Towards an Objective Measure of Talent in RBs (1 Viewer)

[Righetti]

Predictions for Class of 2007, based on the above. Note that I'm not altering these for my subjective opinion, and that the overall ranking is based on the likelihood the player will become fantasy startable.Marshawn Lynch, Brandon Jackson and Adrian PetersonAbout as close to a sure thing as you can get barring injury or a multi-year collapse of the running game by the team that drafted them. No one entering the league at their age, at their weight and their draft position in the last ten years has failed for any other reason. Brandon Jackson is a great test case. As long as there are other teams that shared the Packers' assessment of his talent (i.e. they didn't overreach by more than a half round or so), the model says he should be a star.Chris Henry and Tony HuntThese are the best of the bigger backs in the 2007 draft, but both are 2nd tier. It's possible that either or both will be outstanding, but also possible that they will flop. Still after the big three above, they represent the best options among the 2007 rookie RBs. Note that even a full round reach by the Titans does not alter the prediction for Henry - it wouldn't change even if he'd been drafted in the early 4th. I don't like it, because I think he's a flop waiting to happen, but the model says maybe not.Kenny Irons and Lorenzo BookerEntering the league at nearly 24, and weighing substantially under 205 would be a likely death blow even for a first round pick. Taken at #49, Kenny Irons is all but ensured of fantasy irrelevancy over the course of his career. Booker will most likely share his fate -- he's slightly younger, but is also too light and taken even deeper in the draft, at #71.Brian Leonard Leonard plays at a good weight and was taken early enough in the draft to be relevant, but is too old. Approaching 24 as a rookie, he's likely to be a career backup -- with some value, but never a reliable fantasy starter.Pittman, AntonioPittman enters the league very young, under 22, and at a weight that could be successful if he'd been drafted earlier. But at pick #107, it's far more likely than not that he'll never be relevant as a fantasy starter.Wolfe, Garrett177 pounds say it all -- no one at his weight taken anywhere near as late in the draft, #93, has gone on to be a reliable fantasy starter in the last ten years.Dwayne Wright and Michael BushA special place in fantasy hell is reserved for later-drafted players over 24 years old, like Wright, and well over 240 pounds, like Bush. They're both so far away from the successful criteria that even being a first round selection would only salvage an Anthony Thomas or Ron Dayne type career. At picks #111 and #100, it's nearly certain you want neither of these players on your roster.

pretty good assesment reading this after season #1, although it would be better if Brandon Jackson's name was actually Ryan Grant for the rest you are pretty much DEAD on

 

[Barry Jive and The Uptown Five]

anyone have Kevin Smith's birthday?

 

[Hersh]

12/17/86 or 21.70 or there about. Also, I have him at 210 lbs.

 

[Barry Jive and The Uptown Five]

1A - 16.2 PPG - (< 22.5 age, 205 - 221 lbs, Top 76.... or Top 16 under 22.5 age)

The Ideal Guys -

McFadden

Mendenhall

Kevin Smith

Assuming Smith goes before 3.13, he falls in the 1A category.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

1A - 16.2 PPG - (< 22.5 age, 205 - 221 lbs, Top 76.... or Top 16 under 22.5 age)

The Ideal Guys -

McFadden

Mendenhall

Kevin Smith

Assuming Smith goes before 3.13, he falls in the 1A category.

A couple of things here. I'm not sure they'll go in the top 76, but Lucky and Torain also meet the age and weight requirements. Also meeting the age requirements but all listed currently at 200 lbs are Jones, Rice and Charles. Need to get some accurate weights from the combine/Pro Day to move them up though. I'd be surprised if Rice isn't 205.

 

[Man in the yellow hat]

I've been following this thread closely as of late. And my questions always go back to Ryan Grant.

Based on what you're presenting here, it would seem that now is the time to sell high on Grant. As a big back, he was a little old coming out and drafted very late (or was he UFA?). Put together, it appears that he is not in a good position to maintain his current level of success over the long haul.

Is that accurate?

 

[Tau837]

I've been following this thread closely as of late. And my questions always go back to Ryan Grant.Based on what you're presenting here, it would seem that now is the time to sell high on Grant. As a big back, he was a little old coming out and drafted very late. Put together, it appears that he is not in a good position to maintain his current level of success over the long haul.Is that accurate?

And to add on to this question is the fact that the Packers also have Brandon Jackson, who is rated highly by this method.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I've been following this thread closely as of late. And my questions always go back to Ryan Grant.Based on what you're presenting here, it would seem that now is the time to sell high on Grant. As a big back, he was a little old coming out and drafted very late. Put together, it appears that he is not in a good position to maintain his current level of success over the long haul.Is that accurate?

And to add on to this question is the fact that the Packers also have Brandon Jackson, who is rated highly by this method.

The Packers are certainly a good test case, LOL. However guys like Holmes and Parker make it clear that there are always exceptions so I'm not sure any "theory" is going to be ironclad. I still think that the biggest issue with Jackson is that he is a cut back runner by instinct and Green Bay wants a one cut runner by design. I question whether he can successfully change his running style and instincts to fit the Green Bay scheme, however he could surprise in a different offense at some point.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Interesting analysis.I think durability should also be considered here. Although predicting injury is problematic at best, I have observed that certain body types tend to handle the punishment of the NFL better than others.Runners with a body mass distribution having a higher ratio of mass in the lower body (hips/thighs) seem to be more durable than other backs with a more evenly distributed body mass. This however is just an observation and I have no statistics to back it up.

If you're looking for a injury predictor, search "Pidgeon toed runners theory." Bigger body types w/ speed clasifications that just don't fit their size.

 

[Bob Magaw]

i somehow missed this the first time around... the ability to bolt together a rigorous model with some incisive scouting insights is a powerful combo... it will be interesting to see how it holds up analytically and predictively with the class of '08 & beyond... this thread is one of the more outstanding contributions to the board i've seen in a while... bravo for the time & thought that went into this, keep up the great work, wdcrob...

 

[switz]

I've been following this thread closely as of late. And my questions always go back to Ryan Grant.Based on what you're presenting here, it would seem that now is the time to sell high on Grant. As a big back, he was a little old coming out and drafted very late (or was he UFA?). Put together, it appears that he is not in a good position to maintain his current level of success over the long haul.Is that accurate?

If you follow this then Terrell Davis and Curtis Martin were bound to be busts as well.

