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

[awesomeness]

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.

one reason why Dickerson was able to stay healthy his whole career, is because he wasnt a power back. Most RB who are that big are Power backs that will try to run over defenders instead of run around them. Dickerson, on the other hand, would juke his way around defenders, and he would run out of bounds at times to avoid being hit. Although ADP has all the talent in the world, like you, im guessing his career wont be very long unless he tries to avoid being hit more often, and isnt afraid too just be happy with the first down and just run out of bounds.

 

[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.

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.

But what about the other 2nd+ round smaller guys who didn't make it big? Where is Travis Minor or Lamar Gordon?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Too old or too light... if this list doesn't convince you that 2nd-4th round guys over 23 and/or under 200 pounds aren't worth the time of day, well... there's a few guys on there that flatter to deceive, but by and large this is the dregs list. This includes all fourth rounders. I think that after about pick 100-110 you're wasting your time.

John Avery

Trung Canidate

Leeland McElroy

Byron Hanspard

Tatum Bell

Julius Jones

Kevin Faulk

Irons, Kenny

Michael Cloud

Sedrick Shaw

Troy Davis

James Jackson

Booker, Lorenzo

Winslow Oliver

Vernand Morency

Moe Williams

Jerious Norwood

Travis Minor

Rashaan Shehee

Doug Chapman

Wolfe, Garrett

Tavian Banks

Ricky Whittle

Leon Johnson

Pittman, Antonio

Quentin Griffin

Ciatrick Fason

Lee Suggs

Leon Washington

Travis Stephens

Mewelde Moore

Alvin Pearman

 

[EBF]

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?

I think that applies at any position. Bulletproof prospects don't fall in the draft. So if a guy fell in the draft, then that means there was something about him that gave scouts pause. A lot of the prospects who greatly exceed their draft position are guys who had some obvious excuse for going as low in the draft as they did:Tom Brady - second fiddle to Drew HensonMarques Colston - played for HofstraAntonio Gates - didn't play college footballChad Johnson - only played one season of college ball and ran a 4.6 at the combine.Anquan Boldin - played a lot of QB in college and ran a 4.7 at the combineHines Ward - college QBDrew Bennett - college QBPriest Holmes - college backupTerrell Owens - small school Willie Parker - college backupIf these guys had played under ideal circumstances in college then they probably would've gone higher in the draft.I think you're getting too caught up in the age/big/little thing. To me, the fact that JJ Arrington was between 22.5 and 23 when he entered the league has nothing to do with why he failed. As I've said before, I think the only reason why it looks like age matters is because most of the best RB prospects in a given year are early entries.

 

[awesomeness]

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?

I think that applies at any position. Bulletproof prospects don't fall in the draft. So if a guy fell in the draft, then that means there was something about him that gave scouts pause. A lot of the prospects who greatly exceed their draft position are guys who had some obvious excuse for going as low in the draft as they did:Tom Brady - second fiddle to Drew HensonMarques Colston - played for HofstraAntonio Gates - didn't play college footballChad Johnson - only played one season of college ball and ran a 4.6 at the combine.Anquan Boldin - played a lot of QB in college and ran a 4.7 at the combineHines Ward - college QBDrew Bennett - college QBPriest Holmes - college backupTerrell Owens - small school Willie Parker - college backupIf these guys had played under ideal circumstances in college then they probably would've gone higher in the draft.I think you're getting too caught up in the age/big/little thing. To me, the fact that JJ Arrington was between 22.5 and 23 when he entered the league has nothing to do with why he failed. As I've said before, I think the only reason why it looks like age matters is because most of the best RB prospects in a given year are early entries.

Which would mean that early entries have been safer picks over the years correct?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

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?

