The Slow Death of the Small RB (1 Viewer)

[Football Jones]

I'm going to post more on this, but in short, undersized RBs are at a distinct disadvantage in today's NFL, IMO (& have been for awhile). I'm not talking about the Tarik Cohens of the world, either. I'm referring to RBs under 215 (which is my new standard). It's not an absolute standard because there are exceptions, but you better have a LOT going for you & have at least one elite trait if you're under 215 as far as feature back-type upside.

Defensive personnel has gotten so big & so fast that it negates the smaller RBs who used to thrive using speed & quickness. There's still a niche for guys like that, but not as feature backs. I automatically eliminate RBs under 215 unless they have the traits that make up the exception. 

For an example, it's why I was much lower on Abdullah than the vast majority of FFers. At 203, he just didn't have near the required traits to make up for his size (weight) deficiency.

Anyone have thoughts on this topic?

 

[the lone star]

I've been noticing this as well. One of the reasons I'm not sold Hines, because Mack is bigger.

 

[JohnnyU]

I think it's the opposite for fantasy RBs.  Teams are moving more toward smaller RBs that can help in the passing game and create havoc in open space.  If a player is around 200 lbs, can catch, and is tough as nails, he most certainly has the ability in today's NFL to stay on the field and be the most productive RB on his team.   How many times have you seen big RBs fade away when it comes to fantasy football?  Having said that, I agree that smallish RBs are limited when they don't hold up under the pounding of the NFL and are a one trick pony.  But you cannot group all RBs around 195-205 lbs under the same umbrella.   Some RBs around this weight have a powerful lower body and when you couple that with a toughness, quickness,  and ability to create in space, that is an advantage that NFL teams and fantasy owners covet.  A guy like Bryce Love fits this mold.  He has to prove he can catch the ball and I think he will in the NFL.  He wasn't used that way at Stanford.  I'd much rather have someone like Love over bigger backs that run upright and have very few gains of more than 15 yards.  Not to mention they are more injury prone.   Love is tough and has plenty of  college experience running between the tackles.  I'm not saying he's Barry Sanders, but Sanders was a small back with a powerful lower body and had unbelievable quickness and vision.   I think a smallish back like Love could be similar to a back like Barry Sanders in that regard.   He has very good lower body strength, quickness, and vision. 

 

[zamboni]

To add to JohnnyU's thoughts, I think with the increased use of RBBC around the league, there is plenty of opportunity for smaller backs that can be very productive when paired with a banger. The Chris Thompsons, Duke Johnsons, Dion Lewises of the world. I would agree that smaller RBs won't be carrying the load nearly as much as they used to do in today's bigger, faster game. But unless bigger backs have a unique all-around skill set like Bell, DJ, Gurley, and Zeke (and likely Barkley soon enough), they won't be that big of a part of the passing game either. 

All the more reason why these all around three-down backs are becoming more and more valuable in fantasy football.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

To the extent that in a 21st century NFL, the role of the RB has become more specialized...yes, the only true bellcows you see have both size and speed (and versatility).

To the extent that 215 is the bar for go/no-go calls, Kareem Hunt, Melvin Gordon, and Alvin Kamara all check in at the 215-216 mark (listed).  They’ll be some interesting test cases like Kenyan Drake and Jerrick McKinnon this year.  But is Melvin Gordon put together better than Devonta Freeman; Freeman listed at 205 but standing only 5’9 while Gordon is 6’1? Dalvin Cook is listed at 5’10 210 as is Lesean McCoy.  Are they on the don’t touch list?  You might say they have traits that make up the exception, but it’s the traits that ultimately make the runner, no matter what the size.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

but you better have a LOT going for you & have at least one elite trait if you're under 215 as far as feature back-type upside.

You need to have a lot going for you if you're over 215 and want to be a long term feature back. For every Abdullah there is a Mike Gillislee or a James Connor.

Also, as others have pointed out, I think you are looking at it more from an "old school" mentality than the from the perspective of what RBs are asked to do in the modern NFL. So, I know this will  sound harsh and I really do not mean it to - but I'm just not getting this topic.