 

[Man in the yellow hat]

I've been following this thread closely as of late. And my questions always go back to Ryan Grant.Based on what you're presenting here, it would seem that now is the time to sell high on Grant. As a big back, he was a little old coming out and drafted very late (or was he UFA?). Put together, it appears that he is not in a good position to maintain his current level of success over the long haul.Is that accurate?

If you follow this then Terrell Davis and Curtis Martin were bound to be busts as well.

Right. The poster already acknowledged that there are anomalies here that you can't account for. Davis, Martin, and Holmes would be anamolies.So I guess I'm trying to figure out if Grant is an anomaly, of if he will indeed follow the model.

 

[cpstorm]

.

 

[EBF]

It's interesting work by wdcrob. In the end though, I'm not sure the formula would work better than something like:

Draft Position + Combine Performance + Body Type = Grade

Intuitively, I think you'd find that the success rate is very high for RBs chosen in the first round with ideal combine numbers and an ideal body type (say, between 5'9"-6'1" and 215-235 pounds). A good percentage of the recent draft busts would be explained by this model:

Cedric Benson - terrible combine numbers

TJ Duckett - outside the size range

Eric Shelton - outside the size range

Ron Dayne - outside the size range

This is the type of system that I use and it works pretty well. I think it could be refined as follows:

Draft Position

Give a set amount of points based on which round the player is chosen in based on the recent historical success rate of RBs chosen in that round (I would define a RB as a success if he has multiple 1,000 yard seasons under his belt). For example, you might award 60 points to any RB chosen in the first round, 35 points to any RB chosen in the second round, and 25 points to any RB chosen in the third round.

Combine Performance

Award a set amount of points based on the prospect's ability to meet minimum marks in the pertinent drills with bonuses for "elite" marks in those drills. This might work as follows:

40 yard dash: 3 points for a time under 4.60.

Bonus points: 2 additional points if the prospect runs under a 4.45

Vertical leap: 5 points for a leap of 35" or better

Bonus points: 2 points for a leap of 37.5" or better

Broad jump:

Here it would be necessary to incorporate height into the data since players with longer legs seem to have a natural advantage in this drill. But for now we'll just say:

5 points for a leap of 9'10" or better

Bonus points: 2 points for a leap of 10'4" or better

Three cone drill: 3 points for a time under 7.25 s

Bonus points: None since it doesn't seem like an elite score reflects elite talent at the RB position.

Body Type

Most of the successful RBs in the NFL are between 5'9" and 6'1" and 205-230 pounds. So it follows that we should generally reward players with point bonuses if they fit into this range. However, I think it's necessary to tweak this a little bit. I'm not all that familiar with BMI, but perhaps it would be a better indicator since height and weight does not account for "thick" little guys like MJD and "thick" tall guys like Steven Jackson and Eddie George.

For now, I think we should establish an "acceptable range" for BMI. We could do this by averaging the BMI of the top 20 RBs in the NFL and then using the "high" and "low" from that group as the perimeters of the range. Any RB prospect who falls within this range should get the full point bonus. We'll say this is worth 20 points.

We should have small point deductions for a weight of 240+ pounds and a height in excess of 6'3". Let's say negative 3 points for each of these maladaptive traits.

Sleeper bonus:

If a player meets a minimum standard of workout number excellence (let's say at least 16 points including bonuses) and has a body type within the ideal range, but was not a first round pick, he is a quality sleeper and should thus have his "draft position" grade increased to a flat 50. This will help account for guys like Marion Barber and Ahman Green and help distinguish lower picks who seemingly have the physical skill set needed to succeed.

Age

I don't think age is part of the reason why RBs succeed. It's merely related to the fact that the guys who are most highly-regarded by the NFL leave school early, whereas the mediocre guys stay around longer (and are thus older when they enter the league). Maybe we could offer 5 bonus points for an early entry.

Conclusion

The point numbers that I've used here are somewhat arbitrary and highly-flawed, but the general idea reflects my opinion of the most important factors when evaluating a RB. I think if you used a more refined version of this system you could ultimately get an equation that predicts eventual RB success with very good accuracy.

 

[EBF]

Added:

The two guys that my model loves this year are Jonathan Stewart and Rashard Mendenhall. Off the top of my head, they're the only two guys who offer the holy trinity of a RB prospect: first round grade, elite combine numbers, and ideal body type.

We may also find that Felix Jones scores pretty well in my system. It probably depends on how heavy he is.

Interestingly, the model would probably be lukewarm on Darren McFadden since his body type is poor.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I've been following this thread closely as of late. And my questions always go back to Ryan Grant.Based on what you're presenting here, it would seem that now is the time to sell high on Grant. As a big back, he was a little old coming out and drafted very late (or was he UFA?). Put together, it appears that he is not in a good position to maintain his current level of success over the long haul.Is that accurate?

If you follow this then Terrell Davis and Curtis Martin were bound to be busts as well.

Curtis Martin fits. He was young, right weight, and drafted at #74 if I remember right.And there will always be exceptions. I'm just trying to help everyone improve their odds.I'll try and post my updated stuff this weekend if I can find time. Definitely will get it up soon. It basically simplifies things and tries to reduce the overfitting in the model I already posted. The broad outline is still there though.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Conclusion

The point numbers that I've used here are somewhat arbitrary and highly-flawed, but the general idea reflects my opinion of the most important factors when evaluating a RB. I think if you used a more refined version of this system you could ultimately get an equation that predicts eventual RB success with very good accuracy.

Hey EBF, I'm going to drop you a note on this - I have some ideas. I looked BMI and came up bone dry. EXCEPT that the bottom range BMI has risen over the years. I'd be wary of a really lean runner these days, but there used to be some of them.

On height thing... I found zero correlation between height and performance - it's only looks relevant because it's correlated to weight. One thing I did find is that the fumble rate seemed to be higher for tall RBs. Maybe as much as twice as high - they seem to be at a structural disadvantage in terms of covering the ball. I forget who said that originally, but I took a look at it with an idea of adding it to my list of 'myths' (no such thing as a rookie wall, no such thing as injury prone). Except it turned out to be true.

 

[EBF]

Conclusion

The point numbers that I've used here are somewhat arbitrary and highly-flawed, but the general idea reflects my opinion of the most important factors when evaluating a RB. I think if you used a more refined version of this system you could ultimately get an equation that predicts eventual RB success with very good accuracy.

Hey EBF, I'm going to drop you a note on this - I have some ideas. I looked BMI and came up bone dry. EXCEPT that the bottom range BMI has risen over the years. I'd be wary of a really lean runner these days, but there used to be some of them.