I think that applies at any position. Bulletproof prospects don't fall in the draft. So if a guy fell in the draft, then that means there was something about him that gave scouts pause. A lot of the prospects who greatly exceed their draft position are guys who had some obvious excuse for going as low in the draft as they did:Tom Brady - second fiddle to Drew HensonMarques Colston - played for HofstraAntonio Gates - didn't play college footballChad Johnson - only played one season of college ball and ran a 4.6 at the combine.Anquan Boldin - played a lot of QB in college and ran a 4.7 at the combineHines Ward - college QBDrew Bennett - college QBPriest Holmes - college backupTerrell Owens - small school Willie Parker - college backupIf these guys had played under ideal circumstances in college then they probably would've gone higher in the draft.I think you're getting too caught up in the age/big/little thing. To me, the fact that JJ Arrington was between 22.5 and 23 when he entered the league has nothing to do with why he failed. As I've said before, I think the only reason why it looks like age matters is because most of the best RB prospects in a given year are early entries.

I wish I could sit down and show you the spreadsheet. None of the big RBs taken after the first round were HOF types. Dillon's probably the closest and he was only a 14 PPG guy. All the big guys that went over 15 or 16 PPG were 1st round picks - no exceptions. The smaller guys though, they come out of much deeper in the draft. I think scouts discount guys too much for size. True of WRs too (where it's more that they over value heavy WRs). There's just no later-drafted equivalent to Westbrook or Ahman Green for big backs.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Which would mean that early entries have been safer picks over the years correct?

I'm going to go back and adjust for that to see if that's more important than age. There are some seniors that are still young enough that we might be able to separate the two things. I wanted to do it before posting my update, but had a lot of good people around tonight and wanted to take advantage of it to get opinions.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

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?

I think that applies at any position. Bulletproof prospects don't fall in the draft. So if a guy fell in the draft, then that means there was something about him that gave scouts pause. A lot of the prospects who greatly exceed their draft position are guys who had some obvious excuse for going as low in the draft as they did:Tom Brady - second fiddle to Drew HensonMarques Colston - played for HofstraAntonio Gates - didn't play college footballChad Johnson - only played one season of college ball and ran a 4.6 at the combine.Anquan Boldin - played a lot of QB in college and ran a 4.7 at the combineHines Ward - college QBDrew Bennett - college QBPriest Holmes - college backupTerrell Owens - small school Willie Parker - college backupIf these guys had played under ideal circumstances in college then they probably would've gone higher in the draft.I think you're getting too caught up in the age/big/little thing. To me, the fact that JJ Arrington was between 22.5 and 23 when he entered the league has nothing to do with why he failed. As I've said before, I think the only reason why it looks like age matters is because most of the best RB prospects in a given year are early entries.

The smaller guys though, they come out of much deeper in the draft. I think scouts discount guys too much for size. True of WRs too (where it's more that they over value heavy WRs). There's just no later-drafted equivalent to Westbrook or Ahman Green for big backs.

I have no doubt that this is true and it's probably natural for a scout or team to be more impressed by a bigger physical RB than by a scat back. That's why I think it's more important to watch those smaller guys more closely and then hang on to them for a couple of years. I'm hanging on to Andre Hall and Jerome Harrison for just that reason. But I don't think that there is any formula to tell you based on age and weight which of the second day or undrafted RBs are going to turn out to be decent or great.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I have no doubt that this is true and it's probably natural for a scout or team to be more impressed by a bigger physical RB than by a scat back. That's why I think it's more important to watch those smaller guys more closely and then hang on to them for a couple of years. I'm hanging on to Andre Hall and Jerome Harrison for just that reason. But I don't think that there is any formula to tell you based on age and weight which of the second day or undrafted RBs are going to turn out to be decent or great.

This will be fun to watch over the next few years. Right now Brandon Jackson and Brian Calhoun are the test cases (if Calhoun recovers from the knee injury). And I strongly suspect that Ryan Torain will get added to this list in April. 213 pounds, 21.08 years old on 9/1/2008, considered 'risky' because of his knee. If he gets drafted in the late 2nd or early 3rd round (as I suspect) I bet he 'surprises' everyone by becoming a good NFL starter.Love it or hate it at least my theory is testable. I could be totally off base, but at least it's testable.

 

[Maroney=Speed]

In the 2008 rook class who is better?

You have pick 1.1, who would you take.

McFadden has to be the pick,No?