 

[gabes1919]

Seconded on the old school mentality. I'll take it a step further and say that part of the reason we don't see smaller workhorses is because of that mentaility. If a guy checks in small, it is assumed straight away that he is a satelite back and is not given the opportunity to be more. That means he inherently gets less touches/opportunity to perform and is less likely to show an ability to be relevant and necessary. When the sample size is small to begin with, you're not going to have as many examples of success as you would with what the NFL (for better or worse) considers proto-typical size.

Same logic (I think) as to why there is such a taboo on short QBs. It's such a knock on a QB prospect to be short (looking at Mayfield) but while there have been Johnny Manziels in the league, we also have Brees, Wilson, and Keenum. Guys 6'1" and under are given less opportunity and you know what, it's hard to succeed in the NFL. It's not a surpise that there are so many less examples of non proto-typically sized players succeeding.  The reason those guys who succeed need to have elite traits is because if they don't exhibit a hyper elite trait right away, they probably won't get the shot

 

[Nero]

I'm going to post more on this, but in short, undersized RBs are at a distinct disadvantage in today's NFL, IMO (& have been for awhile). I'm not talking about the Tarik Cohens of the world, either. I'm referring to RBs under 215 (which is my new standard). It's not an absolute standard because there are exceptions, but you better have a LOT going for you & have at least one elite trait if you're under 215 as far as feature back-type upside.

Defensive personnel has gotten so big & so fast that it negates the smaller RBs who used to thrive using speed & quickness. There's still a niche for guys like that, but not as feature backs. I automatically eliminate RBs under 215 unless they have the traits that make up the exception. 

For an example, it's why I was much lower on Abdullah than the vast majority of FFers. At 203, he just didn't have near the required traits to make up for his size (weight) deficiency.

Anyone have thoughts on this topic?

Ameer Abdullah at the combine was 3rd in the bench press and was 1st in the vertical, broad jump, short shuttle and 3 cone.  He was also a stud on the college level.  Abdullah should have been the exception.

 

[Biabreakable]

I think you need to do some research and provide evidence to support your claim.

If you do that I think you will be signing a very different tune. Your premise eliminates the majority of productive RB in the NFL in any era.

 

[Catbird]

As DirtyWord notes, Devonta Freeman (205), Dalvin Cook (2100 and Shaun McCoy (210) are all bell cows at under 215. So were Frank Gore (212) and Jamaal Charles (200). Drake is 211, Collins is 210, Jamaal Williams is 213 and Aaron Jones 205, Marlon Mack is 210, McCaffery is 205 ...   There are another pack right at 215 including Ingram, Lynch and Kareem Hunt (216). You are throwing out a whole lot of actual and potential lead backs using 215 as a cutoff. I would buy 205 as a guideline without exceptional other traits and favor guys 210+, but BMI gives a whole lot better measure of body type that weight alone, and a lot of guys under 215 are studs in a day when there really aren't that many bell cow RBs out there. I wouldn't adopt a standard that would exclude more than 1/3 of the available talent. 

 

[Football Jones]

I think you need to do some research and provide evidence to support your claim.

If you do that I think you will be signing a very different tune. Your premise eliminates the majority of productive RB in the NFL in any era.

I may or may not get heavily into this on FBG, but I know what works for me as far as scouting smaller RBs. I've done research & better yet, noticed a massive trend.

With all due respect, I won't be singing a different tune.

Smaller feature backs are dying...& dying quick.

As far as this thread, I at least wanted to see what the FF community thought.

 

[Biabreakable]

I may or may not get heavily into this on FBG, but I know what works for me as far as scouting smaller RBs. I've done research & better yet, noticed a massive trend.

Share your evidence.

