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

[switz]

So this system seems to fit for several years yet it's "off by quite a bit" based on this year's crop that have yet to play yet? Seriously, Switz, have an open mind even ONCE and realize you may not be right 100% of the time. I know you're absolutely dumbfounded that your boy Felix doesn't fit the criteria thus hampering his sure path to Canton, but it may be possible.

Actually, it doesn't seem to fit ANY years, after the recent adjustments made.

Maurice Jones-Drew (2nd best model score in last ten years behind LT)

Brandon Jackson - total bust

Peterson, Adrian - best prospect of the bunch

Marshawn Lynch - definitely talented

Laurence Maroney - seems like he has the talent

Chris Henry - who knows

Reggie Bush - definitely talented

I'm guessing he has those players ordered the way they model, and if any model says Jackson is a better prospect than Peterson, Lynch, Maroney, and Bush, it's off by quite a bit.Plus, do you REALLY think Matt Forte is the best prospect out of this year's crop????

Whatever is causing the high rankings of Matt Forte and Brandon Jackson, and the low rankings of Reggie Bush and Felix Jones, is probably the problem area with the system. Just my $0.02. And yes, I know I can be wrong at times...

 

[switz]

I have a feeling Chris Henry and Brandon Jackson might throw a monkey wrench in whatever adjustments you might have made.

 

[Caveman_Nick]

One thing I find interesting about this, and I think it is why there are some players in this years draft throwing a real monkey wrench into the theory...

It's called "An Objective Measure of Talent", and yet one of the criteria is enormously subjective. Draft position. This is very obvious in this year's draft.

One thing that I think may prove out to skew this theory is the divergence from the traditional feature back in the NFL. Now we see RB groups with multiple skill sets among multiple players, an packages being designed specifically for different players. RBBC becomes more prevalent because offenses become increasingly more complex and teams want backs that can do different things.

Backs like Marshall Faulk, Brian Westbrook, Reggie Bush, and now in this draft Darren McFadden and Chris Johnson (not comparing player levels here, just tendency of past and potential future use patterns) are a new kind of back. Faulk and Westbrook fell more in the typical measures you are using, but these newer backs keep coming up faster and a bit on the light side. I don't think that these backs will necessarily flop so much as continue to fill a new strategic role on the football field.

You could almost look at what is happening with NFL offenses and compare it to the kinds of defensive shifting we have seen for years out of the Belichick defenses. Offenses are now focusing more on getting players that can move into different roles, and in doing so help create defensive mismatches.

I bring that up because I think it speaks to the subjectivity of the draft spot. I don't mean it as anything to refute the theory so much as point out that the game of football develops over time, and that these developments might be just the thing to create anomalies in a theory like this. And as teams look more to try to add the Reggie Bush element to their offense, I think you will see more of these types of small, fast backs chosen earlier in the draft.

 

[switz]

One thing I find interesting about this, and I think it is why there are some players in this years draft throwing a real monkey wrench into the theory...It's called "An Objective Measure of Talent", and yet one of the criteria is enormously subjective. Draft position. This is very obvious in this year's draft.One thing that I think may prove out to skew this theory is the divergence from the traditional feature back in the NFL. Now we see RB groups with multiple skill sets among multiple players, an packages being designed specifically for different players. RBBC becomes more prevalent because offenses become increasingly more complex and teams want backs that can do different things.Backs like Marshall Faulk, Brian Westbrook, Reggie Bush, and now in this draft Darren McFadden and Chris Johnson (not comparing player levels here, just tendency of past and potential future use patterns) are a new kind of back. Faulk and Westbrook fell more in the typical measures you are using, but these newer backs keep coming up faster and a bit on the light side. I don't think that these backs will necessarily flop so much as continue to fill a new strategic role on the football field.You could almost look at what is happening with NFL offenses and compare it to the kinds of defensive shifting we have seen for years out of the Belichick defenses. Offenses are now focusing more on getting players that can move into different roles, and in doing so help create defensive mismatches.I bring that up because I think it speaks to the subjectivity of the draft spot. I don't mean it as anything to refute the theory so much as point out that the game of football develops over time, and that these developments might be just the thing to create anomalies in a theory like this. And as teams look more to try to add the Reggie Bush element to their offense, I think you will see more of these types of small, fast backs chosen earlier in the draft.

Draft position is only evidence of one team's evaluation of a players talent. Look at Chris Johnson this year as an example.However, the one thing a mid-to-high first round pick ensures is opportunity, which is necessary for success.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Without giving away too much, what's keeping Ray Rice from being up there?

It actually is hard to talk about this without giving it away. But the obvious thing is that weight is so low that there's no guarantee he can play in the NFL. 199 is just really small by NFL standards.If you ignore that, he slots in among a few RBs who've had some success and some that haven't. But I wouldn't ignore it.

About some of these smaller backs. Johnson and Charles have been track guys, or WRs for some of their career and probably spent some time avoiding additional weight. I remember hearing that Rice lost several pounds to work on his 40 because that was the biggest ? about him coming into the draft. Does anybody in this thread give any weight (pun intended) to guys that should be heavier? Charles has spent so much time on track that he has missed significant time in spring ball and the weight room. Where would these guys rank if they came in at the cutoff 205 weight? I'm going into this draft class expecting all 3 to crack the 205 mark after their 1st year.