On height thing... I found zero correlation between height and performance - it's only looks relevant because it's correlated to weight. One thing I did find is that the fumble rate seemed to be higher for tall RBs. Maybe as much as twice as high - they seem to be at a structural disadvantage in terms of covering the ball. I forget who said that originally, but I took a look at it with an idea of adding it to my list of 'myths' (no such thing as a rookie wall, no such thing as injury prone). Except it turned out to be true.

Maybe BMI isn't the answer, but there's has to be some better way to incorporate body type into the equation.Look at a guy like Darren McFadden. His listed weight is 205 pounds, which would be a pretty decent size if not for the fact that he's 6'2". He's at the top of the range in height and at the bottom of the range in weight. So basically he has a low weight piled onto a big frame. That's a red flag for me and something that should somehow be sniffed out by the equation.

 

[fruity pebbles]

Added:The two guys that my model loves this year are Jonathan Stewart and Rashard Mendenhall. Off the top of my head, they're the only two guys who offer the holy trinity of a RB prospect: first round grade, elite combine numbers, and ideal body type. We may also find that Felix Jones scores pretty well in my system. It probably depends on how heavy he is. Interestingly, the model would probably be lukewarm on Darren McFadden since his body type is poor.

Why would you consider his body type poor? Same height as Adrian Peterson and about 8-10 pounds lighter. 6'2" and around 210 pounds is a little tall but right in the range of weights.

 

[EBF]

Added:The two guys that my model loves this year are Jonathan Stewart and Rashard Mendenhall. Off the top of my head, they're the only two guys who offer the holy trinity of a RB prospect: first round grade, elite combine numbers, and ideal body type. We may also find that Felix Jones scores pretty well in my system. It probably depends on how heavy he is. Interestingly, the model would probably be lukewarm on Darren McFadden since his body type is poor.

Why would you consider his body type poor? Same height as Adrian Peterson and about 8-10 pounds lighter. 6'2" and around 210 pounds is a little tall but right in the range of weights.

6'2" 205 pounds is WR size.You want your RBs built low to the ground and bulky like LaDainian Tomlinson and Marshall Faulk. Good examples from this class are Ray Rice, Jonathan Stewart, and Rashard Mendenhall. All of those guys LOOK like an NFL RB. Darren McFadden doesn't. As for Peterson, his listed weight is 10 pounds heavier than McFadden's. He's a lot stronger and more powerful. Even so, he's not exactly a great guy to cite as a counter to my argument since he's suffered a serious injury almost every season since his first year at Oklahoma. Based on the numbers we have right now, Darren McFadden has a very abnormal build for an elite NFL RB prospect. That's a red flag for me.

 

[sn0mm1s]

Conclusion

The point numbers that I've used here are somewhat arbitrary and highly-flawed, but the general idea reflects my opinion of the most important factors when evaluating a RB. I think if you used a more refined version of this system you could ultimately get an equation that predicts eventual RB success with very good accuracy.

Hey EBF, I'm going to drop you a note on this - I have some ideas. I looked BMI and came up bone dry. EXCEPT that the bottom range BMI has risen over the years. I'd be wary of a really lean runner these days, but there used to be some of them.

On height thing... I found zero correlation between height and performance - it's only looks relevant because it's correlated to weight. One thing I did find is that the fumble rate seemed to be higher for tall RBs. Maybe as much as twice as high - they seem to be at a structural disadvantage in terms of covering the ball. I forget who said that originally, but I took a look at it with an idea of adding it to my list of 'myths' (no such thing as a rookie wall, no such thing as injury prone). Except it turned out to be true.

I mentioned height earlier but more in terms of longevity and durability. If you are just projecting fantasy points per game I don't think there will be much of a correlation.

 

[fruity pebbles]

Added:The two guys that my model loves this year are Jonathan Stewart and Rashard Mendenhall. Off the top of my head, they're the only two guys who offer the holy trinity of a RB prospect: first round grade, elite combine numbers, and ideal body type. We may also find that Felix Jones scores pretty well in my system. It probably depends on how heavy he is. Interestingly, the model would probably be lukewarm on Darren McFadden since his body type is poor.

Why would you consider his body type poor? Same height as Adrian Peterson and about 8-10 pounds lighter. 6'2" and around 210 pounds is a little tall but right in the range of weights.

6'2" 205 pounds is WR size.You want your RBs built low to the ground and bulky like LaDainian Tomlinson and Marshall Faulk. Good examples from this class are Ray Rice, Jonathan Stewart, and Rashard Mendenhall. All of those guys LOOK like an NFL RB. Darren McFadden doesn't. As for Peterson, his listed weight is 10 pounds heavier than McFadden's. He's a lot stronger and more powerful. Even so, he's not exactly a great guy to cite as a counter to my argument since he's suffered a serious injury almost every season since his first year at Oklahoma. Based on the numbers we have right now, Darren McFadden has a very abnormal build for an elite NFL RB prospect. That's a red flag for me.

He's listed as anywhere from 205-215 pounds. We'll see what he comes in at during the combine. You may want to tweak your numbers then to focus on BMI like you said cause right now he fits your criteria.

 

[EBF]

Added:The two guys that my model loves this year are Jonathan Stewart and Rashard Mendenhall. Off the top of my head, they're the only two guys who offer the holy trinity of a RB prospect: first round grade, elite combine numbers, and ideal body type. We may also find that Felix Jones scores pretty well in my system. It probably depends on how heavy he is. Interestingly, the model would probably be lukewarm on Darren McFadden since his body type is poor.

Why would you consider his body type poor? Same height as Adrian Peterson and about 8-10 pounds lighter. 6'2" and around 210 pounds is a little tall but right in the range of weights.

6'2" 205 pounds is WR size.You want your RBs built low to the ground and bulky like LaDainian Tomlinson and Marshall Faulk. Good examples from this class are Ray Rice, Jonathan Stewart, and Rashard Mendenhall. All of those guys LOOK like an NFL RB. Darren McFadden doesn't. As for Peterson, his listed weight is 10 pounds heavier than McFadden's. He's a lot stronger and more powerful. Even so, he's not exactly a great guy to cite as a counter to my argument since he's suffered a serious injury almost every season since his first year at Oklahoma. Based on the numbers we have right now, Darren McFadden has a very abnormal build for an elite NFL RB prospect. That's a red flag for me.

He's listed as anywhere from 205-215 pounds. We'll see what he comes in at during the combine. You may want to tweak your numbers then to focus on BMI like you said cause right now he fits your criteria.