 

[Football Jones]

As DirtyWord notes, Devonta Freeman (205), Dalvin Cook (2100 and Shaun McCoy (210) are all bell cows at under 215. So were Frank Gore (212) and Jamaal Charles (200). Drake is 211, Collins is 210, Jamaal Williams is 213 and Aaron Jones 205, Marlon Mack is 210, McCaffery is 205 ...   There are another pack right at 215 including Ingram, Lynch and Kareem Hunt (216). You are throwing out a whole lot of actual and potential lead backs using 215 as a cutoff. I would buy 205 as a guideline without exceptional other traits and favor guys 210+, but BMI gives a whole lot better measure of body type that weight alone, and a lot of guys under 215 are studs in a day when there really aren't that many bell cow RBs out there. I wouldn't adopt a standard that would exclude more than 1/3 of the available talent. 

I'm not throwing out some of those guys. Please read my initial post.

Some of those RBs clearly have the traits I mentioned to make the exception.

To be more clear, I'm referring to RBs who are able to be longterm feature backs. Real dynasty studs.

 

[voiceofunreason]

I'm going to post more on this, but in short, undersized RBs are at a distinct disadvantage in today's NFL, IMO (& have been for awhile). I'm not talking about the Tarik Cohens of the world, either. I'm referring to RBs under 215 (which is my new standard). It's not an absolute standard because there are exceptions, but you better have a LOT going for you & have at least one elite trait if you're under 215 as far as feature back-type upside.

Defensive personnel has gotten so big & so fast that it negates the smaller RBs who used to thrive using speed & quickness. There's still a niche for guys like that, but not as feature backs. I automatically eliminate RBs under 215 unless they have the traits that make up the exception. 

For an example, it's why I was much lower on Abdullah than the vast majority of FFers. At 203, he just didn't have near the required traits to make up for his size (weight) deficiency.

Anyone have thoughts on this topic?

But when have tiny 3 down backs ever been normal? I'd be shocked if other players on the field haven't gained more weight on average then the rb position.

 

[the lone star]

Yeah, small RBs are creating niches in the passing game, but they're rarely ever 3 down backs. That's usually reserved for bigger backs.

 

[Football Jones]

Share your evidence.

Again, I may or may not get into this heavily on FBG, but the evidence is really simple. For absolute starters, look at your league's top RBs last year. In my PPR league, only McCoy at 7 & McCaffrey at 9 were in the top-10 & under 215. In non-PPR, only McCoy at 7 was in the top-10 & under 215.

More intricate is the process is to extract the exceptions. Of course, 215 is not a prerequisite for a good RB. It's just my baseline for elimination on size (weight) provided they don't possess the traits to overcome it.

 

[Football Jones]

But when have tiny 3 down backs ever been normal? I'd be shocked if other players on the field haven't gained more weight on average then the rb position.

The thing is, I'm not talking tiny like Cohen. 215 is fairly heavy standard.

 

[voiceofunreason]

The thing is, I'm not talking tiny like Cohen. 215 is fairly heavy standard.

That doesn't have anything to do with what I said. All players have gotten bigger. I don't remember any 190 pound 3 down backs in the 80s or 90s. It's my observation that backs have stayed about the same size while players at other positions have gotten a lot bigger. Do you have 10 or 15 examples? Seems like you've made some bad assumptions. Small backs have always been underdogs.

 

[Football Jones]

In short, I believe it's a distinct advantage to have a process which ELIMINATES certain prospects.

It's not rocket science to say bigger RBs have a better chance at being feature backs, but RB is obviously a key position in FF.

As FFers, we have tons of debate about this guy & that guy & his ability to be a feature back. A process which better helps filter prospects is an enormous help. 

 

[Football Jones]

That doesn't have anything to do with what I said. All players have gotten bigger. I don't remember any 190 pound 3 down backs in the 80s or 90s. It's my observation that backs have stayed about the same size while players at other positions have gotten a lot bigger. Do you have 10 or 15 examples? Seems like you've made some bad assumptions. Small backs have always been underdogs.

Sure, all positions have gotten bigger, but RB is one of the positions where you still see a LOT of prospects coming through under 215.

When you compare them to the size & speed improvements of defensive personnel in recent times, the smaller RBs are at a massive disadvantage in relation to what you used to see.

