging 4.1 ypa while Davenport is averaging 5.0, I don't think it's silly to say that Davenport has been playing better this year.Oh, and Football Outsiders looked pretty smart for ranking Betts so high when he went off like he did last season.

 

[Assani Fisher]

IIRC FO predicted TB and GB to win their divisions this year.

 

[renesauz]

This is not a shot at Westbrook. And this has certainly been an unusual year with respect to the number of RB injuries. But what does it say for the value of a running game, when the "most valuable NFL back" plays for a losing team? Have we seen a significant shift in offensive strategy? Is the popular fantasy concept of "stud RB" flawed?

Is Philly a "normal" losing team? I mean, they've lost a lot of tight, tough games to good opponents. Their division is likely to send three teams o the playoffs. They will likely beat Buffalo in week 17 to finish at .500.They lost to Green Bay, Seattle, and New England by a grand total of 10 points. That total might have been 30 without Westbrook.

 

[Colin Dowling]

I think that's the site that tried to take me to task a couple years ago for saying I didn't put much stock in a methodology that put Ladell Betts (or Najeh Davenport or whoever, I forget exactly) as a top-20 back. This time around, I take exception to the idea that Chris Brown did the most with his opportunities as 40% of his production came in one game. Similarly, the fact that Najeh Davenport ends up on the list at all is a little misleading. Are we to believe that Davenport is more valuable to the Steelers then Willie Parker, who was leading the league in rushing when he was injured?

Is it really so hard to envision a scenario where aggregate stats don't necessarily paint an accurate picture of someone's contributions to a team? Imagine a hypothetical where a team has 2 third-down RBs. One comes in exclusively on 3rd and 10. Every time he gets the ball, he rushes for exactly 9 yards, and then the team punts. The other comes in exclusively on 3rd and 1. Every time he gets the ball, he rushes for exactly 1 yard. Who would you say was more valuable to the team, the guy averaging 9 yards per carry or the guy who gets a first down every time he touches the ball?Football Outsiders never claims that their numbers say "Player X is worth so much", the numbers just claim that "Player X, running behind his offensive line, with his QB and WRs keeping defenses honest, and with opposing defenses keyed into whoever they are keyed into, is worth so much". Najeh Davenport might have better per-play numbers than Parker without being the better RB because defenses key into Parker more, for instance. Still, when Parker's averaging 4.1 ypa while Davenport is averaging 5.0, I don't think it's silly to say that Davenport has been playing better this year.

Oh, and Football Outsiders looked pretty smart for ranking Betts so high when he went off like he did last season.

So, for comparative purposes, it's worthless? I'm not taking issue with their methodology. I know they put a lot of thought in to it and I certainly see some of the merit. I'm just wondering what the value is; if the notion is to try and compare players on their own merits, then I think it is often incorrect. If the notion is to compare players on the same team, then it's flawed by virtue of inconsistent data sets. And if the notion is to evaluate players in a vacuum without comparing them to other players, then I'm not sure I see the point.

Still, when Parker's averaging 4.1 ypa while Davenport is averaging 5.0, I don't think it's silly to say that Davenport has been playing better this year.

Are you being serious? YPC is FAR from being a great indicator of RB performance.Seriously, help me understand.

 

[Pip's Invitation]

This is not a shot at Westbrook. And this has certainly been an unusual year with respect to the number of RB injuries. But what does it say for the value of a running game, when the "most valuable NFL back" plays for a losing team? Have we seen a significant shift in offensive strategy? Is the popular fantasy concept of "stud RB" flawed?

Is Philly a "normal" losing team? I mean, they've lost a lot of tight, tough games to good opponents. Their division is likely to send three teams o the playoffs. They will likely beat Buffalo in week 17 to finish at .500.They lost to Green Bay, Seattle, and New England by a grand total of 10 points. That total might have been 30 without Westbrook.

And the one game he missed, they lost, of course. One more win and the Iggles are still in the hunt for a playoff spot.

 

[identikit]

This is not a shot at Westbrook. And this has certainly been an unusual year with respect to the number of RB injuries. But what does it say for the value of a running game, when the "most valuable NFL back" plays for a losing team? Have we seen a significant shift in offensive strategy? Is the popular fantasy concept of "stud RB" flawed?

A lot of things to mull over here.Hard to predict after the fact, but I'll bet Ronnie Brown would have been much, much higher (my guess would be top 5) for the losingest team this year (ok, ok maybe they would have won more than the 1 game had Ronnie not go hurt).Id

 

[wilked]

If Norwood was so productive when given the ball, why was he not provided more opportunities?