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

this looks interesting, blackdot to read it at home when I have more time

 

[junk17]

this looks interesting, blackdot to read it at home when I have more time

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I have no doubt that this is true and it's probably natural for a scout or team to be more impressed by a bigger physical RB than by a scat back. That's why I think it's more important to watch those smaller guys more closely and then hang on to them for a couple of years. I'm hanging on to Andre Hall and Jerome Harrison for just that reason. But I don't think that there is any formula to tell you based on age and weight which of the second day or undrafted RBs are going to turn out to be decent or great.

This will be fun to watch over the next few years. Right now Brandon Jackson and Brian Calhoun are the test cases (if Calhoun recovers from the knee injury). And I strongly suspect that Ryan Torain will get added to this list in April. 213 pounds, 21.08 years old on 9/1/2008, considered 'risky' because of his knee. If he gets drafted in the late 2nd or early 3rd round (as I suspect) I bet he 'surprises' everyone by becoming a good NFL starter.Love it or hate it at least my theory is testable. I could be totally off base, but at least it's testable.

Very true. Looking forward to it.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

In the 2008 rook class who is better?You have pick 1.1, who would you take.McFadden has to be the pick,No?

I think so, but unlike the last two years when you would be crazy to trade down and miss out on Bush and Peterson (even given Bush's struggles) this is a year to trade the pick to someone in love with McFadden for a good deal.

 

[Maroney=Speed]

In the 2008 rook class who is better?You have pick 1.1, who would you take.McFadden has to be the pick,No?

I think so, but unlike the last two years when you would be crazy to trade down and miss out on Bush and Peterson (even given Bush's struggles) this is a year to trade the pick to someone in love with McFadden for a good deal.

What do you think it's worth?Or what would you trade the pick for?

 

[Boone22]

 

[EBF]

In the 2008 rook class who is better?You have pick 1.1, who would you take.McFadden has to be the pick,No?

Depending on what happens on draft day, I would definitely consider someone else and/or moving down. I don't necessarily think Darren McFadden is a scrub, but I do believe that his perceived value exceeds his real life value.As I've mentioned before, NO ONE was touting Larry Johnson, Joseph Addai, and Steven Jackson as "once-in-a-decade" talents and they've all emerged from late round 1 to become FF studs. Situation is a huge component of a RB's success. So given the choice between Jonathan Stewart or Rashard Mendenhall on the Seahawks/Texans or Darren McFadden on the Raiders/Falcons, I would at least have to sit down and weight the variables.

 

[Maroney=Speed]

In the 2008 rook class who is better?You have pick 1.1, who would you take.McFadden has to be the pick,No?

Depending on what happens on draft day, I would definitely consider someone else and/or moving down. I don't necessarily think Darren McFadden is a scrub, but I do believe that his perceived value exceeds his real life value.As I've mentioned before, NO ONE was touting Larry Johnson, Joseph Addai, and Steven Jackson as "once-in-a-decade" talents and they've all emerged from late round 1 to become FF studs. Situation is a huge component of a RB's success. So given the choice between Jonathan Stewart or Rashard Mendenhall on the Seahawks/Texans or Darren McFadden on the Raiders/Falcons, I would at least have to sit down and weight the variables.

Fair enough, thats why your one of the best on this site.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

In the 2008 rook class who is better?You have pick 1.1, who would you take.McFadden has to be the pick,No?

I think so, but unlike the last two years when you would be crazy to trade down and miss out on Bush and Peterson (even given Bush's struggles) this is a year to trade the pick to someone in love with McFadden for a good deal.

What do you think it's worth?Or what would you trade the pick for?

In terms of other running backs, I would do it for:LTPetersonWestbrookAddaiSJaxGoreLynchwithout a doubt. I would consider a trade for:BushJones-DrewBrownParkerI think his dynasty ranking, based on talent, is right after that with guys like Portis, Maroney, Barber and LJ.

 

[Barry Jive and The Uptown Five]

Here's an attempt at putting these guys in categories taking a few guesses at their draft positions.