As I mentioned, he barely sneaks in under the height wire and over the weight wire. Short and light is okay. Tall and heavy is okay. But tall and light is not a good combination. I'll have plenty to say about McFadden as the draft approaches. I don't necessarily think he's going to be a bust, but his body type makes him riskier than what his lofty draft position would otherwise indicate. I think there's a risk that he could become more of a RBBC gadget type player and not a true workhorse at the next level. So while he should be a good NFL player, I don't know that he'll be the slam-dunk FF stud a lot of people will tout him as.

 

[Maroney=Speed]

Added:The two guys that my model loves this year are Jonathan Stewart and Rashard Mendenhall. Off the top of my head, they're the only two guys who offer the holy trinity of a RB prospect: first round grade, elite combine numbers, and ideal body type. We may also find that Felix Jones scores pretty well in my system. It probably depends on how heavy he is. Interestingly, the model would probably be lukewarm on Darren McFadden since his body type is poor.

Why would you consider his body type poor? Same height as Adrian Peterson and about 8-10 pounds lighter. 6'2" and around 210 pounds is a little tall but right in the range of weights.

6'2" 205 pounds is WR size.You want your RBs built low to the ground and bulky like LaDainian Tomlinson and Marshall Faulk. Good examples from this class are Ray Rice, Jonathan Stewart, and Rashard Mendenhall. All of those guys LOOK like an NFL RB. Darren McFadden doesn't. As for Peterson, his listed weight is 10 pounds heavier than McFadden's. He's a lot stronger and more powerful. Even so, he's not exactly a great guy to cite as a counter to my argument since he's suffered a serious injury almost every season since his first year at Oklahoma. Based on the numbers we have right now, Darren McFadden has a very abnormal build for an elite NFL RB prospect. That's a red flag for me.

What was Dickerson size? I do think agree I do think McFadden may get hurt at the next level.Bloom what's the word?

 

[Maroney=Speed]

Added:The two guys that my model loves this year are Jonathan Stewart and Rashard Mendenhall. Off the top of my head, they're the only two guys who offer the holy trinity of a RB prospect: first round grade, elite combine numbers, and ideal body type. We may also find that Felix Jones scores pretty well in my system. It probably depends on how heavy he is. Interestingly, the model would probably be lukewarm on Darren McFadden since his body type is poor.

Why would you consider his body type poor? Same height as Adrian Peterson and about 8-10 pounds lighter. 6'2" and around 210 pounds is a little tall but right in the range of weights.

6'2" 205 pounds is WR size.You want your RBs built low to the ground and bulky like LaDainian Tomlinson and Marshall Faulk. Good examples from this class are Ray Rice, Jonathan Stewart, and Rashard Mendenhall. All of those guys LOOK like an NFL RB. Darren McFadden doesn't. As for Peterson, his listed weight is 10 pounds heavier than McFadden's. He's a lot stronger and more powerful. Even so, he's not exactly a great guy to cite as a counter to my argument since he's suffered a serious injury almost every season since his first year at Oklahoma. Based on the numbers we have right now, Darren McFadden has a very abnormal build for an elite NFL RB prospect. That's a red flag for me.

What was Dickerson size? I do think agree I do think McFadden may get hurt at the next level.Bloom what's the word?

Eric's Height: 6-3 Weight: 220. So McFadden puts on 10-15 He's good too go.

 

[EBF]

Added:

The two guys that my model loves this year are Jonathan Stewart and Rashard Mendenhall. Off the top of my head, they're the only two guys who offer the holy trinity of a RB prospect: first round grade, elite combine numbers, and ideal body type.

We may also find that Felix Jones scores pretty well in my system. It probably depends on how heavy he is.

Interestingly, the model would probably be lukewarm on Darren McFadden since his body type is poor.

Why would you consider his body type poor? Same height as Adrian Peterson and about 8-10 pounds lighter. 6'2" and around 210 pounds is a little tall but right in the range of weights.

6'2" 205 pounds is WR size.You want your RBs built low to the ground and bulky like LaDainian Tomlinson and Marshall Faulk. Good examples from this class are Ray Rice, Jonathan Stewart, and Rashard Mendenhall. All of those guys LOOK like an NFL RB. Darren McFadden doesn't.

As for Peterson, his listed weight is 10 pounds heavier than McFadden's. He's a lot stronger and more powerful. Even so, he's not exactly a great guy to cite as a counter to my argument since he's suffered a serious injury almost every season since his first year at Oklahoma.

Based on the numbers we have right now, Darren McFadden has a very abnormal build for an elite NFL RB prospect. That's a red flag for me.

What was Dickerson size? I do think agree I do think McFadden may get hurt at the next level.Bloom what's the word?

According to this link he was 6'3" 220.http://www.nfl.com/players/ericdickerson/p...le?id=DIC276860

Peterson is the guy who people compare to Dickerson.

Some people have pegged Marcus Allen as a better parallel for McFadden.

 

[EBF]

Added:The two guys that my model loves this year are Jonathan Stewart and Rashard Mendenhall. Off the top of my head, they're the only two guys who offer the holy trinity of a RB prospect: first round grade, elite combine numbers, and ideal body type. We may also find that Felix Jones scores pretty well in my system. It probably depends on how heavy he is. Interestingly, the model would probably be lukewarm on Darren McFadden since his body type is poor.

Why would you consider his body type poor? Same height as Adrian Peterson and about 8-10 pounds lighter. 6'2" and around 210 pounds is a little tall but right in the range of weights.

6'2" 205 pounds is WR size.You want your RBs built low to the ground and bulky like LaDainian Tomlinson and Marshall Faulk. Good examples from this class are Ray Rice, Jonathan Stewart, and Rashard Mendenhall. All of those guys LOOK like an NFL RB. Darren McFadden doesn't. As for Peterson, his listed weight is 10 pounds heavier than McFadden's. He's a lot stronger and more powerful. Even so, he's not exactly a great guy to cite as a counter to my argument since he's suffered a serious injury almost every season since his first year at Oklahoma. Based on the numbers we have right now, Darren McFadden has a very abnormal build for an elite NFL RB prospect. That's a red flag for me.

What was Dickerson size? I do think agree I do think McFadden may get hurt at the next level.Bloom what's the word?

Eric's Height: 6-3 Weight: 220. So McFadden puts on 10-15 He's good too go.

I don't think it's quite as simple as you're making it out to be.1. Adding weight isn't just a matter of snapping your fingers. Some guys do put on some pounds after they get into the league (Portis comes to mind), but often times what you see is what you get. McFadden has a skinny frame that appears to lack the strong base that's so critical for a pro runner. 2. Even if McFadden does reach Dickerson's weight, that doesn't automatically turn him into a hall of fame caliber player.