I believe D specialization with a trend towards having more pass defense personnel on the field (thus, faster, quicker players) due to the very nature of modern offenses likely has had more of an impact than the size of D personnel.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I'm not throwing out some of those guys. Please read my initial post.

Some of those RBs clearly have the traits I mentioned to make the exception.

To be more clear, I'm referring to RBs who are able to be longterm feature backs. Real dynasty studs.

Who are the successful stud backs over 215 pounds that don't have at least one special trait?

 

[Football Jones]

Who are the successful stud backs over 215 pounds that don't have at least one special trait?

You misunderstood. I said those particular RBs UNDER 215 clearly have traits to be the exception. 

 

[gabes1919]

In short, I believe it's a distinct advantage to have a process which ELIMINATES certain prospects.

It's not rocket science to say bigger RBs have a better chance at being feature backs, but RB is obviously a key position in FF.

As FFers, we have tons of debate about this guy & that guy & his ability to be a feature back. A process which better helps filter prospects is an enormous help. 

Kind of weird how you keep telling posters that you “may or may not” share your evidence and yet continue to exposit how you are correct and how all evidence supports this. The nfl certainly seems to agree with you and thus only backs of a certain size are graded favorably and this given the opportunity to play at all. Cursory observation supports that. However, let’s look at an example from last year, the Patriots. They were one of the most successful teams in the league running the ball and their main group to finish the year was Burkhead, White, and Lewis. All fail to meet that weight mark.

 

[Football Jones]

Remember, this is mostly aimed at longterm feature back elimination, although, it can also help determine who can & can't be successful short term feature backs. That said, situation comes more into play in those cases.

 

[Football Jones]

Kind of weird how you keep telling posters that you “may or may not” share your evidence and yet continue to exposit how you are correct and how all evidence supports this. The nfl certainly seems to agree with you and thus only backs of a certain size are graded favorably and this given the opportunity to play at all. Cursory observation supports that. However, let’s look at an example from last year, the Patriots. They were one of the most successful teams in the league running the ball and their main group to finish the year was Burkhead, White, and Lewis. All fail to meet that weight mark.

Not weird, LOL. I said the evidence was rather simple & for starters, shared how many top-10 RBs were under 215 last season.

I may or may not get heavily into this on FBG because I might be doing an article later, but I at least wanted to get some discussion started & see the FF communities' thoughts in general.

There's a bunch of smart people in the SP so it's a good place for something like this.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

You misunderstood. I said those particular RBs UNDER 215 clearly have traits to be the exception. 

And you're not getting my point - in order to be a long term successful feature back, generally speaking, you have to have special trait(s) at any weight - whether you are over 215 pounds or under 215 pounds.

 

[Football Jones]

And you're not getting my point - in order to be a long term successful feature back, generally speaking, you have to have special trait(s) at any weight - whether you are over 215 pounds or under 215 pounds.

Of course. I thought that was understood.

However, the whole premise of this is smaller RBs have much more to overcome. If you take that at face value, then you can use a filter (215 for me) & adjust accordingly.

It's not enough to say feature backs need at least one elite trait. Elite traits aren't conducive (by themselves) to making a feature back. As I stated in my original post, you also need to have a LOT going for you.

 

[Football Jones]

I'm going to be busy for awhile, but will check back.

I appreciate the discussion, guys (& gals).

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Given this theory these rookies should be avoided (admittedly I do see bust potential for both):

Ronald Jones - 200

Kerryon Johnson - 206

Sony Michel just makes the cut at 215.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

but you better have a LOT going for you & have at least one elite trait if you're under 215 as far as feature back-type upside.

However, the whole premise of this is smaller RBs have much more to overcome. If you take that at face value, then you can use a filter (215 for me) & adjust accordingly.

It's not enough to say feature backs need at least one elite trait. Elite traits aren't conducive (by themselves) to making a feature back. As I stated in my original post, you also need to have a LOT going for you.

Again - why have the 215 cut-off then? Simply put you better have a LOT going for you if you want to be a long term successful NFL back otherwise you are just Trent Richardson, Christine Michael, Zac Stacey, Rob Kelley....