 

[EBF]

Without giving away too much, what's keeping Ray Rice from being up there?

It actually is hard to talk about this without giving it away. But the obvious thing is that weight is so low that there's no guarantee he can play in the NFL. 199 is just really small by NFL standards.If you ignore that, he slots in among a few RBs who've had some success and some that haven't. But I wouldn't ignore it.

About some of these smaller backs. Johnson and Charles have been track guys, or WRs for some of their career and probably spent some time avoiding additional weight. I remember hearing that Rice lost several pounds to work on his 40 because that was the biggest ? about him coming into the draft. Does anybody in this thread give any weight (pun intended) to guys that should be heavier? Charles has spent so much time on track that he has missed significant time in spring ball and the weight room. Where would these guys rank if they came in at the cutoff 205 weight? I'm going into this draft class expecting all 3 to crack the 205 mark after their 1st year.

To me, it's a frame issue. Charles and Slaton have slender frames. No amount of weight training will turn them into MJD. I think Johnson has a little more potential to add bulk, but he'll be lucky to hit 205 unless he has some unexpected late growth spurt. I think the odds are hugely stacked against these guys when you talk about starting potential. I'm a little more optimistic about Rice because even though he's light, he has a stocky frame and he runs with power on the field.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Without giving away too much, what's keeping Ray Rice from being up there?

It actually is hard to talk about this without giving it away. But the obvious thing is that weight is so low that there's no guarantee he can play in the NFL. 199 is just really small by NFL standards.If you ignore that, he slots in among a few RBs who've had some success and some that haven't. But I wouldn't ignore it.

About some of these smaller backs. Johnson and Charles have been track guys, or WRs for some of their career and probably spent some time avoiding additional weight. I remember hearing that Rice lost several pounds to work on his 40 because that was the biggest ? about him coming into the draft. Does anybody in this thread give any weight (pun intended) to guys that should be heavier? Charles has spent so much time on track that he has missed significant time in spring ball and the weight room. Where would these guys rank if they came in at the cutoff 205 weight? I'm going into this draft class expecting all 3 to crack the 205 mark after their 1st year.

To me, it's a frame issue. Charles and Slaton have slender frames. No amount of weight training will turn them into MJD. I think Johnson has a little more potential to add bulk, but he'll be lucky to hit 205 unless he has some unexpected late growth spurt. I think the odds are hugely stacked against these guys when you talk about starting potential. I'm a little more optimistic about Rice because even though he's light, he has a stocky frame and he runs with power on the field.

Agree w/ Rice. He looked about 208 +/- 5 in college. He wouldn't surprise me at 210 by the start of next season. The other two, I was intrigued by their limited size being intentional up until this point. Now, w/ a green light to play RB full-time in the NFL, they can afford to gain the necessary weight. Both have kept their weight down for track, playing WR or whatever and either one could likely see 205 before the start of this season. When I gave up boxing and committed to the weights for football, I was able to put on 15 pounds in 3 weeks while maintaining the same body fat. I'm not saying that these guys are as trimmed out as a boxer or wrestler, but if I can put on that kind of weight, I'm sure these guys can gain 1/2 that in the next 3 months. In no way do I see these guys as a potential MJD, but a possible Westbrook... ?

 

[EBF]

Without giving away too much, what's keeping Ray Rice from being up there?

It actually is hard to talk about this without giving it away. But the obvious thing is that weight is so low that there's no guarantee he can play in the NFL. 199 is just really small by NFL standards.If you ignore that, he slots in among a few RBs who've had some success and some that haven't. But I wouldn't ignore it.

About some of these smaller backs. Johnson and Charles have been track guys, or WRs for some of their career and probably spent some time avoiding additional weight. I remember hearing that Rice lost several pounds to work on his 40 because that was the biggest ? about him coming into the draft. Does anybody in this thread give any weight (pun intended) to guys that should be heavier? Charles has spent so much time on track that he has missed significant time in spring ball and the weight room. Where would these guys rank if they came in at the cutoff 205 weight? I'm going into this draft class expecting all 3 to crack the 205 mark after their 1st year.

To me, it's a frame issue. Charles and Slaton have slender frames. No amount of weight training will turn them into MJD. I think Johnson has a little more potential to add bulk, but he'll be lucky to hit 205 unless he has some unexpected late growth spurt. I think the odds are hugely stacked against these guys when you talk about starting potential. I'm a little more optimistic about Rice because even though he's light, he has a stocky frame and he runs with power on the field.

Agree w/ Rice. He looked about 208 +/- 5 in college. He wouldn't surprise me at 210 by the start of next season. The other two, I was intrigued by their limited size being intentional up until this point. Now, w/ a green light to play RB full-time in the NFL, they can afford to gain the necessary weight. Both have kept their weight down for track, playing WR or whatever and either one could likely see 205 before the start of this season. When I gave up boxing and committed to the weights for football, I was able to put on 15 pounds in 3 weeks while maintaining the same body fat. I'm not saying that these guys are as trimmed out as a boxer or wrestler, but if I can put on that kind of weight, I'm sure these guys can gain 1/2 that in the next 3 months. In no way do I see these guys as a potential MJD, but a possible Westbrook... ?