 

[sn0mm1s]

Not to hijack this topic but I ran some quick numbers on the top 50 rushers in NFL history based on height.

Drafted : Average height

Inception - 1969 : 73.17 inches (six players)

1970 - 1979 : 72.29 inches (seven players)

1980 - 1989 : 71.82 inches (eleven players)

1990 - 1999 : 71.41 inches (twenty two players)

2000 - present : 70.75 inches (four players)

 

[Maroney=Speed]

Added:The two guys that my model loves this year are Jonathan Stewart and Rashard Mendenhall. Off the top of my head, they're the only two guys who offer the holy trinity of a RB prospect: first round grade, elite combine numbers, and ideal body type. We may also find that Felix Jones scores pretty well in my system. It probably depends on how heavy he is. Interestingly, the model would probably be lukewarm on Darren McFadden since his body type is poor.

Why would you consider his body type poor? Same height as Adrian Peterson and about 8-10 pounds lighter. 6'2" and around 210 pounds is a little tall but right in the range of weights.

6'2" 205 pounds is WR size.You want your RBs built low to the ground and bulky like LaDainian Tomlinson and Marshall Faulk. Good examples from this class are Ray Rice, Jonathan Stewart, and Rashard Mendenhall. All of those guys LOOK like an NFL RB. Darren McFadden doesn't. As for Peterson, his listed weight is 10 pounds heavier than McFadden's. He's a lot stronger and more powerful. Even so, he's not exactly a great guy to cite as a counter to my argument since he's suffered a serious injury almost every season since his first year at Oklahoma. Based on the numbers we have right now, Darren McFadden has a very abnormal build for an elite NFL RB prospect. That's a red flag for me.

What was Dickerson size? I do think agree I do think McFadden may get hurt at the next level.Bloom what's the word?

Eric's Height: 6-3 Weight: 220. So McFadden puts on 10-15 He's good too go.

I don't think it's quite as simple as you're making it out to be.1. Adding weight isn't just a matter of snapping your fingers. Some guys do put on some pounds after they get into the league (Portis comes to mind), but often times what you see is what you get. McFadden has a skinny frame that appears to lack the strong base that's so critical for a pro runner. 2. Even if McFadden does reach Dickerson's weight, that doesn't automatically turn him into a hall of fame caliber player.

Hall of fame player. Who coming into the League can you ever say that about?My point is Dickerson and McFadden are close in size. Not a bad frame too say the lease, correct?Players put on or add weight thru roids, McFadden can gain 10-15 pounds without it.He will put on those extra pounds by lifting weights. Mr.McFadden meet Mr.Dickerson.

 

[sn0mm1s]

Added:The two guys that my model loves this year are Jonathan Stewart and Rashard Mendenhall. Off the top of my head, they're the only two guys who offer the holy trinity of a RB prospect: first round grade, elite combine numbers, and ideal body type. We may also find that Felix Jones scores pretty well in my system. It probably depends on how heavy he is. Interestingly, the model would probably be lukewarm on Darren McFadden since his body type is poor.

Why would you consider his body type poor? Same height as Adrian Peterson and about 8-10 pounds lighter. 6'2" and around 210 pounds is a little tall but right in the range of weights.

6'2" 205 pounds is WR size.You want your RBs built low to the ground and bulky like LaDainian Tomlinson and Marshall Faulk. Good examples from this class are Ray Rice, Jonathan Stewart, and Rashard Mendenhall. All of those guys LOOK like an NFL RB. Darren McFadden doesn't. As for Peterson, his listed weight is 10 pounds heavier than McFadden's. He's a lot stronger and more powerful. Even so, he's not exactly a great guy to cite as a counter to my argument since he's suffered a serious injury almost every season since his first year at Oklahoma. Based on the numbers we have right now, Darren McFadden has a very abnormal build for an elite NFL RB prospect. That's a red flag for me.

What was Dickerson size? I do think agree I do think McFadden may get hurt at the next level.Bloom what's the word?

Eric's Height: 6-3 Weight: 220. So McFadden puts on 10-15 He's good too go.

I don't think it's quite as simple as you're making it out to be.1. Adding weight isn't just a matter of snapping your fingers. Some guys do put on some pounds after they get into the league (Portis comes to mind), but often times what you see is what you get. McFadden has a skinny frame that appears to lack the strong base that's so critical for a pro runner. 2. Even if McFadden does reach Dickerson's weight, that doesn't automatically turn him into a hall of fame caliber player.

Hall of fame player. Who coming into the League can you ever say that about?My point is Dickerson and McFadden are close in size. Not a bad frame too say the lease, correct?Players put on or add weight thru roids, McFadden can gain 10-15 pounds without it.He will put on those extra pounds by lifting weights. Mr.McFadden meet Mr.Dickerson.

I fear McFadden won't be anything close to Dickerson whether or not he puts on weight.

 

[Maroney=Speed]

Added:The two guys that my model loves this year are Jonathan Stewart and Rashard Mendenhall. Off the top of my head, they're the only two guys who offer the holy trinity of a RB prospect: first round grade, elite combine numbers, and ideal body type. We may also find that Felix Jones scores pretty well in my system. It probably depends on how heavy he is. Interestingly, the model would probably be lukewarm on Darren McFadden since his body type is poor.

Why would you consider his body type poor? Same height as Adrian Peterson and about 8-10 pounds lighter. 6'2" and around 210 pounds is a little tall but right in the range of weights.

6'2" 205 pounds is WR size.You want your RBs built low to the ground and bulky like LaDainian Tomlinson and Marshall Faulk. Good examples from this class are Ray Rice, Jonathan Stewart, and Rashard Mendenhall. All of those guys LOOK like an NFL RB. Darren McFadden doesn't. As for Peterson, his listed weight is 10 pounds heavier than McFadden's. He's a lot stronger and more powerful. Even so, he's not exactly a great guy to cite as a counter to my argument since he's suffered a serious injury almost every season since his first year at Oklahoma. Based on the numbers we have right now, Darren McFadden has a very abnormal build for an elite NFL RB prospect. That's a red flag for me.

What was Dickerson size? I do think agree I do think McFadden may get hurt at the next level.Bloom what's the word?