I did not watch any ATL games this year...

 

[delusional]

Most overlooked RB in football. Only people that tend to really know how good he is are the coaches he plays against. To think this was a late round draft guy from villinova

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

This is not a shot at Westbrook. And this has certainly been an unusual year with respect to the number of RB injuries. But what does it say for the value of a running game, when the "most valuable NFL back" plays for a losing team? Have we seen a significant shift in offensive strategy? Is the popular fantasy concept of "stud RB" flawed?

A lot of things to mull over here.Hard to predict after the fact, but I'll bet Ronnie Brown would have been much, much higher (my guess would be top 5) for the losingest team this year (ok, ok maybe they would have won more than the 1 game had Ronnie not go hurt).Id

Both Westy and Brown represented the bulk of their offense. The WRs weren't doing much in Miami, and Westbrook is arguably the #1 receiver in Philly.When you have that scenario, I would expect that particular player to be extremely valuable - both for the NFL and for FF.As for DPAR / DVOA, I'm not intimately familiar with the method so I can't speak to the implications of Westbrook's utilization as the top receiver for Philly and what that would do to the math.

 

[Wu-banger]

im in 5 leagues .... cashed in 4 out of the 5..

Guess how many league's I had Westy in ...???

Despite having his worst game of the year (fantasy wise) in week 16 and screwing a bunch of onwers in Week 15 by laying down, Westbrook was a huge reason most teams with him on it had a great season.

Even with me living in a Philly market , with my leagues filled with Eagles fans , Westbrook was a steal in most drafts going in the bottom half of the 1st round, a big bonus as opposed to the owners with LJ , Alexander , FWP ..etc.

PS ---- SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH !!!! Dont let the Westy bandwagon fill up..!!!

 

[awesomeness]

without Westbrook, i dont know if the Eagles would have got 3 wins this year.

 

[Lash]

This is not a shot at Westbrook. And this has certainly been an unusual year with respect to the number of RB injuries. But what does it say for the value of a running game, when the "most valuable NFL back" plays for a losing team?

wasn't Ronnie Brown the top RB before? (or at least very close to the top?)and his team was 0-fer

 

[Tau837]

I think that's the site that tried to take me to task a couple years ago for saying I didn't put much stock in a methodology that put Ladell Betts (or Najeh Davenport or whoever, I forget exactly) as a top-20 back. This time around, I take exception to the idea that Chris Brown did the most with his opportunities as 40% of his production came in one game. Similarly, the fact that Najeh Davenport ends up on the list at all is a little misleading. Are we to believe that Davenport is more valuable to the Steelers then Willie Parker, who was leading the league in rushing when he was injured?

Is it really so hard to envision a scenario where aggregate stats don't necessarily paint an accurate picture of someone's contributions to a team? Imagine a hypothetical where a team has 2 third-down RBs. One comes in exclusively on 3rd and 10. Every time he gets the ball, he rushes for exactly 9 yards, and then the team punts. The other comes in exclusively on 3rd and 1. Every time he gets the ball, he rushes for exactly 1 yard. Who would you say was more valuable to the team, the guy averaging 9 yards per carry or the guy who gets a first down every time he touches the ball?Football Outsiders never claims that their numbers say "Player X is worth so much", the numbers just claim that "Player X, running behind his offensive line, with his QB and WRs keeping defenses honest, and with opposing defenses keyed into whoever they are keyed into, is worth so much". Najeh Davenport might have better per-play numbers than Parker without being the better RB because defenses key into Parker more, for instance. Still, when Parker's averaging 4.1 ypa while Davenport is averaging 5.0, I don't think it's silly to say that Davenport has been playing better this year.

Oh, and Football Outsiders looked pretty smart for ranking Betts so high when he went off like he did last season.

So, for comparative purposes, it's worthless? I'm not taking issue with their methodology. I know they put a lot of thought in to it and I certainly see some of the merit. I'm just wondering what the value is; if the notion is to try and compare players on their own merits, then I think it is often incorrect. If the notion is to compare players on the same team, then it's flawed by virtue of inconsistent data sets. And if the notion is to evaluate players in a vacuum without comparing them to other players, then I'm not sure I see the point.

Still, when Parker's averaging 4.1 ypa while Davenport is averaging 5.0, I don't think it's silly to say that Davenport has been playing better this year.