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

The Ideal Guys -

McFadden

Mendenhall

4A - 15.0 PPG - (RD1 & 222-240 lbs)

Stewart

1B - 12.9 PPG - (Same as 1A but age 22.5 - 23.02)

2A - 10.4 PPG - (Same as 1A, but drafted later (77-109))

Ryan Torain

Let's assume he's drafted between 3.14 - 4.14. Bump him up to 1B is he goes before pick 3.13

4B - 9.3 PPG - (Big Back, under 23 age, 222-240 lbs., drafted after 1st)

Matt Forte

2B - 9.1 PPG - (Drafted before 3.13, EITHER "195-204 lbs and <23.02 age" OR "205-221 and 23-23.5 age")

Jamaal Charles

Felix Jones

Ray Rice

Steve Slaton

.... only way out of this category is to be drafted Top16 (bump to 1A)... Maybe but unlikely

2C - 6.1 PPG - (Drafted between 3.14 & 4.14; either 195-204 lbs or 23-23.5 age)

Mike Hart

Ian Johnson

Chris Johnson

Yvenson Bernard

.... Get drafted lower and off the map for these guys

3 - 4.5 PPG - (Older rookies, >23.5 years old)

Tashard Choice

Dantrell Savage

OK - Since this last post, I've been tracking as many mocks as I can find on the web and putting them into a dataset to track average draft position.1. I only look at draft that go 2+ rounds... really want 3 RD or more.

8 drafts with 2 RDs

8 drafts with 3+ RDs

Here's the combined data:

N High Low AVG

Darren McFadden 16 3 7 3.8

Jonathan Stewart 16 15 36 20.1

Rashard Mendenhall 16 15 38 22.4

Felix Jones 15 18 46 29.1

Ray Rice 13 44 92 62.2

Chris Johnson 12 35 101 62.4

Steve Slaton 9 48 90 63.8

Jammal Charles 9 45 89 65.1

Kevin Smith 7 30 107 65.4

Mike Hart 3 63 97 74.7

Tashard Choice 7 31 118 75.7

Matt Forte 6 54 142 90.7

Yvenson Bernard 1 138 138 138.0

Ryan Torain 1 176 176 176.0

Dantrell Savage 2 189 191 190.0

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

The Ideal Guys -

McFadden ADP 3.8

Mendenhall ADP 22.4

4A - 15.0 PPG - (RD1 & 222-240 lbs)

Stewart ADP 20.1

1B - 12.9 PPG - (Same as 1A but age 22.5 - 23.02)

NO RBs in this category (James Davis & Marlon Lucky not in draft)

2A - 10.4 PPG - (Same as 1A, but drafted later (77-109))

Ryan Torain ONLY listed once - #176 ... completely off the board if it stands

4B - 9.3 PPG - (Big Back, under 23 age, 222-240 lbs., drafted after 1st)

Matt Forte ADP 90.7

2B - 9.1 PPG - (Drafted before 3.13, EITHER "195-204 lbs and <23.02 age" OR "205-221 and 23-23.5 age")

Felix Jones ADP 29.1

Ray Rice ADP 62.2

Steve Slaton ADP 63.8

Jamaal Charles ADP 65.1

.... only way out of this category is to be drafted Top16 (bump to 1A)... Maybe Felix Jones if DET or ARZ falls in love (or DAL trades up )

2C - 6.1 PPG - (Drafted between 3.14 & 4.14; either 195-204 lbs or 23-23.5 age)

Mike Hart ADP 74.7... but only listed 3 times in 16 mocks

Chris Johnson ADP 62.4

Yvenson Bernard ADP 138 ... only listed on 1/16 mocks

.... Get drafted lower and off the map for these guys

3 - 4.5 PPG - (Older rookies, >23.5 years old)

Tashard Choice ADP 75.7

Dantrell Savage ADP 191 avg of 2 DEEP mocks

 

[Boone22]

I'll be more interested in the BMI data for these guys once they get to the Combine. (See post 139+)

 

[madd futher]

I have a slight problem with the weights u used. For instance, I've seen Felis Jones anywhere from 200-207. With 204 being a 'cut-off', it will be interesting to see what he weighs at the combine.

 

[EBF]

I have a slight problem with the weights u used. For instance, I've seen Felis Jones anywhere from 200-207. With 204 being a 'cut-off', it will be interesting to see what he weighs at the combine.