Assuming that these rookies will get bigger is wishful thinking. For every guy like Portis who gains some bulk after entering the league, there are lots of guys who enter the NFL as finished products. All of these RB prospects have been high level division 1 football players for years. They've been lifting weights. Many of them are probably close to maxed out.I think Charles and Slaton are undraftable in most leagues because I doubt they'll ever get big enough to handle more than 10-12 touches per game. Johnson only has value in PPR IMO. He'll catch passes, but I don't see him ever becoming a three down back.

You can't change your frame. Look at all of those lanky NBA players like Darius Miles, Kevin Garnett, and Joe Smith. No matter how much they work out, they don't get thick. That's a frame issue. I see the same type of problem for Slaton/Charles/Johnson.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I still think that Charles can put on some muscle up top, but you make some good points.

 

[aposulli]

Without giving away too much, what's keeping Ray Rice from being up there?

It actually is hard to talk about this without giving it away. But the obvious thing is that weight is so low that there's no guarantee he can play in the NFL. 199 is just really small by NFL standards.If you ignore that, he slots in among a few RBs who've had some success and some that haven't. But I wouldn't ignore it.

About some of these smaller backs. Johnson and Charles have been track guys, or WRs for some of their career and probably spent some time avoiding additional weight. I remember hearing that Rice lost several pounds to work on his 40 because that was the biggest ? about him coming into the draft. Does anybody in this thread give any weight (pun intended) to guys that should be heavier? Charles has spent so much time on track that he has missed significant time in spring ball and the weight room. Where would these guys rank if they came in at the cutoff 205 weight? I'm going into this draft class expecting all 3 to crack the 205 mark after their 1st year.

To me, it's a frame issue. Charles and Slaton have slender frames. No amount of weight training will turn them into MJD. I think Johnson has a little more potential to add bulk, but he'll be lucky to hit 205 unless he has some unexpected late growth spurt. I think the odds are hugely stacked against these guys when you talk about starting potential. I'm a little more optimistic about Rice because even though he's light, he has a stocky frame and he runs with power on the field.

Agree w/ Rice. He looked about 208 +/- 5 in college. He wouldn't surprise me at 210 by the start of next season. The other two, I was intrigued by their limited size being intentional up until this point. Now, w/ a green light to play RB full-time in the NFL, they can afford to gain the necessary weight. Both have kept their weight down for track, playing WR or whatever and either one could likely see 205 before the start of this season. When I gave up boxing and committed to the weights for football, I was able to put on 15 pounds in 3 weeks while maintaining the same body fat. I'm not saying that these guys are as trimmed out as a boxer or wrestler, but if I can put on that kind of weight, I'm sure these guys can gain 1/2 that in the next 3 months. In no way do I see these guys as a potential MJD, but a possible Westbrook... ?

Assuming that these rookies will get bigger is wishful thinking. For every guy like Portis who gains some bulk after entering the league, there are lots of guys who enter the NFL as finished products. All of these RB prospects have been high level division 1 football players for years. They've been lifting weights. Many of them are probably close to maxed out.I think Charles and Slaton are undraftable in most leagues because I doubt they'll ever get big enough to handle more than 10-12 touches per game. Johnson only has value in PPR IMO. He'll catch passes, but I don't see him ever becoming a three down back.

You can't change your frame. Look at all of those lanky NBA players like Darius Miles, Kevin Garnett, and Joe Smith. No matter how much they work out, they don't get thick. That's a frame issue. I see the same type of problem for Slaton/Charles/Johnson.

Agree completely. Granted he fits the Titans offensive scheme very well, Johnson is getting too much love on FBGs, especially considering non-PPR scoring.

 

[gheemony]

wdcrob:

Is the difference between Forte and K. Smith primarily caused by draft position?

I honestly can't distinguish between the two. Same height and weight. Didn't play at major schools. Performed very well in college (stats wise). And the difference between a mid-2nd round pick and the FIRST pick of the 3rd is not much in my book.

I'm surprised that some people say that Smith is slight and falls on contact, but that Forte is a big, powerful back. I'm no scout, but they look similar to me in running style.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

It's called "An Objective Measure of Talent", and yet one of the criteria is enormously subjective. Draft position. This is very obvious in this year's draft.

If you'd like to do some research to back up your assertion that there's a new brand of back being drafted - feel free. They look pretty similar to earlier backs to me when I look at the data set.Yes - there are subjective elements to draft position. But there are definitely objective components to it (statistical links), and once the player is drafted his draft position is a matter of fact, not opinion.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

wdcrob:Is the difference between Forte and K. Smith primarily caused by draft position?I honestly can't distinguish between the two. Same height and weight. Didn't play at major schools. Performed very well in college (stats wise). And the difference between a mid-2nd round pick and the FIRST pick of the 3rd is not much in my book.I'm surprised that some people say that Smith is slight and falls on contact, but that Forte is a big, powerful back. I'm no scout, but they look similar to me in running style.

Yeah - those two are draft position almost entirely. And I wouldn't put much stock in small differences among the rank order. It's definitely a tier thing. And it's still a work in progress.

 

[coolnerd]

I still think that Charles can put on some muscle up top, but you make some good points.

If my memory serves me corect from his recruitment, he was listed as 180-185 out of high school. Track and everything considered being between 195-200 is actually decen tweight gain. whther he can do more remains to be seen.

 

[awesomeness]

wdcrob:

Is the difference between Forte and K. Smith primarily caused by draft position?