Are you being serious? YPC is FAR from being a great indicator of RB performance.Seriously, help me understand.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

If Norwood was so productive when given the ball, why was he not provided more opportunities?I did not watch any ATL games this year...

Damn good question, and one that has been asked MANY times this season. Seems obvious that he is a far superior runner to Dunn at this point, but he has never really been featured at all.Some say it's an inability to block, others disagree. Another theory is that the coaches don't think he will hold up to a heavy workload.

 

[LILB811]

Including the playoffs last year, BWest has finished with 100 total yards or a TD in the last 25 games he's finished. This streak is still active. Just throwin that out there.

 

[428143]

Running back performance is mainly predicated upon the surrounding talent. Of course, there are a few outliers(Barry Sanders/Walter Payton/Jim Brown/etc) who would rank high on these lists regardless of offensive line/quarterback/system/coaches/etc...but a perfect statistical formula for evaulating RB performance doesn't exist. Stats can tell part of the story, but game-tape will tell much, much more...With that being said, if you watch Westbrook, it is more than obvious he is an elite back.

 

[fruity pebbles]

Maroney's very high on those lists.

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

Including the playoffs last year, BWest has finished with 100 total yards or a TD in the last 25 games he's finished. This streak is still active. Just throwin that out there.

I've had him in dynasty the last four years, and apart from injuries, I can't even remember the last time he's had a "bad" game (i.e. less than 10 FP's). Obviously, it's been at least 25 games given the above information.

Despite his penchant for missing a game or two a year, he's one of the safest picks on the board (very low to no weekly downside when healthy, extremely high upside) year in and year out, and he ALWAYS falls. I got him in a 12-draft redraft full of Philly homers this year at 2.03. I'm sure that kind of discount will be gone next year, but he'll still go between 5 and 7, which is also a bargain.

 

[Bri]

Tiki retired. Faulk's been done. I don't see what's such a profound thought here that the best receiving RBs (also fabulous runners) will be the best. Tomlinson and Westbrook doing so well was not a surprise to a real lot of FF folks in ppr leagues. Tiki and Marshall sure gave us a long track record of this happenning, Edge in Indy too.

 

[Bri]

If Norwood was so productive when given the ball, why was he not provided more opportunities?I did not watch any ATL games this year...

Damn good question, and one that has been asked MANY times this season. Seems obvious that he is a far superior runner to Dunn at this point, but he has never really been featured at all.Some say it's an inability to block, others disagree. Another theory is that the coaches don't think he will hold up to a heavy workload.

Alot of RBs have had that said about them and eventually proven a coach wrong. There's only one way to find out. No clue why each and every coach has to learn this lesson for themselves and doesn't learn from history.Lil Joe should have been the clincher years and years ago. If your starter is not rock solid, see what you've got.2 years ago, the Giants had Tiki, Ward, Jacobs, Dayne, and Grant. Next year that could be 5 NFL starting RBs. They will have precious little to show for it. Ward is a FA. Sadly, they could have just 1 of the 5 next year. They had tremendous trade value IF they had shown other teams how good these RBs were. Priest from Ravens to Chiefs....I can throw a team a bone for mis-evaluating draft picks and/or potential FAs but there is just no excuse for not evaluating the players on your team correctly. I mean geesh that's how they're supposed to determine the starters isn't it? Not properly evaluating Priest is one of Billick's or Newsome's(might be wrong about when they started, regardless Ravens GM and coach) biggest mistakes. Imagine what they could have received in trades for him years and years ago?

 

[Banger]

If Norwood was so productive when given the ball, why was he not provided more opportunities?I did not watch any ATL games this year...

Damn good question, and one that has been asked MANY times this season. Seems obvious that he is a far superior runner to Dunn at this point, but he has never really been featured at all.Some say it's an inability to block, others disagree. Another theory is that the coaches don't think he will hold up to a heavy workload.

Alot of RBs have had that said about them and eventually proven a coach wrong. There's only one way to find out. No clue why each and every coach has to learn this lesson for themselves and doesn't learn from history.Lil Joe should have been the clincher years and years ago. If your starter is not rock solid, see what you've got.2 years ago, the Giants had Tiki, Ward, Jacobs, Dayne, and Grant. Next year that could be 5 NFL starting RBs. They will have precious little to show for it. Ward is a FA. Sadly, they could have just 1 of the 5 next year. They had tremendous trade value IF they had shown other teams how good these RBs were. Priest from Ravens to Chiefs....I can throw a team a bone for mis-evaluating draft picks and/or potential FAs but there is just no excuse for not evaluating the players on your team correctly. I mean geesh that's how they're supposed to determine the starters isn't it? Not properly evaluating Priest is one of Billick's or Newsome's(might be wrong about when they started, regardless Ravens GM and coach) biggest mistakes. Imagine what they could have received in trades for him years and years ago?