Weight isn't nearly as important as BMI in my opinion. Darren McFadden's 205 pounds is a world apart from MJD's 205 pounds. I appreciate the attempt to develop a useful predictor of RB success, but I think some of the variables are a little bit screwy. It's a good start though.

 

[Barry Jive and The Uptown Five]

I'll be more interested in the BMI data for these guys once they get to the Combine. (See post 139+)

You're dead on. These weights were taken from Construx's post on page 1 or 2.It will defintely be revised after the combine. I can see some movement of these guys once the official weights are in.And like EBF has been championing, BMI will be interesting to evaluate once that data is in as well.:tapsfingersondeskwaitingforcombine:

 

[Rodeojones]

Crazy good read.

 

[Arm Chair Express]

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: 33.31Rashard Mendenhall: 32.44Ray Rice: 31.43Mike Hart: 30.97James Davis: 29.69Kevin Smith: 28.90Steve Slaton: 28.31Felix Jones: 28.16Jamaal Charles: 28.08Darren McFadden: 27.33The 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.

I've always liked my rbs between 215 and 225, If you look at the top 10 rbs this season I believe all but Westbrook and Bush (ppr) all were between this range. But this seems to have some merit. At the risk of sounding stupid what is BMI (body build I'm assuming) and what formula are you using to come up with these numbers.

 

[Arm Chair Express]

In the 2008 rook class who is better?You have pick 1.1, who would you take.McFadden has to be the pick,No?

Go back a couple of years and who would you take today with the 1.1 pick?Bush AddiaMaroneyMJDI have the 1.1 pick but don't like McFaddens weight. Just like I didn't like Bush's weight, but I was hoping he would put some on so he could run between the tackles. Which he hasn't.

 

[Dope]

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.

I've always liked my rbs between 215 and 225, If you look at the top 10 rbs this season I believe all but Westbrook and Bush (ppr) all were between this range. But this seems to have some merit. At the risk of sounding stupid what is BMI (body build I'm assuming) and what formula are you using to come up with these numbers.

BMI = Body Mass Indicator.It's a way of calculating weight by also using height.

Here's a link with a BMI calculator:

BMI

 

[Arm Chair Express]

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.

I've always liked my rbs between 215 and 225, If you look at the top 10 rbs this season I believe all but Westbrook and Bush (ppr) all were between this range. But this seems to have some merit. At the risk of sounding stupid what is BMI (body build I'm assuming) and what formula are you using to come up with these numbers.

BMI = Body Mass Indicator.It's a way of calculating weight by also using height.

Here's a link with a BMI calculator:

BMI

Thanks.

 

[Arm Chair Express]

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

Arm Chair Express: 30.4

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.

I've always liked my rbs between 215 and 225, If you look at the top 10 rbs this season I believe all but Westbrook and Bush (ppr) all were between this range. But this seems to have some merit. At the risk of sounding stupid what is BMI (body build I'm assuming) and what formula are you using to come up with these numbers.

BMI = Body Mass Indicator.It's a way of calculating weight by also using height.

Here's a link with a BMI calculator:

BMI

But looking at the rankings I could either be Obese or perfect rb size. Which I don't think I'm neither.BMI Categories:

Underweight = <18.5

Normal weight = 18.5-24.9

Overweight = 25-29.9

Obesity = BMI of 30 or greater

 

[happy_donut]

But looking at the rankings I could either be Obese or perfect rb size. Which I don't think I'm neither.

Keep in mind that the discussion here is on (soon to be) professional athletes, not just your average Joe off the street. Nobody is saying that just because you have the right BMI that you will be a successful RB in the NFL, rather that the BMI of this select pool of individuals _may_ be an indicator of success.

 

[Toads]

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Wanted to drop in since this was bumped. I'm not going to explain my RB revisions here except to say that whoever said there was over fitting of the data was right.

Basically there's no difference between small and large backs (provided BMIs are good, as EBF said), and no difference between under 22.5 and under 23.0 years old. So it's all much simpler than it was. 205-235 (200-240 if you don't mind a bit more risk) and under 23 years old is all the same.