Eric's Height: 6-3 Weight: 220. So McFadden puts on 10-15 He's good too go. <_<

I don't think it's quite as simple as you're making it out to be.1. Adding weight isn't just a matter of snapping your fingers. Some guys do put on some pounds after they get into the league (Portis comes to mind), but often times what you see is what you get. McFadden has a skinny frame that appears to lack the strong base that's so critical for a pro runner. 2. Even if McFadden does reach Dickerson's weight, that doesn't automatically turn him into a hall of fame caliber player.

Hall of fame player. Who coming into the League can you ever say that about?My point is Dickerson and McFadden are close in size. Not a bad frame too say the lease, correct?Players put on or add weight thru roids, McFadden can gain 10-15 pounds without it.He will put on those extra pounds by lifting weights. Mr.McFadden meet Mr.Dickerson.

I fear McFadden won't be anything close to Dickerson whether or not he puts on weight.

You play in a Dynasty League and have rook pick 1.1.Who you picking?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

6'2" 205 would be average BMI for a WR - 26.3.

Now I wish I'd kept that RB BMI stuff I did - I'm 90% sure that EBF is right and that it's a red flag. Didn't realize he was so tall. Not to say he won't be good, but that's pretty slender for a RB if memory serves.

 

[DawnBTVS]

Here are BMI's for a few other RBs in the class... Quick glance sees McFadden is somewhat of an outlier.

Jonathan Stewart: 5'11" and 230 lbs. 32.10

Rashard Mendenhall: 5'11" and 224 lbs. 31.20

Ray Rice: 5'9" and 205 lbs. 30.30

Mike Hart: 5'9" and 202 lbs. 29.80

James Davis: 5'11" and 205 lbs. 28.60

Kevin Smith: 6'1" and 211 lbs. 27.80

Steve Slaton: 5'10" and 190 lbs. 27.30

Felix Jones: 6'0" and 200 lbs. 27.10

Jamaal Charles: 6'1" and 205 lbs. 27.00

Darren McFadden: 6'2" and 205 lbs. 26.30

 

[EBF]

Here are BMI's for a few other RBs in the class... Quick glance sees McFadden is somewhat of an outlier.Jonathan Stewart: 5'11" and 230 lbs. 32.10Rashard Mendenhall: 5'11" and 224 lbs. 31.20Ray Rice: 5'9" and 205 lbs. 30.30Mike Hart: 5'9" and 202 lbs. 29.80James Davis: 5'11" and 205 lbs. 28.60Kevin Smith: 6'1" and 211 lbs. 27.80Steve Slaton: 5'10" and 190 lbs. 27.30Felix Jones: 6'0" and 200 lbs. 27.10Jamaal Charles: 6'1" and 205 lbs. 27.00Darren McFadden: 6'2" and 205 lbs. 26.30

Nice work. Any way you could give us BMI numbers for this year's top 20 RBs? That might help put these numbers in context.It's VERY interesting to me that Rice, Mendenhall, and Stewart (the three guys I said LOOK like NFL RBs) have the highest BMI numbers.

 

[DawnBTVS]

I'll do so in a second but I just did the Top 20 Rushing Yardage leaders in NFL History.

Highest: Jerome Bettis at 36.49.

Lowest: Tony Dorsett at 27.80.

Cutting out a couple outliers... the ideal BMI Range seems to be (historically): 28.26 (O.J. Simpson) to 32.92 (Emmitt and LT2).

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Damn, but I know better than to throw away data once I've got it collected. I had BMIs for all RBs drafted in the 1st-4th round in the last ten years, and ditched it. Those guys down at 26 and 27 are real risks. I forget who the last really slender guy that did well was, but I think it was quite a while ago. For some reason I think the last was Terrell Davis.

ETA: Nope, 5'11" 206 or 210 is pretty good, ~29. I think I had him listed at 196 originally.

 

[EBF]

Not to hijack this topic but I ran some quick numbers on the top 50 rushers in NFL history based on height.Drafted : Average heightInception - 1969 : 73.17 inches (six players)1970 - 1979 : 72.29 inches (seven players)1980 - 1989 : 71.82 inches (eleven players)1990 - 1999 : 71.41 inches (twenty two players)2000 - present : 70.75 inches (four players)

This is also interesting to me. It suggests that there's a gradual paradigm shift towards shorter RBs. I think all of this combined with BMI data could provide some interesting insights. I've always said that LT's amazing durability can't be attributed simply to luck. And while I realize that many backs with similar dimensions have had durability problems, it seems pretty clear that the little bowling ball guys offer the best durability potential (Alexander, Faulk, Edge, LT, and Barry to name a few).

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Dawn, if you've got it handy take a quick look at the best RBs in, say, the last 15 years. I really think there was a move away from guys like Dorsett and Simpson (which would also jibe with shorter RBs). I remember thinking anything below like 29 was pretty low these days

 

[DawnBTVS]

I calculated the BMI for 23 current studly RBs (including injured guys like Ronnie Brown and Reggie Bush). There's definitely something to this I think, pattern wise.

High: Jamal Lewis at 34.76

Low: Reggie Bush at 28.16

The ideal range, again excluding the two outliers seems to be: 29.69 (Clinton Portis) to 32.97 (Earnest Graham and Frank Gore).

Here are some names... including older recent studs.

LT: 32.92

Ronnie Brown: 32.81

Priest Holmes: 32.66

Maurice Jones-Drew: 32.36

Barry Sanders: 32.05

Marion Barber III: 32.00

Brian Westbrook: 31.57

Larry Johnson: 31.23

Willie Parker: 31.14

Marshawn Lynch: 31.13

Joseph Addai: 30.41

Curtis Martin: 30.41

Edgerrin James: 30.14

Terrell Davis: 29.83

All Day AP: 29.73

Steven Jackson: 29.72

Clinton Portis: 29.69

 

[EBF]

So maybe we could say the rough ideal BMI range is 29.5 to 33?

As of right now that excludes all of the RB prospects except:

Jonathan Stewart: 5'11" and 230 lbs. 32.10

Rashard Mendenhall: 5'11" and 224 lbs. 31.20

Ray Rice: 5'9" and 205 lbs. 30.30

Mike Hart: 5'9" and 202 lbs. 29.80

Interesting since three out of those four were already in my top 5.

Looks like there might be reason to worry about Kevin Smith, Felix Jones, Jamaal Charles, and Darren McFadden.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I calculated the BMI for 23 current studly RBs (including injured guys like Ronnie Brown and Reggie Bush). There's definitely something to this I think, pattern wise.

High: Jamal Lewis at 34.76

Low: Reggie Bush at 28.16

The ideal range, again excluding the two outliers seems to be: 29.69 (Clinton Portis) to 32.97 (Earnest Graham and Frank Gore).

