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

[happy_donut]

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.

wdcrob--good luck to you with this and please keep us posted, regardless of where the content ends up.

 

[dmac37]

What do you guys think about 20yd shuttle time. I would think this could be more imprtant for a RB than a straight forward 40yd time. This would seem to be a better barometer and simulate what a RB does more than straight line 40yd speed. One reason I bring this up is I drafted Bradshaw late in my dynasty last year after reading about his vision, foot work, and shuttle time, (compared to Emmitt Smith) seems to of payed off. Also drafted B. Jackson in part from his shuttle time and information in this post, time will tell.

This could be another tool for our evaluation process.

Does anyone have a list of RB's shuttle times for the last few years, this may point out how usefull it really is?

 

[EBF]

What do you guys think about 20yd shuttle time. I would think this could be more imprtant for a RB than a straight forward 40yd time. This would seem to be a better barometer and simulate what a RB does more than straight line 40yd speed. One reason I bring this up is I drafted Bradshaw late in my dynasty last year after reading about his vision, foot work, and shuttle time, (compared to Emmitt Smith) seems to of payed off. Also drafted B. Jackson in part from his shuttle time and information in this post, time will tell.This could be another tool for our evaluation process.Does anyone have a list of RB's shuttle times for the last few years, this may point out how usefull it really is?

It doesn't look very important. Peterson and Lynch both did relatively poorly in that drill last season. Same with the three cone. I don't pay much attention to either of those drills unless a prospect totally bombs like Cedric Benson.

 

[renesauz]

I don't get it. I mean, that this study is somewhat accurate is beyond dispute, but I don't get the point.

First of all, it goes without saying that most NFL talent scouts are better then we are at evaluating, so OF COURSE higher drafted players have a better chance to succeed, but not because of where they were drafted, but THE REVERSE. When draft position is used as a primary statistic in the analyses, all other metrics become questionable.

Second, I stopped reading the initial analysis after the third or fourth time the poster explained that he adjusted a cutoff point arbitrarily so that he could inmclude or exclude a specific player...making his analysis appear more accurate.

Any of us watching football or playing fantasy long enough already realizes that a RB's physical size matters, and that huge backs are injury prone, and very small backs generally can't take the pounding required of an every down player.

WE DIDN'T NEED THIS STUDY TO TELL US THESE THINGS!

The only thing this study may have added to our overall knowledge is that age may be a bit of an overlooked factor in the success rate of RB's, but the data is far from conclusive.

 

[KSUinSFO]

 

[gheemony]

Bump to get new analysis based on this weekend's combine results. Who is preferred by the "objective measure" approach.

 

[cws3030]

Name School Height Weight BMI Age on 9/1/08 40 TimeDarren McFadden Arkansas 6'1 211 27.6 21.03 4.33Rashard Mendenhall Illinois 5'11 225 31.4 21.22 4.45Jonathan Stewart Oregon 5'10 235 33.5 21.47 4.48Felix Jones Arkansas 5'10 207 29.7 21.33 4.48Ray Rice Rutgers 5'8 199 30.3 21.62 4.44Jamaal Charles Texas 5'11 200 27.9 21.7 4.38Kevin Smith Central Florida 6'1 217 28.6 21.75 4.43Chris Johnson East Carolina 5'11 197 27.5 22.95 4.24Matt Forte Tulane 6'1 217 28.6 21.75 4.46Tashard Choice Georgia Tech 5'10 215 30.8 23.85 4.52Steve Slaton West Virgina 5'9 197 29.1 22.5 4.44Mike Hart Michigan 5'8 206 31.3 22.42 4.67i pieced this together from posts on this site and info from fflivewire. i tried to keep the format clean but i suck at this stuff, if someone can tell me how to post info so that it all aligns properly please do so i didn't dig deep past the top-10 guys or so... so feel free to add. i'll let someone else plug the numbers to fit the objective measure format since i couldn't tell you projected draft slots.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

It still depends on where they get drafted, but making some guesses...

Mendenhall, Stewart and K Smith should be close to can't miss.

Forte and Jones are pretty good prospects.