 

[Football Jones]

Given this theory these rookies should be avoided (admittedly I do see bust potential for both):

Ronald Jones - 200

Kerryon Johnson - 206

Sony Michel just makes the cut at 215.

Real quick, like I said, you can't automatically eliminate RBs under 215 unless they don't have the traits to make up the exception.

My drafts aren't done so I probably won't go into the rookies much.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

you can't automatically eliminate RBs under 215 unless they don't have the traits to make up the exception.

probably because a successful RB under 215 is not an exception, just less common. I am having a hard time understanding how you don't see the flaw in your logic.

In order for your theory that successful RBs under 215 pounds need to be "special" to be successful long term feature backs to hold any water, the implication would have to be that RBs over 215 do not need to be "special" in order to be long term feature backs.

There have been exceptions on both sides where JAGs held down the fort for a season or two as a feature back with good productive seasons, but they were always in danger of being replaced by a better talent, and almost always were.

Look at the two second year Green Bay RBs that are the source of great debate as to who will the lead the team in rushing: Jamal Williams (215) and Aaron Jones (208). By your "theory" Williams should have the inside track - which I would agree with but for different reasons. The thing is however if Williams does win the job this offseason, next offseason he will need to survive free agency and the draft because he isn't special. the same will hold true for Jones and it has nothing to do with an arbitrary cut off weight threshold.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

If you're saying that if you look at the recent trend of RB's drafted in the top 5 and what their size/speed/versatility combination is, I get it:

Todd Gurley - 6'1 227
Ezekiel Elliott - 6'0 225
Leonard Fournette - 6'0 228
Saquon Barkley - 5'11 234

...even Trent Richardson; 5'9 228 (at the combine).  Despite what coaches say, those players were (or will be) immediately inserted at the top of the depth chart as true 3/all down players.  And because the shelf life of an RB is short, the ability to come in and be dominant is a differentiator and having the three traits listed above in one package for the most part means high chance for success.  While RB has become a commodity position in the NFL, guys mentioned above are a cut above.

But I don't get the rest - it's as if you're saying unless you're really good (the 'exception'), you can't be under 215.  In terms of 'traits' none of the guys who have been identified under or at the 215 threshold were 1st round picks.  if you look at the feature RB's of 10 years ago, you see Adrian Peterson, Michael Turner, Clinton Portis, LaDainian Tomlinson, Matt Forte, Thomas Jones.  It's not that all didn't have size hitting the 215 watermark, it's just that from a profile perspective, it looks similar to today.

 

[ZWK]

There are fewer small RBs than there used to be, and also fewer big RBs.

Using PFR data, here is a look at the weight distribution of RBs who ran for 800+ yards in a season, comparing the past 3 years (2015-2017) with 2 decades earlier (1995-1997):

Weight  95-7  15-7
   -199   9%    4%
200-204  13%    2%
205-209   6%    7%
210-214  19%   16%
215-219  15%   10%
220-224  10%   26%
225-229  11%   22%
230-234   4%    7%
235+     13%    5%

Fewer sub-205 RBs, fewer 235+ RBs, more RBs in the 220s.

I also looked at 2005-2007; it was in between and closer to 2015-7 than to 1995-7.

 

[gabes1919]

There are fewer small RBs than there used to be, and also fewer big RBs.

Here is a look at the weight distribution of RBs who ran for 800+ yards in a season, comparing the past 3 years (2015-2017) with 2 decades earlier (1995-1997):

Weight  95-7  15-7
   -199   9%    4%
200-204  13%    2%
205-209   6%    7%
210-214  19%   16%
215-219  15%   10%
220-224  10%   26%
225-229  11%   22%
230-234   4%    7%
235+     13%    5%

Fewer sub-205 RBs, fewer 235+ RBs, more RBs in the 220s.

I also looked at 2005-2007; it was in between and closer to 2015-7 than to 1995-7.

Which makes sense because that is the size range that the NFL considers prototypical therefore, that is the size of the backs that are drafted highly in this current era, the ones most likely given the opportunity to carry the load, and the ones most likely to be given a chance to succeed

 

[gabes1919]

probably because a successful RB under 215 is not an exception, just less common. I am having a hard time understanding how you don't see the flaw in your logic.