There are a handful of players who happen to be mostly young and mostly small that were effing things up because (I think) they're especially great prospects for another reason. (Time will tell.)

I'm going to write this up again after my 2008 FF drafts with revisions and rookie predictions. I think the only change to last year's predictions is that Chris Henry could be a better prospect than I thought a year ago.

Also, have also made a cool jump with the WRs stuff, which I'll post again after my drafts. This data is really clear cut and I'm working on a chart that lets you see what I'm talking about.

 

[loose circuits]

how does Michael Bush fit in with the rookies for this year with your little formula?

at 6-2 247, he may be a little too big weight wise, but his BMI should be fairly close to the ideal

FYI, threads like this are why I come to message boards

 

[Boone22]

how does Michael Bush fit in with the rookies for this year with your little formula?at 6-2 247, he may be a little too big weight wise, but his BMI should be fairly close to the idealFYI, threads like this are why I come to message boards

According to your numbers Bush's BMI would be 31.7

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I think anyone over 235-240 is a walking advertisement for the Red Cross and wouldn't touch Bush.

But I know there are other serious posters here who like him, so...

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I think anyone over 235-240 is a walking advertisement for the Red Cross and wouldn't touch Bush.But I know there are other seriously delusional posters here who like him, so...

Fixed.

 

[LILB811]

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.

First of all, this is a very very interesting read, and it is really things like this thread that make the time spent on these boards worthwhile. I’m pretty interested in seeing what happens with Brandon Jackson. I was never really a believer in him, but when the pieces fell, I became an owner.ConstruxBoy, I quoted your post for a specific reason, and perhaps this is something to be taken into consideration in this model. You say that Jackson’s running style and Green Bay’s scheme differ. The Packers knew how they run the ball, and the scouts certainly knew about Jackson’s style before the draft. Why then would they draft a guy hoping he will become a different type of back? Was his talent level that high? I didn’t think it was. I know that this is difficult to model, but running back style compared to team running style may be more indicative of success than initially believed. I’m not ready to write Jackson off yet, but will he even get a chance to succeed in the NFL?

 

[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.

First of all, this is a very very interesting read, and it is really things like this thread that make the time spent on these boards worthwhile. I’m pretty interested in seeing what happens with Brandon Jackson. I was never really a believer in him, but when the pieces fell, I became an owner.ConstruxBoy, I quoted your post for a specific reason, and perhaps this is something to be taken into consideration in this model. You say that Jackson’s running style and Green Bay’s scheme differ. The Packers knew how they run the ball, and the scouts certainly knew about Jackson’s style before the draft. Why then would they draft a guy hoping he will become a different type of back? Was his talent level that high? I didn’t think it was. I know that this is difficult to model, but running back style compared to team running style may be more indicative of success than initially believed. I’m not ready to write Jackson off yet, but will he even get a chance to succeed in the NFL?

Great questions and I'm not sure of the answer. In my opinion from looking at the film, Jackson is a cut back runner. This means that he is always using his vision and good lateral moves to try to "pick" his way through the line and then through the 2nd and 3rd levels. It's his instinct. A runner like that finds it almost unnatural to just run in a pretty straight line as fast as you can. Yet the zone blocking scheme that some teams like the Packers use almost requires backs to just do that. I think that on some level every back should be getting to the assigned hole quickly. A back that dances around in the backfield is going to get killed at the NFL level in most cases. But once the back is in the hole, their instincts take over and if they are a North-South/downhill runner like Grant they more or less plow ahead and try to make small lateral moves to make some defenders miss. But it's a very physical running style. The ZBS fits these backs because the downfield blockers are generally trying to block that area, not necessarily blocking each defender one on one. Cutback runners like Jackson are looking around all the time once they get in the hole, trying to cut back and read their blockers who are one on one with a defender. Sort of like all Barry Sanders great runs. So I'm not sure if they drafted him and thought he could conform to the ZBS running style or what. But in my opinion, just because someone is a good cutback runner it doesn't mean they will fit in a ZBS style. My example of this is the old argument about how Barry Sanders would have performed behind Emmitt Smith's offensive line. The general thought is that with those big holes that Emmitt saw, Sanders would have run for a billion yards. But I disagree. I think his instincts as a cut back runner would have made it difficult to run through those holes and into the second level with the same success as Emmitt because he would have been looking around all the time, trying to cut back, just by instinct. I think he would have more yards behind that line just because it would eliminate some of his negative runs, but I don't think he would have gotten all that much more than he did because his instincts would have him slowing down and trying to cut back more than Emmitt did.