McFadden, Chris Johnson, Ray Rice, Jamaal Charles and Steve Slaton look really risky IMO. Especially given what you'll have to spend to get McFadden. It's really unusual to have so many borderline guys in one draft like this. I wouldn't be surprised if one or two of them panned out, but there's a lot of risk there and it wouldn't surprise me if none of them were reliable RB1s.

Note that I'm not saying McFadden's a bum. If he'd played 30 years ago he'd be OJ Simpson. I'm just not sure there's room for a cowbell RB that slight in today's NFL.

I would like Hart and Torain except that I suspect they'll get bumped into the back half of the draft now that they were so slow. FWIW...EBF says anything over 4.55 in the 40 is more or less a deal-breaker for him, so it may be worth dropping those two off your radar even if they sneak into the 3rd or early 4th rounds.

Choice you can write off as a long-term RB1. No one his age outside the 1st round has hit as a solid back in the last ten years. Of the 23 backs that share Choices's profile, Anthony Thomas and Tatum Bell are the best case scenario so far.

 

[dmac37]

Name				School		Height	Weight	BMI	Age on 9/1/08		40 TimeDarren McFadden		Arkansas 	6'1	211	27.6	21.03			4.33Rashard Mendenhall		Illinois 		5'11	225	31.4	21.22			4.45Jonathan Stewart			Oregon		5'10	235	33.5	21.47			4.48Felix Jones			Arkansas 	5'10	207	29.7	21.33			4.48Ray Rice			Rutgers		5'8	199	30.3	21.62			4.44Jamaal Charles			Texas		5'11	200	27.9	21.7			4.38Kevin Smith 			Central Florida	6'1	217	28.6	21.75			4.43Chris Johnson			East Carolina	5'11	197	27.5	22.95			4.24Matt Forte			Tulane		6'1	217	28.6	21.75			4.46Tashard Choice			Georgia Tech	5'10	215	30.8	23.85			4.52Steve Slaton			West Virgina	5'9	197	29.1	22.5			4.44Mike Hart			Michigan	5'8	206	31.3	22.42			4.67

i pieced this together from posts on this site and info from fflivewire. i tried to keep the format clean but i suck at this stuff, if someone can tell me how to post info so that it all aligns properly please do so i didn't dig deep past the top-10 guys or so... so feel free to add. i'll let someone else plug the numbers to fit the objective measure format since i couldn't tell you projected draft slots.

Here is a more exact H/W/BMI of these guys:McFadden 6' 1 1/4" 211 27.6Mendenhall 5'11" 225 31.4Stewart 5' 10 1/4" 235 33.5Jones 5' 10 1/8" 207 29.6Rice 5' 8" 199 30.3Charles 5' 11" 200 27.9Hart 5' 8 7/8" 206 30.5Johnson 5' 11" 197 27.5Slayton 5' 9" 197 29.1Choice 5' 10 1/2" 215 30.4

Do you have the breakdown for Smith and Forte also? I think both are strong prospects after the big 3.

 

[aposulli]

Here are exact Heights and Weights. I pasted from another thread before and noticed Mendenhalls exact Height was listed incorrectly.

These are the RBs I consider to be in the 1st or 2nd tier. (I also included Hart, but I don't think he belongs in this group)

Darren McFadden 6' 1 1/4" 211

Rashard Mendenhall 5' 10 5/8" 225

Jonathan Stewart 5' 10 1/4" 235

Felix Jones 5' 10 1/8" 207

Ray Rice 5' 8" 199

Kevin Smith 6' 1 1/8" 217

Jamaal Charles 5' 11" 200

Chris Johnson 5' 11" 197

Matt Forte 6' 1 3/8" 217

Steve Slaton 5' 9 1/8" 197

Tashard Choice 5' 10 1/2" 215

Thomas Brown 5' 8 3/8" 204

Mike Hart 5' 8 7/8" 206

Someone may want to recalculate BMI as I had copy and pasted that from another thread, so I can't be sure they were right.

 

[az_prof]

I know that age is a big factor in this calculation and so it IS definitely a positive that McFadden is so young. All of the guys under 22 are within the general range you want, however, but the younger the better. Also, Slaton and Hart's age are red flags according to this formula. Look forward to the original poster who designed this to comment, but really we have to wait until after the NFL draft to do a complete analysis using his system. Also, the guys under 200 pounds get red flagged.