I honestly can't distinguish between the two. Same height and weight. Didn't play at major schools. Performed very well in college (stats wise). And the difference between a mid-2nd round pick and the FIRST pick of the 3rd is not much in my book.

I'm surprised that some people say that Smith is slight and falls on contact, but that Forte is a big, powerful back. I'm no scout, but they look similar to me in running style.

Look at Kevin Smith at the goal line in the above link, not impressive. Instead of lowering his head to get the 2 yards, he jukes numerous times. Smith also seems to fall awkwardly quite a few times in the video, looks like his balance isnt great which will prevent him from breaking some tackles.

Forte breaks more tackles, and is able and willing to lower his head to try and plough over someone.

 

[Caveman_Nick]

It's called "An Objective Measure of Talent", and yet one of the criteria is enormously subjective. Draft position. This is very obvious in this year's draft.

If you'd like to do some research to back up your assertion that there's a new brand of back being drafted - feel free. They look pretty similar to earlier backs to me when I look at the data set.Yes - there are subjective elements to draft position. But there are definitely objective components to it (statistical links), and once the player is drafted his draft position is a matter of fact, not opinion.

Oh, no...I am not saying that there is a new brand of back as much as I am saying that there are new usage patterns in the game.The main point I was making was not to refute the research you have done. I think that stuff is terrific. I was more trying to point out why there are so many anomaly backs in this years draft. With all these scat backs in the mix, it very well may make the results of the 2008 draft look weird in your system. I think teams are looking for that kind of thunder and lightning mix, and liking what they can do with 2 back sets and the types of mismatches that RBs create in the slot and on the flank.No...I was not trying to refute what you are saying as much as trying to offer a path to look at this year's odd crop EDIT TO ADD: I also think that this is going to take a few years to prove out. This type of offensive mentality may not last, and I think the Reggie Bush, Darren McFadden, Chris Johnson type of players will be the keys to the puzzle for the teams wanting to do this. In 2-3 years we will see how well it's working.

 

[dollarbill13]

So how does Chris Johnson score with the new model?

 

[dawrecker]

Now that Pro football prospectus is out and they used speed scores instead of this methodology and the fact that several of the players like Brandon Jackson, it has directly opposite thoughts on where do you see things at? Do you believe in the speed score ranking or do you see your rankings still standing up even more so? I really like the thoughts on both but it makes it tough to figure out which one to follow on players that both systems don't agree on

wdcrob:Is the difference between Forte and K. Smith primarily caused by draft position?I honestly can't distinguish between the two. Same height and weight. Didn't play at major schools. Performed very well in college (stats wise). And the difference between a mid-2nd round pick and the FIRST pick of the 3rd is not much in my book.I'm surprised that some people say that Smith is slight and falls on contact, but that Forte is a big, powerful back. I'm no scout, but they look similar to me in running style.

Yeah - those two are draft position almost entirely. And I wouldn't put much stock in small differences among the rank order. It's definitely a tier thing. And it's still a work in progress.

 

[Tick]

This was very interesting last season... are you sharing again this year, wdcrob?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I'll just do it here... you can ignore almost everything I wrote before. Without more info (I'd especially love a % body fat measure for RBs) I'm not sure I can go any further until I have more career peformance results. There are three items I think should adjust this score, but I don't really have a handle on how to do it yet.

I do know that even with its flaws this talent metric kicks the living hell out of draft position in terms of predictivity.

So... here's a single-number measure of talent estimate for all RBs from 2003 to 2008, and selected RBs from 1998-2002. There are a few misses (especially Arrington and Moats - I think you can make the case that most of the others have injury or character reasons for missing), but considering this is a coherent and fairly elegant rating system applicable for ALL RBs using publicly available info I think it's not bad:

Reggie Bush	6.1Felix Jones	4.9Rashard Mendenhall	4.8Willis McGahee	3.8LenDale White	3.8LaDainian Tomlinson	3.8Ahman Green	3.7Fred Taylor	3.6J.J. Arrington	3.6Edgerrin James	3.3Marshawn Lynch	3.2Brian Westbrook	2.8Ryan Moats	2.7Larry Johnson	2.7Kevin Jones	2.6Deuce McAllister	2.6Maurice Jones-Drew	2.5Michael Turner 	2.5Jonathan Stewart	2.4Jamaal Charles	2.2Steve Slaton	2.0Chris Johnson	2.0Clinton Portis	1.8Frank Gore	1.7Kolby Smith 	1.7Darren McFadden	1.5Jamal Lewis	1.5Steven Jackson	  1.2Domanick Williams	0.7LaMont Jordan	0.7Musa Smith	0.7Chris Brown	0.7Adrian Peterson	0.6Correll Buckhalter	0.6Ronnie Brown	0.6DeAngelo Williams	0.6Derrick Ward 	0.5Tim Hightower	0.5Ray Rice	0.5Jalen Parmele	0.3Travis Henry	0.3Marion Barber	0.3Joseph Addai	0.3Chester Taylor 	0.2Shaun Alexander	0.2Matt Forte	0.2Thomas Jones	0.0Onterrio Smith	0.0Brandon Jackson	-0.2Bruce Perry 	-0.3Chris Henry	-0.3Lee Suggs	-0.3Amos Zereoue	-0.3Maurice Morris	-0.4Ciatrick Fason	-0.4Laurence Maroney	-0.5Quentin Griffin	-0.5Lamar Gordon	-0.5Carnell Williams	-0.6Rudi Johnson	-0.6Travis Minor	-0.7Wali Lundy 	-0.7J.R. Redmond	-0.7Cedric Benson	-0.8Kevan Barlow	-0.8Ryan Torrain	-0.9Noah Herron 	-0.9Jerome Harrison 	-1.0Antonio Pittman	-1.0Michael Bennett	-1.0Reuben Droughns	-1.0Brian Calhoun	-1.1Ahmad Bradshaw 	-1.2Quinton Ganther 	-1.2Julius Jones	-1.3Chris Perry	-1.3Damien Nash 	-1.3LaBrandon Toefield	-1.4Thomas Brown	-1.5Cory Boyd	-1.5DeShaun Foster	-1.6Jerious Norwood	-1.6Kevin Smith	-1.7Justise Hairston 	-1.8Chauncey Washington	-1.8Tony Hunt	-1.9Justin Fargas	-2.0Quincy Wilson 	-2.0Brian Leonard	-2.1Alvin Pearman	-2.2Brandon Miree 	-2.2Tashard Choice	-2.2Adimchinobe Echemandu 	-2.3DeAndra Cobb 	-2.5Dwayne Wright	-2.7Cedric Humes 	-2.7Mewelde Moore	-2.7Brock Forsey 	-2.8Cedric Houston 	-2.9Lionel Gates 	-2.9Kenny Irons	-3.1Mike Hart	-3.5Thomas Clayton 	-3.5Ahmaad Galloway 	-4.0Cedric Cobbs	-4.6P.J. Daniels	-5.4

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

A few notes:

Lendale is a great example of why I want the % body fat #. Weight is important, but the system assumes weight is all productive. And obviously that's not always true.

McGahee missing all of his rookie year probably hurt him.

IMO you can really see the effect of playing behind a good o-line in a potent offense. eg...Rudi Johnson and Shaun Alexander

Two items I don't quite now how to adjust for are: went to a non-BCS school and draft position (this version of the rating system completely ignores it)

There will be players you disagree profoundly on. That's fine. Try to look at the whole thing and the number of late-drafted players it pulls to the top who actually panned out, and the near total absence of poorly rated players who made it.

ETA: these ratings use the player's listed playing weight. I've had a go at developing a model that predicts weight gain or loss after the combine, but it's not all that great. The pre-draft ratings don't look quite as good for that reason (i.e. when the model is using predicted weight instead of actual playing weight).

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Do you plan to share 2009 rankings?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

And FWIW... I'd say this is roughly how I'd think of the ratings...

< -2 is almost useless

-2 to -1 is a role-player type

-1 to 0 is a player that's a useful backup and typically do have a year or two as a starter by default or due to injury

0 to 1 is a starter-quality guy, but probably not a career starter

1+ are the elite backs

Small backs and those drafted late typically get their opportunities later than big/early-drafted RBs. I don't see any performance-based reasons this should be true.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Do you plan to share 2009 rankings?

Yeah... after my drafts. I'll include an estimate of my confidence for each prediction too. Because there are so few players in the sample there are unique exceptions each year and it's hard to know what to do with them.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I should also add that this started out as a FF project and only evolved into something that tries to measure actual talent afterwards. And I was trying to measure a player's talent as both a runner and a receiver. So it probably overrates some of the smaller pass-catching backs - and dings guys like Adrian Peterson.

 

[jevy]

Did you or do you plan to release a WR version?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Yeah... I think I've got something pretty good for the WRs too, but it relies on playing weight even more heavily. IMO that's why WRs are so hard to predict - small weight changes can really mess them up. And it's totally different than this - there's no single score. Just four categories the players can be grouped into.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

One more note...these are the guys between .5 and 1.0:

Domanick Williams 0.7

LaMont Jordan 0.7

Musa Smith 0.7

Chris Brown 0.7

Adrian Peterson 0.6

Correll Buckhalter 0.6

Ronnie Brown 0.6

DeAngelo Williams 0.6

I think you could easily make the case that they're elite backs as well. But you've got four guys who had catastrophic injury problems throughout their careers (Dom Wms, Musa Smith, Chris Brown, Buckhalter) and another one that sat behind a HOF back for four years before getting his shot and then having injury problems himself (Jordan). But in general these backs have looked pretty damn good when healthy.

Is it coincidence that there's such a high rate of terrible injuries here? I think so, but who knows...

 

[trader jake]

I will compile a complete set of rookie rankings after I'm done with my next wave of drafts, but my early advice is:

Avoid - Darren McFadden, Chris Johnson, Jamaal Charles, Steve Slaton, Ryan Torain, Matt Forte, Kevin Smith

These guys have a bad chance of fulfilling expectations. Avoid.

Target - Rashard Mendenhall, Jonathan Stewart, Felix Jones, Tashard Choice

These guys have a moderate chance of fulfilling expectations. Target.

What went wrong with this crop of backs/predictions?

btw... sticking strictly to the goal here of finding "An Objective Measure of Talent," here are the RBs my model says to draft if you ignore BMI, ranked according to their model score. Again, I don't think this is right since there are a couple questions I haven't got completely answered yet and this draft perversely hit all of them pretty hard, but here it is:

Matt Forte

Kevin Smith

Darren McFadden

Rashard Mendenhall

Jonathan Stewart

Felix Jones

You could do worse considering this was put together without anything that would ever require you to see the RB play, or watch a second of film.