In order for your theory that successful RBs under 215 pounds need to be "special" to be successful long term feature backs to hold any water, the implication would have to be that RBs over 215 do not need to be "special" in order to be long term feature backs.

Because each and every player in the NFL isn’t a special athlete or anything... it really seems like his argument boils down to this:

RBs cannot succeed in the NFL as a workhorse unless the pass the 215 lb threshold. But if they do, it’s because they are an exception with elite talent.

With that logic, he would never be wrong because every outlier to his rule is, by that second stipulation, an exception. 

 

[nirad3]

I may or may not get heavily into this on FBG, but I know what works for me as far as scouting smaller RBs. I've done research & better yet, noticed a massive trend.

With all due respect, I won't be singing a different tune.

With all due respect, you're not "scouting".  

 

[Biabreakable]

Again, I may or may not get into this heavily on FBG, but the evidence is really simple. For absolute starters, look at your league's top RBs last year. In my PPR league, only McCoy at 7 & McCaffrey at 9 were in the top-10 & under 215. In non-PPR, only McCoy at 7 was in the top-10 & under 215.

More intricate is the process is to extract the exceptions. Of course, 215 is not a prerequisite for a good RB. It's just my baseline for elimination on size (weight) provided they don't possess the traits to overcome it.

So in other words you have nothing to support your claim.

How about Emmitt Smith would he qualify as a feature RB?

Yaworsky, not a man to mince words, was prepared to stake his reputation on the 5-9, 210-pound running back out of Florida. LINK

 

[FreeBaGeL]

This is such a weird thread. 

 

[Biabreakable]

This is such a weird thread. 

It sure isn't as good as EBF's BMI argument about pretty much the same thing.

 

[Football Jones]

So in other words you have nothing to support your claim.

How about Emmitt Smith would he qualify as a feature RB?

To answer your question about Emmitt, D personnel was a little different then. Maybe not too much from the NFL as a whole, but more in regards to all the sub packages used today (faster, quicker players in some cases). I suspect he would've had a slightly more difficult time, but Emmitt was off the charts in a couple areas so I'm sure he would've done fine.

It's clear from recent top RB rankings that the trend is towards heavier feature backs than of yesterday. I always preferred bigger feature backs, but began noticing smaller RBs being less successful unless they REALLY had some strong traits to counteract their size deficiency. The tricky part is when to include the exceptions (smaller RBs) & it's more art than science.

I'm simply telling you what works extremely well for me. Attempting to quantify that is kind of difficult (& I knew it would be) because of the eyeball scouting required & I know from experience we don't want to go there. Some people accept it, but many others want everything to come down to metrics. I've gotten "magic formula" before when I mention eyeball scouting, LOL. I'm not a big metrics guy, but I do use them to some degree when applicable.

 

[Football Jones]

This is such a weird thread. 

It is, LOL. And I knew that.

It's my standard (215) & when you introduce something that's not mainstream, it CAN be weird.

 

[barackdhouse]

Personally I think this weight standard debate *could* be useful.

As I see it the RB landscape is changing in that NFL teams want RBs that can be duel threats and that can pass block. They may or may not be a dominant workhorse, but they're not going to be tipping their hand to the opposing defense by their presence on the field. I think the NFL is moving away from RB specialists even though I would have said the opposite 2 years ago. And many clubs still employ the specialists.

But by my count there are 21 RBs that fit this description of a duel threat starter. They are more or less the starting RBs for their teams and are going to be getting the highest snap counts. Some will be debatable for sure but it's my list. Now, what are their weights? Is there any trend towards the 215 standard among these 21? Or is it spread more evenly? 

I don't have any dog in this right now I'm just asking the question. What is the weight distribution of the major starting RBs, as we believe them to be in May?

And is there a signal there or is it noise?