Here are some names... including older recent studs.

LT: 32.92

Ronnie Brown: 32.81

Priest Holmes: 32.66

Maurice Jones-Drew: 32.36

Barry Sanders: 32.05

Marion Barber III: 32.00

Brian Westbrook: 31.57

Larry Johnson: 31.23

Willie Parker: 31.14

Marshawn Lynch: 31.13

Joseph Addai: 30.41

Curtis Martin: 30.41

Edgerrin James: 30.14

Terrell Davis: 29.83

All Day AP: 29.73

Steven Jackson: 29.72

Clinton Portis: 29.69

Excellent work! Thanks.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

So maybe we could say the rough ideal BMI range is 29.5 to 33? As of right now that excludes all of the RB prospects except:Jonathan Stewart: 5'11" and 230 lbs. 32.10Rashard Mendenhall: 5'11" and 224 lbs. 31.20Ray Rice: 5'9" and 205 lbs. 30.30Mike Hart: 5'9" and 202 lbs. 29.80Interesting since three out of those four were already in my top 5. Looks like there might be reason to worry about Kevin Smith, Felix Jones, Jamaal Charles, and Darren McFadden.

But it gets really tricky EBF. Some guys put on weight after they get to the NFL, and five pounds is enough to make a difference (especially if they're only 5.10 1/2 instead of 5"11, for example). Also you'll see weights all over the map on some guys. Hard to believe they can't get it right within a couple pounds, but sometimes you'll find a range of 10 pounds or more.

 

[DawnBTVS]

Evidently I kinda screwed my BMI numbers (I rectified it for appropriate inches, etc.) Here are the modified numbers. I'm wicked sorry about that, guys.

Jonathan Stewart: 33.31

Rashard Mendenhall: 32.44

Ray Rice: 31.43

Mike Hart: 30.97

James Davis: 29.69

Kevin Smith: 28.90

Steve Slaton: 28.31

Felix Jones: 28.16

Jamaal Charles: 28.08

Darren McFadden: 27.33

The ideal range would now include James Davis as well if he declares. Interestingly, McFadden stands out even more but Kevin Smith and Steve Slaton look like they could also be in the discussion.

Felix and Charles will have to probably put on weight but should be in there too. Charles and Felix will need to add at least 10 pounds ideally to their current weights of 205 and 200.

McFadden needs at least 15-20 pounds assuming he would weigh in at 74 inches (6'2") and 205 lbs.

Here's a RB sleeper to keep an eye on: Tony Temple out of Missouri. He's 5'9" and 200 lbs but has a BMI of 30.67 and comes from Missouri, a school that plays in a tough conference. He did have a career 5.48 YPC so that helps him a bit.

 

[EBF]

So maybe we could say the rough ideal BMI range is 29.5 to 33? As of right now that excludes all of the RB prospects except:Jonathan Stewart: 5'11" and 230 lbs. 32.10Rashard Mendenhall: 5'11" and 224 lbs. 31.20Ray Rice: 5'9" and 205 lbs. 30.30Mike Hart: 5'9" and 202 lbs. 29.80Interesting since three out of those four were already in my top 5. Looks like there might be reason to worry about Kevin Smith, Felix Jones, Jamaal Charles, and Darren McFadden.

But it gets really tricky EBF. Some guys put on weight after they get to the NFL, and five pounds is enough to make a difference (especially if they're only 5.10 1/2 instead of 5"11, for example). Also you'll see weights all over the map on some guys. Hard to believe they can't get it right within a couple pounds, but sometimes you'll find a range of 10 pounds or more.

I'm not saying it's perfect, but it could be useful.As for accurate heights and weights, the combine is about as accurate as it gets. We'll have some solid numbers on guys like Felix Jones and Jamaal Charles after they tip the scales in Indy.

 

[Tick]

But it gets really tricky EBF. Some guys put on weight after they get to the NFL, and five pounds is enough to make a difference (especially if they're only 5.10 1/2 instead of 5"11, for example). Also you'll see weights all over the map on some guys. Hard to believe they can't get it right within a couple pounds, but sometimes you'll find a range of 10 pounds or more.

Weights are tough in general - my brother was a pro hockey player, and he would come into a season at 225 every season after a summer of working out, then end the season at 215 after 80 games and lighter workouts. We all vary noticeably during a single day, and a single meal or big workout can make a big impact.This thread renews my faith in the Shark Pool - great work, guys.

 

[DawnBTVS]

I figured out the ideal weights for each height based on the low and high end "ideal BMI range" that we've determined. Roughly 29.00 - 33.00.

6'03" = 225 - 245

6'02" = 220 - 245

6'01" = 215 - 235

6'00" = 210 - 230

5'11" = 205 - 225

5'10" = 200 - 220

5'09" = 195 - 215

5'08" = 190 - 205

5'07" = 180 - 200

So if you're looking at a RB who stands 5'10" but weighs 230 lbs, you might want to be a little leery. Granted, this isn't foolproof at all but it's a good general range to keep an eye on (tying in with the gut instinct of a guy being 5'10" and weighing 190 as skinny, etc.)

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Re: Slaton, Rice and Hart...

Remember that there have been no successful (starting) backs that weighed under 200 when arriving in the NFL for some time. The smallest two I can think of in the last dozen years or so are Westbrook (200) and Tiki Barber (who came into the NFL at 195 or 200, but was listed at 205 when he was done). Oh, Bush is 200 too. Dunn is such a freak I don't think it's worth thinking about him. BMI is definitely not enough on its own.

And while some of the heavy hitters are around, maybe you can help me figure out something I've been messing with re: my original post in this topic.

The gist of it is that I think the scouts get the big backs (up to 235-240 pretty much right). It's the small backs they have trouble with - especially those they don't have as much data on.

The smaller 1st round+ guys are pegged pretty good - with Thomas Jones being the worst of the guys we have enough info on to say something definitive (but geez did he piss someone off to get saddled with the crap offenses he's played in for his whole career or what?). It's the smaller RBs (under 215) between picks 51 and 101 that seem to be drafted in the wrong spot. (Remember I've already thrown out the backs over 23 years old or under 200 pounds - believe me you're not missing anything after the 1st rounders).