 

[DawnBTVS]

To Arm Chair Express

The formula I put into Excel to get the (appropriate) BMI is: (Weight*730)/(Height^2) with Weight in Lbs. and Height in Inches (i.e. 5'8" = 68). I got that formula from a website I found in looking at BMI for those wondering.

 

[Arm Chair Express]

To Arm Chair ExpressThe formula I put into Excel to get the (appropriate) BMI is: (Weight*730)/(Height^2) with Weight in Lbs. and Height in Inches (i.e. 5'8" = 68). I got that formula from a website I found in looking at BMI for those wondering.

Thanks.

 

[aposulli]

I'll be more interested in the BMI data for these guys once they get to the Combine. (See post 139+)

You're dead on. These weights were taken from Construx's post on page 1 or 2.It will defintely be revised after the combine. I can see some movement of these guys once the official weights are in.And like EBF has been championing, BMI will be interesting to evaluate once that data is in as well.:tapsfingersondeskwaitingforcombine:

It was also interesting to compare the BMI of veteran RBs as someone did earlier, but were those numbers from what the players are listed at now? Becuase my guess is they definitely would've packed on mass after their draft day measurements.

 

[DWidmar]

Just finished the whole thread and my head is spinning. Great stuff. I think the thing to remember is that there is never going to be an exact formula that is all inclusive. There will always be exceptions to everything for a large number of reasons and are impossible to determine. Fantasy football is about playing the odds to begin with. Using the OP's sets of data help you play those odds a little better than before. THis is why I visit these boards. Great work.

I am off to make an offer for Brandon Jackson. Great time to buy low.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Just finished the whole thread and my head is spinning. Great stuff. I think the thing to remember is that there is never going to be an exact formula that is all inclusive. There will always be exceptions to everything for a large number of reasons and are impossible to determine. Fantasy football is about playing the odds to begin with. Using the OP's sets of data help you play those odds a little better than before. THis is why I visit these boards. Great work.I am off to make an offer for Brandon Jackson. Great time to buy low.

I tried recently for him too, but the owner drafted him 1.5 and wanted unreasonable compensation, IMO. Worth a shot though.

 

[aposulli]

Just finished the whole thread and my head is spinning. Great stuff. I think the thing to remember is that there is never going to be an exact formula that is all inclusive. There will always be exceptions to everything for a large number of reasons and are impossible to determine. Fantasy football is about playing the odds to begin with. Using the OP's sets of data help you play those odds a little better than before. THis is why I visit these boards. Great work.I am off to make an offer for Brandon Jackson. Great time to buy low.

I tried recently for him too, but the owner drafted him 1.5 and wanted unreasonable compensation, IMO. Worth a shot though.

I guess it was the shark move.I tried cutting bait with JaMarcus and Olson for him, Jared Allen and Cooley.

 

[madd futher]

Brandon Jackson may have the attributes based on wdcrop's criteria, BUT IMO the Packers did a serious reach to get him where they did. He should not have been a 2nd rounder and could easily have gone 2-3 rounds lower if the Pack wasn't desperate for a RB. I think they were enamoured by a 4.41 40 clocking at a private U of Nebraska workout. It is instructive that his previous BEST timed 40 was 4.55 at the scouting combine. That is a world of difference

Based on what I've seen from him last year he does not have great vision, great wiggle, or great leg drive. Somone in the Packer org seriously misevaluated. So I believe we will find that this is one of those 'exception' cases. To quote Widmar, "there is never going to be an exact formula that is all-inclusive."