BELL
ZEKE
LF
GURLEY
BARKLEY
MCKINNON
COOK
KERRYON
PENNY
JONES II
JAMAAL
DJ
KAMARA
SONY
DRAKE
D FREEMAN
HUNT
GORDON
MILLER
MIXON
MCCOY

 

[Football Jones]

To summarize, there's been a shift in D trends to keep up with the passing offenses. Ds must use more sub packages utilizing better pass rushers & coverage personnel. By the very nature of that, there's going to be more speed & quickness on the field.

As a RB, you typically have the speed & quickness advantage against all front 7 personnel in a standard defensive package. You usually don't meet your raw athletic match until you're in the secondary. In the "small" sub packages with faster pass rushers, coverage LBs, safeties essentially playing the LB position, & more DBs, it's a different game. That's certainly not the only reason, but definitely one of the bigger reasons smaller RBs (& there's still a bunch of them coming out) are finding it more difficult in today's NFL. Size is a factor, as well. Players are getting bigger, but as I mentioned, there's still a lot of smaller RBs coming out.

Having a weight standard is just a way to filter. At it's heart, it's just a simpler way to project. Scouting is all about projecting & if you can shrink your error margin when projecting, you're ahead of the game.

 

[Biabreakable]

To answer your question about Emmitt, D personnel was a little different then. Maybe not too much from the NFL as a whole, but more in regards to all the sub packages used today(faster, quicker players). I suspect he would've had a slightly more difficult time, but Emmitt was off the charts in a couple areas so I'm sure he would've done fine.

It was. Defenses were much more focused on stopping the run then than they are now.

Yeah he is only holds the career rushing title. He wasn't exceptionally fast or anything either. 

It's clear from recent top RB rankings that the trend is towards heavier feature backs than of yesterday. I always preferred bigger feature backs, but began noticing smaller RBs being less successful unless they REALLY had some strong traits to counteract their size deficiency. The tricky part is when to include the exceptions (smaller RBs) & it's more art than science.

I am losing my patience. Do you even know what a trend is?

Method of time series data (information in sequence over time) analysis involving comparison of the same item (such as monthly sales revenue figures) over a significantly long period to (1) detect general patter of a relationship between associated factors or variables, and (2) project the future direction of this pattern.

LINK

A trend is not one data point (last season).

What you prefer is immaterial to objective analysis of the relevance (or not) of something like the weight of a RB.

Your argument is completely flawed when you discount the examples which disprove it, saying that the reason those RB who are below 215 have other exception traits that allow them to be feature RB.

Guess what? Any RB who becomes a feature RB has exceptional traits. Every single one of them. Furthermore size is not a skill.

There is no size deficiency. That is all in your head.

'm simply telling you what works extremely well for me. Attempting to quantify that is kind of difficult (& I knew it would be) because of the eyeball scouting required & I know from experience we don't want to go there. Some people accept it, but many others want everything to come down to metrics. I've gotten "magic formula" before when I mention eyeball scouting, LOL. I'm not a huge metric guy, but I do use them to some degree when applicable

 Does it work well for you?

I think you are suffering from confirmation bias.

You are the person presenting metrics by drawing a line in the sand of RB who weight 215 lbs.

Weight is something that fluctuates all the time, especially with athletes who can lose or gain weight pretty quickly through diet and exercise. Every year we hear multiple stories about players gaining 5 to 10 lbs or losing 5 to 10 lbs. Sometimes more than that. The only accurate information we have about a players weight is from the combine and players often play at different weights than what they were at the combine. It is a moving target. 

 

[Football Jones]

Personally I think this weight standard debate *could* be useful.

As I see it the RB landscape is changing in that NFL teams want RBs that can be duel threats and that can pass block. They may or may not be a dominant workhorse, but they're not going to be tipping their hand to the opposing defense by their presence on the field. I think the NFL is moving away from RB specialists even though I would have said the opposite 2 years ago. And many clubs still employ the specialists.

But by my count there are 21 RBs that fit this description of a duel threat starter. They are more or less the starting RBs for their teams and are going to be getting the highest snap counts. Some will be debatable for sure but it's my list. Now, what are their weights? Is there any trend towards the 215 standard among these 21? Or is it spread more evenly? 