Don't forget that they had Jamal who nearly broke the single season rushing record at the same time. Priest was a product of an incredible KC line. A good but not great RB. As far as RB's go, the Giants did trade Grant for a 6th rounder. RB's are plentiful and relatively easy to replace making trades very difficult. Even this year Jamal will be a FA, Turner will be a FA (among others), you have probably 4-5 good RB's coming out of college and a number the majority of teams already have their starting situation settled so the demand isn't there for the most part.

 

[enfuego]

This is not a shot at Westbrook. And this has certainly been an unusual year with respect to the number of RB injuries. But what does it say for the value of a running game, when the "most valuable NFL back" plays for a losing team?

His supporting cast sucks? Can anyone outside FFL owners and Philly fans name 3 offensive players on that team besides McNabb and they want to dump him too...

 

[DropKick]

This is not a shot at Westbrook. And this has certainly been an unusual year with respect to the number of RB injuries. But what does it say for the value of a running game, when the "most valuable NFL back" plays for a losing team? Have we seen a significant shift in offensive strategy? Is the popular fantasy concept of "stud RB" flawed?

Is Philly a "normal" losing team? I mean, they've lost a lot of tight, tough games to good opponents. Their division is likely to send three teams o the playoffs. They will likely beat Buffalo in week 17 to finish at .500.They lost to Green Bay, Seattle, and New England by a grand total of 10 points. That total might have been 30 without Westbrook.

The comment wasn't meant to discredit Westbrook. Look at it this way... Twelve teams will make the play-offs... who jumps to mind as being clearly an irreplaceable cog in their teams offense? LT and ?

 

[DropKick]

This is not a shot at Westbrook. And this has certainly been an unusual year with respect to the number of RB injuries. But what does it say for the value of a running game, when the "most valuable NFL back" plays for a losing team? Have we seen a significant shift in offensive strategy? Is the popular fantasy concept of "stud RB" flawed?

A lot of things to mull over here.Hard to predict after the fact, but I'll bet Ronnie Brown would have been much, much higher (my guess would be top 5) for the losingest team this year (ok, ok maybe they would have won more than the 1 game had Ronnie not go hurt).Id

Thanks for picking up on the real intent of the post. Not to question Westbrook's contribution but the role of the RB in general across the league. It surprises me but the first names that come to mind for me when I consider team MVPs this year are QBs; Brady, Manning, Romo, Favre, etc.

 

[Pai Mei]

Most overlooked RB in football. Only people that tend to really know how good he is are the coaches he plays against. To think this was a late round draft guy from villinova

I think its because you look at his numbers and you see nice yardage totals, but for most of his career he never cracked 1000 yards rushing. You see that and you imagine a career that might go a couple different ways. If he stays positive and works hard in the future he could be a break out stud. Or if the coach decides he wants to divvy up the workload or specialize he might take away many of his catches, or he turns into a 3rd down back if his attitude and commitment falters even slightly.He's also been injured a lot which leads to worries about erosion of skill.

 

[brock]

Even before they crunched the numbers.... I hope they new this already.

 

[Bri]

This is not a shot at Westbrook. And this has certainly been an unusual year with respect to the number of RB injuries. But what does it say for the value of a running game, when the "most valuable NFL back" plays for a losing team? Have we seen a significant shift in offensive strategy? Is the popular fantasy concept of "stud RB" flawed?

Grant may be the most valuable RB in 07 IMO. The offensive strategy, I don't think the NFL has shifted. I don't think this was a very good year defensively in the NFL. IMO the NFL needs more quality LBs and DBs. On the surface, many RBs look good; more than 40 maybe even 50(Banger's point I think) but many of those same guys struggle when they face Demeco or Ray or Brian or...There's always been stud MLBs that shut down run games but how those same shut down RBs do against other teams, that's what I think is different. I've seen more one RB backfields in 07 than I can ever recall and I don't believe you do that(unless it's 2 TE) against a decent LB corp. Maybe if you have ol Eddie or ol Barry but generally not putting a FB in and running successfully, with regularity, is a sign the coaches notice a weakness too.

 

[Bri]

If Norwood was so productive when given the ball, why was he not provided more opportunities?I did not watch any ATL games this year...