Matt Forte made this look very good. With your model would you be inclined to predict an eventual fall off for Chris Johnson and Steve Slaton?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Matt Forte made this look very good. With your model would you be inclined to predict an eventual fall off for Chris Johnson and Steve Slaton?

Wish I could take credit for that one, but the truth is that it was lucky. What I was doing last year wasn't right.It took awhile to get past the errors (mostly overfitting) because they were actually pointing towards something useful, but in the end everything is much simpler than what I started out doing two years ago. And it's considerably simplified from last year as well. It's clean and intuitive now.IMO Forte is a marginally talented starting back. He'll be around for a long time, but I don't think he's an elite talent. Smith seems to love him though, so he could continue getting the ball at a ridiculous pace. IMO if Kevin Jones is fully healthy he'll eat into Forte's carries this year and look pretty good doing it.Slaton's a damn good back. How he gets used is up to Kubiak.

 

[Toads]

Time to start an '09 thread for the '09 analysis?

Need to know for '05-'08 has passed on by.

 

[madd futher]

Just an early guess:

There are probably only 4 backs that fit wdcrob's model this year for 'premium' backs, and two others who might hit if they are selected in roughly the top 4 rounds:

'Big back' category (2): Premium back - Wells .........Marginal back - Andre Brown

'Small back category (4): Premium Backs - McCoy (assuming you use his normal weight - not his 'flu' weight at the combine); Moreno, Donald Brown; Marginal back: Peerman

I'm guessing that Shon Greene and Jennings are both misses, as will be every other 'small back'.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I'll just do it here... you can ignore almost everything I wrote before. Without more info (I'd especially love a % body fat measure for RBs) I'm not sure I can go any further until I have more career peformance results. There are three items I think should adjust this score, but I don't really have a handle on how to do it yet.I do know that even with its flaws this talent metric kicks the living hell out of draft position in terms of predictivity.

How? Why?

 

[Bri]

I will compile a complete set of rookie rankings after I'm done with my next wave of drafts, but my early advice is:

Avoid - Darren McFadden, Chris Johnson, Jamaal Charles, Steve Slaton, Ryan Torain, Matt Forte, Kevin Smith

These guys have a bad chance of fulfilling expectations. Avoid.

Target - Rashard Mendenhall, Jonathan Stewart, Felix Jones, Tashard Choice

These guys have a moderate chance of fulfilling expectations. Target.

What went wrong with this crop of backs/predictions?

btw... sticking strictly to the goal here of finding "An Objective Measure of Talent," here are the RBs my model says to draft if you ignore BMI, ranked according to their model score. Again, I don't think this is right since there are a couple questions I haven't got completely answered yet and this draft perversely hit all of them pretty hard, but here it is:

Matt Forte

Kevin Smith

Darren McFadden

Rashard Mendenhall

Jonathan Stewart

Felix Jones

You could do worse considering this was put together without anything that would ever require you to see the RB play, or watch a second of film.

Matt Forte made this look very good. With your model would you be inclined to predict an eventual fall off for Chris Johnson and Steve Slaton?

without slaton or johnson (and probably some others I can't think of) with just six guys, how's this good? Couldn't everyone do that?

 

[Bri]

EBF, wdcrob, I remember going round and round about BMI last year. What new thoughts or theories are you trying for this year's evaluation? How are you adjusting etc?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I think BMI matters a lot, but just like the 40yd it's meaningless in isolation. You have to roll it in with everything else you know.

 

[identikit]

I will compile a complete set of rookie rankings after I'm done with my next wave of drafts, but my early advice is:

Avoid - Darren McFadden, Chris Johnson, Jamaal Charles, Steve Slaton, Ryan Torain, Matt Forte, Kevin Smith

These guys have a bad chance of fulfilling expectations. Avoid.

Target - Rashard Mendenhall, Jonathan Stewart, Felix Jones, Tashard Choice

These guys have a moderate chance of fulfilling expectations. Target.

What went wrong with this crop of backs/predictions?

btw... sticking strictly to the goal here of finding "An Objective Measure of Talent," here are the RBs my model says to draft if you ignore BMI, ranked according to their model score. Again, I don't think this is right since there are a couple questions I haven't got completely answered yet and this draft perversely hit all of them pretty hard, but here it is:

Matt Forte

Kevin Smith

Darren McFadden

Rashard Mendenhall

Jonathan Stewart

Felix Jones

You could do worse considering this was put together without anything that would ever require you to see the RB play, or watch a second of film.

Matt Forte made this look very good. With your model would you be inclined to predict an eventual fall off for Chris Johnson and Steve Slaton?

without slaton or johnson (and probably some others I can't think of) with just six guys, how's this good? Couldn't everyone do that?

Exactly.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

How? Why?