I don't have any dog in this right now I'm just asking the question. What is the weight distribution of the major starting RBs, as we believe them to be in May?

And is there a signal there or is it noise?

BELL
ZEKE
LF
GURLEY
BARKLEY
MCKINNON
COOK
KERRYON
PENNY
JONES II
JAMAAL
DJ
KAMARA
SONY
DRAKE
D FREEMAN
HUNT
GORDON
MILLER
MIXON
MCCOY

Just to clarify, this is geared specifically towards finding longterm feature backs (true studs).

It can certainly help determine who can be a short term feature back, but sometimes that's more about situation.

 

[barackdhouse]

Here are those 21 sorted:

BARKLEY    230
ZEKE    228
LF    228
MIXON    228
GURLEY    227
BELL    225
MILLER    225
DJ    224
PENNY    220
HUNT    216
KAMARA    215
SONY    215
GORDON    215
JAMAAL    213
DRAKE  211
COOK    210
MCCOY    210
KERRYON    206
D FREEMAN    206
MCKINNON    205
JONES II    200

 

[Football Jones]

It was. Defenses were much more focused on stopping the run then than they are now.

Yeah he is only holds the career rushing title. He wasn't exceptionally fast or anything either. 

I am losing my patience. Do you even know what a trend is?

A trend is not one data point (last season).

What you prefer is immaterial to objective analysis of the relevance (or not) of something like the weight of a RB.

Your argument is completely flawed when you discount the examples which disprove it, saying that the reason those RB who are below 215 have other exception traits that allow them to be feature RB.

Guess what? Any RB who becomes a feature RB has exceptional traits. Every single one of them. Furthermore size is not a skill.

There is no size deficiency. That is all in your head.

 Does it work well for you?

I think you are suffering from confirmation bias.

You are the person presenting metrics by drawing a line in the sand of RB who weight 215 lbs.

Weight is something that fluctuates all the time, especially with athletes who can lose or gain weight pretty quickly through diet and exercise. Every year we hear multiple stories about players gaining 5 to 10 lbs or losing 5 to 10 lbs. Sometimes more than that. The only accurate information we have about a players weight is from the combine and players often play at different weights than what they were at the combine. It is a moving target. 

You're taking this WAY too literal. Do I discount Hunt because he weighed in at 212 on game day? No. He's listed at 216. Even if he was listed at 210, he would still pass. Cook passes at 210. I was high on Hunt & Cook coming out & own both. 

215 is the standard, but obviously, 214 is MUCH less of a concern than 204. This is rooted in common sense.

Why 215? It simply makes the most sense using data, trends, & personal opinion. If you're going to do this, you need to pick one & 215 is the weight that makes the most sense to me as to where to start filtering.

 

[Football Jones]

Does it work well for you?

I forgot to answer, but yes, it works quite well (for me). That's really the bottom line.

By all means, totally disregard it if you want. I'm simply presenting what works for me & thought it was an interesting topic.

 

[barackdhouse]

Using PFR data, here is a look at the weight distribution of RBs who ran for 800+ yards in a season, comparing the past 3 years (2015-2017) with 2 decades earlier (1995-1997):

Weight  95-7  15-7
   -199   9%    4%
200-204  13%    2%
205-209   6%    7%
210-214  19%   16%
215-219  15%   10%
220-224  10%   26%
225-229  11%   22%
230-234   4%    7%
235+     13%    5%

This comparison supports the OP.  If 215 is the standard (albeit seemingly arbitrary), then there *IS A TREND* towards bigger backs, insofar as this one 3 year range compared to another 3 year range is valuable. I'd want to see more first before drawing any conclusions but this table shows:

<215 lbs goes from 47% of NFL backs to 29%

>=215 lbs goes from 53% to 70%

Again, we need more, but this supports the OP. 

For the record I am in the camp that says it is the special RB traits that determine whether a RB will hit as a stud workhorse, regardless of weight. But I am interested in looking deeper since a *trend* does seem to exist.