Damn good question, and one that has been asked MANY times this season. Seems obvious that he is a far superior runner to Dunn at this point, but he has never really been featured at all.Some say it's an inability to block, others disagree. Another theory is that the coaches don't think he will hold up to a heavy workload.

Alot of RBs have had that said about them and eventually proven a coach wrong. There's only one way to find out. No clue why each and every coach has to learn this lesson for themselves and doesn't learn from history.Lil Joe should have been the clincher years and years ago. If your starter is not rock solid, see what you've got.2 years ago, the Giants had Tiki, Ward, Jacobs, Dayne, and Grant. Next year that could be 5 NFL starting RBs. They will have precious little to show for it. Ward is a FA. Sadly, they could have just 1 of the 5 next year. They had tremendous trade value IF they had shown other teams how good these RBs were. Priest from Ravens to Chiefs....I can throw a team a bone for mis-evaluating draft picks and/or potential FAs but there is just no excuse for not evaluating the players on your team correctly. I mean geesh that's how they're supposed to determine the starters isn't it? Not properly evaluating Priest is one of Billick's or Newsome's(might be wrong about when they started, regardless Ravens GM and coach) biggest mistakes. Imagine what they could have received in trades for him years and years ago?

Don't forget that they had Jamal who nearly broke the single season rushing record at the same time. Priest was a product of an incredible KC line. A good but not great RB. As far as RB's go, the Giants did trade Grant for a 6th rounder. RB's are plentiful and relatively easy to replace making trades very difficult. Even this year Jamal will be a FA, Turner will be a FA (among others), you have probably 4-5 good RB's coming out of college and a number the majority of teams already have their starting situation settled so the demand isn't there for the most part.

Jamal rushing great is reason to play him alot sure, but Priest was there everyday. How do you not know he's great and consider yourself a good evaluator of talent, which a coach has to be?The KC line was fantastic but there's enough Priest highlight reels to prove IMO that he was a special back regardless. Fair point about there being alot of RBs out there now. I do agree it seems that way. As I said in my previous post(one up), I think they look better than they are. I don't think LBers and DBs (the whole group) are as good as they normally are in the NFL.

 

[SSOG]

So, for comparative purposes, it's worthless? I'm not taking issue with their methodology. I know they put a lot of thought in to it and I certainly see some of the merit. I'm just wondering what the value is; if the notion is to try and compare players on their own merits, then I think it is often incorrect. If the notion is to compare players on the same team, then it's flawed by virtue of inconsistent data sets. And if the notion is to evaluate players in a vacuum without comparing them to other players, then I'm not sure I see the point.

No, especially not compared to other stats. DVOA might only say "Player X, running behind Line Y, with passing game Z keeping defenses honest, was worth this much", but standard stats are worse still. You say that Willie Parker was the NFL's leading rusher, but the reality is that Willie Parker, running behind the Steelers line, with the Steelers passing game keeping defenses honest, was the NFL's leading rusher. DVOA is saying the same thing, but it adjusts for down, distance, quality of defense faced, game situation, and lots of other variables, which makes it superior to any "standard" or "traditional" stat for comparison purposes.Of course, nothing beats actual honest-to-goodness scouting (Football Outsiders does a lot of that, too), but their stats provide a very useful tool for evaluations. You can take those stats and build upon them with the rest of your knowledge. For instance, DVOA says that Westbrook is a stud. I know that Philly doesn't have a dominant run-blocking line, and that Philly's passing game doesn't keep defenses as honest as other passing defenses, which makes Westbrook's accomplishment that much more impressive. Compare that to, say, Adrian Peterson, who has a worse passing game but runs behind perhaps the premier run-blocking offensive line in the entire league. Or to Marion Barber, who also grades out very well in the advanced stats, but who has an elite passing game *AND* an elite run-blocking line helping him out. If Barber and Westbrook had the same DVOA, I could easily say that Westbrook's was more impressive. In the end, DVOA and DPAR are just tools, not a replacement for your better judgement. They're just like the standard yardage, TD, and ypc stats... only much, much better and more descriptive.

Are you being serious? YPC is FAR from being a great indicator of RB performance.Seriously, help me understand.

It's a better indicator than pure yards. If only there was a stat that took ypc and then adjusted it based on what type of down and distance situations those yards per carry came in, then I think that would be a better stat, still...

 

[DoubleG]

After going to the website and looking over the stats, I found it VERY interesting that Jamal Lewis ranked in the top 8 for receiving RBs in both DPAR and DVOA...just ahead of Westbrook??