Under 22.5 years old, and first 76 picks

51 Clinton Portis +

60 Maurice Jones-Drew +

63 Brandon Jackson +

65 Frank Gore +

72 Brian Calhoun +

76 Ahman Green +

Either 22.5-23.0 or picked after pick 76 or both

44 J.J. Arrington

54 Maurice Morris

77 Ryan Moats

80 Abdul-Karim al-Jabbar (+)

81 Reuben Droughns (+)

91 Brian Westbrook

95 Amos Zereoue

101 Domanick Williams

105 Darnell Autry

Here's my dilemma... all four of the guys who were drafted in the first 76 picks and younger than 22.5 years old when they entered the league that we can make a judgment about made it big. And remember, they were ALL surprises to most people at the time they broke out.

But, and this is where it gets confusing ... every single one of them entered the NFL as something of a mystery.

(Star) Portis - lost his starting job as a sophomore, but got it back as a junior

(Star) Jones-Drew - less of a mystery, but people were leery of his height

(TBD) Brandon Jackson - backup and then injured, only taking the starting job for last nine games of junior year

(Star) Gore - blew not one, but two knees in college

(Star) Green - was behind Phillips, then missed quite a bit of soph season with turf toe

(TBD) Brian Calhoun - backup at Colorado, transferred to Wisconsin, sat out a year, then blew up junior year

Now let's look at the rest of the guys - either drafted after pick 76 or were between 22.5 and 23.0 on 9/1 of their rookie year. Of the nine, two made it big and, lo and behold both of them entered the league as mysteries:

Westbrook - missed his junior year with a knee, very small, played Div II ball

Davis - was never a first-choice starter at LSU

I think that's pretty strange. I'm almost willing to say that a young, small back that's a bit of an unknown, but gets drafted in the 2nd, 3rd or early 4th round anyhow is probably damn good. i.e. that there's a systematic and undeserved bias against small backs and a similar undeserved bias against backs with injury or college playing time question marks who otherwise look like they're worth drafting fairly early.

The rest of the players (as far as I can tell) were known quantities entering the NFL. There weren't a lot of reservations, or reasons they might not be slotted correctly.

So, is the takeaway that younger players (<22.5 are better bets)? Or that NFL scouts are too risk averse and are dropping guys down in the draft too far on account of being small and/or unknowns?

Is it coincidence that Arrington and Morris are the only two flops in the first 76 picks, and that they were both between 22.5 and 23.0?

Are Jackson and Calhoun going to be good if they get/stay healthy and find a chance?

Am I making too much of this? Is it a crapshoot after you eliminate the older/wrong weight guys? Or does this make sense to someone that hasn't been staring at the data for too many hours?

What do you think?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I think you're looking at the data too much, lol. I think there is just no way statistically to account for guys who just don't have the desire to get it done at the NFL level or visa versa have the heart regardless of the numbers. The best thing you can do, and you've done a great job of it, is to limit the guessing as much as possible and improve the odds. You'll never be able to completely "prove" why Westbrook and Davis came out of less than optimal circumstances to succeed when so many others did not or why Calhoun didn't live up to his billing. Just my opinion of course, I'm happy to use the information if you find a way to do it.

 

[sn0mm1s]

Not to hijack this topic but I ran some quick numbers on the top 50 rushers in NFL history based on height.Drafted : Average heightInception - 1969 : 73.17 inches (six players)1970 - 1979 : 72.29 inches (seven players)1980 - 1989 : 71.82 inches (eleven players)1990 - 1999 : 71.41 inches (twenty two players)2000 - present : 70.75 inches (four players)

This is also interesting to me. It suggests that there's a gradual paradigm shift towards shorter RBs. I think all of this combined with BMI data could provide some interesting insights. I've always said that LT's amazing durability can't be attributed simply to luck. And while I realize that many backs with similar dimensions have had durability problems, it seems pretty clear that the little bowling ball guys offer the best durability potential (Alexander, Faulk, Edge, LT, and Barry to name a few).

I have a couple of ideas on why this is the case and most have to do with the competition level in the NFL. I believe that the "modern" era of the NFL started in the mid to late 1970's and here is why.1) Football replaced baseball as America's game meaning football pulled in higher caliber athletes.2) Steroids and performance enhancing drugs entered the scene (actually started in the early 1970's)3) Football became professional (players didn't have to hold down offseason jobs).Prior to this time a tall back generally meant a big back. When RBs were as big as lineman a RB could wear down a defense. The RB was also just physically superior in straight line speed, size, and strength. This is why guys like Csonka, Brown, Motley etc. etc. performed so well.Once the above 3 events happened the field essentially shrank (due to speed) and RBs could no longer be among the biggest and fastest players on the field (no RB is going to be successful at 300 lbs... I am looking at you Craig Heyward). Which meant that pure size and straight line speed isn't enough. A RB has to be quick. Holes close faster. Changes of direction and acceleration must be better. This favors guys with lower centers of gravity.Also, I believe, a taller back is more susceptible to injuries. The force placed on joints is greater when the limbs are longer. So not only are shorter backs generally quicker they most likely suffer less leg injuries by avoiding the big hit.This isn't to say that tall backs aren't successful. I just think that they get worn down faster. They take more solid shots than the shorter backs and are more likely to get hurt if they do take a shot. Eric Dickerson is about the only tall back in the last 20 years to really buck this trend (and he bucks several more with the workload he had... he truly was an exceptional back). Eddie George became a plodder. Marcus Allen didn't break 1000 yards his last bazillion years in the league. Ottis Anderson = plodder. I don't think a single back above 6'1'' in the last 40 years besides Dickerson and Muncie averaged over 4.2 YPC for a career and broke into the top 100 rushers.So what does that mean for current players? We have probably seen the best of LJ. Adrian Peterson is a stud, but already injured from a relatively common hit. I don't think he is long for this league. I would be surprised if Brandon Jacobs is productive for more than 2 more years.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I think you're looking at the data too much, lol. I think there is just no way statistically to account for guys who just don't have the desire to get it done at the NFL level or visa versa have the heart regardless of the numbers. The best thing you can do, and you've done a great job of it, is to limit the guessing as much as possible and improve the odds. You'll never be able to completely "prove" why Westbrook and Davis came out of less than optimal circumstances to succeed when so many others did not or why Calhoun didn't live up to his billing. Just my opinion of course, I'm happy to use the information if you find a way to do it.

Well, you know your biz CB - so you could be right.I just think it's really strange that the six 2nd+ round smaller guys who made it big ALL had some major non-talent related doubt about them entering the league? It's like the scouts were saying, "I really like this guy, but boy he makes me nervous." When they should have been saying "Holy #### - I can't believe this guy's going to be available in the 3rd."And Calhoun's only been in the league for two years - injured both years. We don't (and may never) know what he could or couldn't do, but I'm not writing him off just yet.