I'm not saying how or why yet. Sorry, I know that's frustrating.But take those 'talent' estimates and compare them against draft position using whatever measure you use for career performance (especially if you use the categories I've listed above). They dramatically improve on it. In fact if you account for opportunity it appears to make draft position almost irrelevant - at least from the middle of the first round through the early 4th. I'm not sure about later-drafted guys - there just aren't that many 'talented' BCS conference guys that fall that far. Kolby Smith is the only one currently in my database.And there's no exceptions or fitting or anything like that - it's the same process for every player. It uses several inputs, but the final two measures are simple and intuitive - very clean. Again - it's a bit (though not horribly) messier if you use combine weights instead of current playing weights.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

And since at least half the people here think I'm nuts, I'll go ahead and post the ratings for the top eight or ten 2009 RBs:

Andre Brown 1.32 Knowshon Moreno 1.21 Chris Wells 1.09 Cedric Pearman 1.01 Donald Brown 0.16 Shonn Greene (1.20)Lesean McCoy (1.34)Javon Ringer (1.38)Rashad Jennings (1.99)I think the folks taking McCoy, Green, Jennings and Ringer are going to be very disappointed after the first year or two. And Andre Brown is the best value in the draft IMO. There are a couple later-drafted guys that look like they can play to me, but like I said above I'm not sure how to account for players taken in the back half of the draft yet. It may not matter, but it might.And I'm very confident of all these ratings but Pearmen - there just aren't very many guys like him and he's a bit of an outlier. And weight changes won't matter much for anyone except Brown. He'd be helped a lot by gaining a few pounds instead of losing them.

 

[Chase Stuart]

How? Why?

I'm not saying how or why yet. Sorry, I know that's frustrating.But take those 'talent' estimates and compare them against draft position using whatever measure you use for career performance (especially if you use the categories I've listed above). They dramatically improve on it. In fact if you account for opportunity it appears to make draft position almost irrelevant - at least from the middle of the first round through the early 4th. I'm not sure about later-drafted guys - there just aren't that many 'talented' BCS conference guys that fall that far. Kolby Smith is the only one currently in my database.And there's no exceptions or fitting or anything like that - it's the same process for every player. It uses several inputs, but the final two measures are simple and intuitive - very clean. Again - it's a bit (though not horribly) messier if you use combine weights instead of current playing weights.

Well is your system predictive or does it simply explain what happened before? It's not hard to come up with a system that improves upon draft position using old data. It's very hard -- and probably impossible -- to come up with a system that improves upon draft position for predicting the future. Did you use all the data you had to come up with your secret formula? If so, then you wouldn't have had any data left to test your system on.Did you come up with your system after thinking about it for awhile, and then test it against the data? Or did you check a ton of different variables and saw which fit best?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Well is your system predictive or does it simply explain what happened before? It's not hard to come up with a system that improves upon draft position using old data. It's very hard -- and probably impossible -- to come up with a system that improves upon draft position for predicting the future. Did you use all the data you had to come up with your secret formula? If so, then you wouldn't have had any data left to test your system on.Did you come up with your system after thinking about it for awhile, and then test it against the data? Or did you check a ton of different variables and saw which fit best?

I tried to go back and test using only the earlier years in my sample, but there's just not enough data since you really need to know how a guy's entire career pans out to judge it. Since the info I need is only available after 1999 there aren't very many RBs whose career performance is known yet.I've posted the ratings for players who aren't known yet so it's public and everyone can see if it's predictive or not. I expect it will beat draft position handily - though not as much as it does using historic data.There really aren't a ton of variables to check, but if you read the first post you can see I was all over the place. But I kept thinking about what I was seeing (across three years now), and in the end everything gets rolled into two concepts that make intuitive sense - it kept getting cleaner and simpler. I've taken three or four basic inputs and and manipulated them, but they're all blindingly obvious - there's nothing unusual in there. It's absolutely possible that it's not as predictive as it appears - I know that. But I'd take a large bet that Andre Brown turns out to be a MUCH better RB than McCoy, Ringer, Green and Jennings (who are all projected to be drafted within a round of him).

 

[Chase Stuart]

Well is your system predictive or does it simply explain what happened before? It's not hard to come up with a system that improves upon draft position using old data. It's very hard -- and probably impossible -- to come up with a system that improves upon draft position for predicting the future. Did you use all the data you had to come up with your secret formula? If so, then you wouldn't have had any data left to test your system on.Did you come up with your system after thinking about it for awhile, and then test it against the data? Or did you check a ton of different variables and saw which fit best?

I tried to go back and test using only the earlier years in my sample, but there's just not enough data since you really need to know how a guy's entire career pans out to judge it. Since the info I need is only available after 1999 there aren't very many RBs whose career performance is known yet.I've posted the ratings for players who aren't known yet so it's public and everyone can see if it's predictive or not. I expect it will beat draft position handily - though not as much as it does using historic data.There really aren't a ton of variables to check, but if you read the first post you can see I was all over the place. But I kept thinking about what I was seeing (across three years now), and in the end everything gets rolled into two concepts that make intuitive sense - it kept getting cleaner and simpler.It's absolutely possible that it's not as predictive as it appears - I know that. But I'd take a large bet that Andre Brown turns out to be a MUCH better RB than McCoy, Ringer, Green and Jennings (who are all projected to be drafted within a round of him).

It sounds like data mining to me, and that it won't be predictive.But let's get to the heart of the matter -- why don't NFL GMs factor in the wdcrob factors into the decision making when they draft? Why won't NFL GMs, surely knowledgeable of the data you have examined, take Andre Brown early in the draft?