I've watched most of the Packer games this year and Brandon Jackson's skills are nothing special. I would be very suprised if he turns out to be anything but a NFL journeyman. Now, Ryan Grant - a 6th round pick - that kid has some legit skills.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Brandon Jackson may have the attributes based on wdcrop's criteria, BUT IMO the Packers did a serious reach to get him where they did. He should not have been a 2nd rounder and could easily have gone 2-3 rounds lower if the Pack wasn't desperate for a RB. I think they were enamoured by a 4.41 40 clocking at a private U of Nebraska workout. It is instructive that his previous BEST timed 40 was 4.55 at the scouting combine. That is a world of differenceBased on what I've seen from him last year he does not have great vision, great wiggle, or great leg drive. Somone in the Packer org seriously misevaluated. So I believe we will find that this is one of those 'exception' cases. To quote Widmar, "there is never going to be an exact formula that is all-inclusive." I've watched most of the Packer games this year and Brandon Jackson's skills are nothing special. I would be very suprised if he turns out to be anything but a NFL journeyman. Now, Ryan Grant - a 6th round pick - that kid has some legit skills.

You certainly may end up being correct about Jackson, but when I watched him at Nebraska, he did have good vision and wiggle. Never showed the leg drive though, because he's not that type of RB. One thing to remember about him is that he is young and relatively inexperienced. It is possible that he could hang around the Packers for a couple more years as the 3rd string RB, learn some more, and then be cut or somehow end up on a team that is better suited for a cutback RB and thrive there. It will be interesting to watch though because based on wdcrob's criteria and my break down the tape article last year, he looked to be a future star.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

One thing to remember about him is that he is young and relatively inexperienced. It is possible that he could hang around the Packers for a couple more years as the 3rd string RB, learn some more, and then be cut or somehow end up on a team that is better suited for a cutback RB and thrive there. It will be interesting to watch though because based on wdcrob's criteria and my break down the tape article last year, he looked to be a future star.

I'm also working on something that suggests certain RBs coming out of college are badly misdrafted, and that Brandon Jackson is one of them.If you do a simple regression among RBs who qualify for consideration using my system, running height and weight vs draft position, you find that short RBs (under 5'10) and light RBs (under 215 or so) are dropped about a half round for each of those perceived flaws.

So a short AND light RB is dinged about a full round. But once you've eliminated the older backs and backs with bad weights you find that neither height nor weight (again, assuming 200-240 pounds and a good BMI) relates to performance AT ALL. So there's one inefficiency - scouts are biased against smaller backs.

The other thing I'm playing with is the idea that there's a real bonus for qualifying RBs who didn't get a lot of carries their last two (calendar) years of college, but manage to get drafted in the first 3 1/2 rounds anyway.

Here's the list of RBs since 1998 who were drafted lower than their observable talent level at the time of the draft because they were under 5'10 or under 215 pounds (imagine a scout saying: I love what I see, but can he play at that size?) AND who had fewer than 300 carries their last two years of college ball:

Ahman Green (76th pick)

Clinton Portis (51st pick)

Frank Gore (65th pick)

Domanick Davis (101st pick)

(Brandon Jackson)

And the smaller backs with between 300 and 350 carries their last two (calendar) years of college are:

Maurice Jones-Drew (60th pick, but so short he's probably in a category of doubt all his own no matter how many carries he had)

(Brian Calhoun)

I don't think it's coincidence that these RBs (plus Brian Wesbrook (91st pick), who was probably dinged for both being small AND playing at a Div II school) are the ones that by any measure you want to pick have outplayed their draft position in the NFL. All of them were unquestionably top of the 1st round talents, but none of them were drafted there. Will Jackson and Calhoun follow suit? I don't know, but I'm betting on it in my FF leagues.

Reggie Bush technically had fewer than 350 carries, but with all of his receptions, return work and Heisman obviously any reservations were swept away.

There's more to this - basically a way to adjust actual draft position to where the back should have been drafted - but I want to see if it flipping works going forward or not before putting it out there.

 

[aposulli]

Got anything good for us wdcrob?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Got anything good for us wdcrob?

Yep - on the WR side. But I want to see if the Football Outsider/Prospectus guys bite on it first.