 

[identikit]

Well is your system predictive or does it simply explain what happened before? It's not hard to come up with a system that improves upon draft position using old data. It's very hard -- and probably impossible -- to come up with a system that improves upon draft position for predicting the future. Did you use all the data you had to come up with your secret formula? If so, then you wouldn't have had any data left to test your system on.Did you come up with your system after thinking about it for awhile, and then test it against the data? Or did you check a ton of different variables and saw which fit best?

I tried to go back and test using only the earlier years in my sample, but there's just not enough data since you really need to know how a guy's entire career pans out to judge it. Since the info I need is only available after 1999 there aren't very many RBs whose career performance is known yet.I've posted the ratings for players who aren't known yet so it's public and everyone can see if it's predictive or not. I expect it will beat draft position handily - though not as much as it does using historic data.There really aren't a ton of variables to check, but if you read the first post you can see I was all over the place. But I kept thinking about what I was seeing (across three years now), and in the end everything gets rolled into two concepts that make intuitive sense - it kept getting cleaner and simpler.It's absolutely possible that it's not as predictive as it appears - I know that. But I'd take a large bet that Andre Brown turns out to be a MUCH better RB than McCoy, Ringer, Green and Jennings (who are all projected to be drafted within a round of him).

It sounds like data mining to me, and that it won't be predictive.But let's get to the heart of the matter -- why don't NFL GMs factor in the wdcrob factors into the decision making when they draft? Why won't NFL GMs, surely knowledgeable of the data you have examined, take Andre Brown early in the draft?

What's more, how do Team(s) wdcrob actually do in FF?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

But let's get to the heart of the matter -- why don't NFL GMs factor in the wdcrob factors into the decision making when they draft? Why won't NFL GMs, surely knowledgeable of the data you have examined, take Andre Brown early in the draft?

Because the NFL draft is horribly inefficient and a significant number of teams don't know what they're doing. Just like baseball was a few years ago.And I'll take your bet if you care to make one. You can pick your favorite player from the four I've listed - I'll take Andre Brown. IMO the chances that one of those players has a better career than Brown is close to zero (barring injury). What metric should we use? Peak three seasons scrimmage yards/game?

 

[EBF]

Andre Brown is going to be drafted earlier than expected.

Greene is a better back IMO.

My guess is that you're mostly looking at size/speed.

The problem with this kind of system is that it never takes into account actually watching the players play.

This kind of system will always love guys like Chris Henry even though they never stood out on the football field.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I know a lot of people don't like my answer to Chase above, and don't believe it's possible to outpredict the draft.

I'm not interested in a pissing match about it - that's why I've posted my predictions to watch. I'll live with those from here on in... any additional tinkering would be minor since there's not much else I could include.

EBF... did you actually look where I've got Henry rated? And I'll take your bet on Green. What are the stakes?

 

[identikit]

Andre Brown is going to be drafted earlier than expected.

Greene is a better back IMO.

My guess is that you're mostly looking at size/speed.

The problem with this kind of system is that it never takes into account actually watching the players play.

This kind of system will always love guys like Chris Henry even though they never stood out on the football field.

Did you see where I've actually got Chris Henry rated now?

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Andre Brown is going to be drafted earlier than expected.Greene is a better back IMO. My guess is that you're mostly looking at size/speed. The problem with this kind of system is that it never takes into account actually watching the players play.This kind of system will always love guys like Chris Henry even though they never stood out on the football field.

Did you see where I've actually got Chris Henry rated now?

Probably not. Besides, everyone knows that BMI is a better predictor than anything else.

 

[Boone22]

And since at least half the people here think I'm nuts, I'll go ahead and post the ratings for the top eight or ten 2009 RBs:

Andre Brown	 1.32 Knowshon Moreno	 1.21 Chris Wells	 1.09 Cedric Pearman	 1.01 Donald Brown	 0.16 Shonn Greene	 (1.20)Lesean McCoy	 (1.34)Javon Ringer	 (1.38)Rashad Jennings	 (1.99)

I think the folks taking McCoy, Green, Jennings and Ringer are going to be very disappointed after the first year or two. And Andre Brown is the best value in the draft IMO. There are a couple later-drafted guys that look like they can play to me, but like I said above I'm not sure how to account for players taken in the back half of the draft yet. It may not matter, but it might.And I'm very confident of all these ratings but Pearmen - there just aren't very many guys like him and he's a bit of an outlier. And weight changes won't matter much for anyone except Brown. He'd be helped a lot by gaining a few pounds instead of losing them.

wdcrob,Can you explain (to an idiot like me) what the number in the table mean? You mention Andre Bown as probably being the BEST overall RB pick for an NFL team with a score of 1.32 and yet you go on to say that Lesean McCoy will disappoint after his first season and yet he's got a score of 1.34, so what do the number mean? What's a "good score"?

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

I know a lot of people don't like my answer to Chase above, and don't believe it's possible to outpredict the draft.I'm not interested in a pissing match about it - that's why I've posted my predictions to watch. I'll live with those from here on in... any additional tinkering would be minor since there's not much else I could include.EBF... did you actually look where I've got Henry rated?

It's not that people don't like your answer - it's that your answer indicates you are data mining. Regardless, what you've put together is a great contribution to FBG, you should absolutely test your system going forward. If it holds up, this would be huge.