 

[mdog1967]

What do you guys think about 20yd shuttle time. I would think this could be more imprtant for a RB than a straight forward 40yd time. This would seem to be a better barometer and simulate what a RB does more than straight line 40yd speed. One reason I bring this up is I drafted Bradshaw late in my dynasty last year after reading about his vision, foot work, and shuttle time, (compared to Emmitt Smith) seems to of payed off. Also drafted B. Jackson in part from his shuttle time and information in this post, time will tell.

This could be another tool for our evaluation process.

Does anyone have a list of RB's shuttle times for the last few years, this may point out how usefull it really is?

It doesn't look very important. Peterson and Lynch both did relatively poorly in that drill last season. Same with the three cone. I don't pay much attention to either of those drills unless a prospect totally bombs like Cedric Benson.

EBF there is a good article here on the combine http://www.geocities.com/epark/raiders/dra...fl-combine.htmlThe shuttle times are the best indicator of quickness and change of direction. It is just as important as the 40 time. Both Lynch and Peterson timed at 7.09 in the shuttle drill which is considered good to excellent, A. Bradshaw timed at 6.70 which is rated at "Superb".

Cedric Benson timed a 7.50 which is rated as "Lousy".

I would like to see these guys run all of the drills in full pads.

 

[EBF]

What do you guys think about 20yd shuttle time. I would think this could be more imprtant for a RB than a straight forward 40yd time. This would seem to be a better barometer and simulate what a RB does more than straight line 40yd speed. One reason I bring this up is I drafted Bradshaw late in my dynasty last year after reading about his vision, foot work, and shuttle time, (compared to Emmitt Smith) seems to of payed off. Also drafted B. Jackson in part from his shuttle time and information in this post, time will tell.

This could be another tool for our evaluation process.

Does anyone have a list of RB's shuttle times for the last few years, this may point out how usefull it really is?

It doesn't look very important. Peterson and Lynch both did relatively poorly in that drill last season. Same with the three cone. I don't pay much attention to either of those drills unless a prospect totally bombs like Cedric Benson.

EBF there is a good article here on the combine http://www.geocities.com/epark/raiders/dra...fl-combine.htmlThe shuttle times are the best indicator of quickness and change of direction. It is just as important as the 40 time. Both Lynch and Peterson timed at 7.09 in the shuttle drill which is considered good to excellent, A. Bradshaw timed at 6.70 which is rated at "Superb".

Cedric Benson timed a 7.50 which is rated as "Lousy".

I just don't think the shuttles and cones are that important. Peterson, Addai, and Lynch are among the top 3 RBs to enter the league in the past two years and none of those guys had spectacular marks in those drills. I really only pay attention to drills when I sense a strong relationship between strong performance in that drill and eventual success in the league. I don't see much of that with the cones and shuttles, so I mostly ignore them unless a guy has a pitiful Benson-like time.

 

[mdog1967]

What do you guys think about 20yd shuttle time. I would think this could be more imprtant for a RB than a straight forward 40yd time. This would seem to be a better barometer and simulate what a RB does more than straight line 40yd speed. One reason I bring this up is I drafted Bradshaw late in my dynasty last year after reading about his vision, foot work, and shuttle time, (compared to Emmitt Smith) seems to of payed off. Also drafted B. Jackson in part from his shuttle time and information in this post, time will tell.

This could be another tool for our evaluation process.

Does anyone have a list of RB's shuttle times for the last few years, this may point out how usefull it really is?

It doesn't look very important. Peterson and Lynch both did relatively poorly in that drill last season. Same with the three cone. I don't pay much attention to either of those drills unless a prospect totally bombs like Cedric Benson.

EBF there is a good article here on the combine http://www.geocities.com/epark/raiders/dra...fl-combine.htmlThe shuttle times are the best indicator of quickness and change of direction. It is just as important as the 40 time. Both Lynch and Peterson timed at 7.09 in the shuttle drill which is considered good to excellent, A. Bradshaw timed at 6.70 which is rated at "Superb".

Cedric Benson timed a 7.50 which is rated as "Lousy".

I just don't think the shuttles and cones are that important. Peterson, Addai, and Lynch are among the top 3 RBs to enter the league in the past two years and none of those guys had spectacular marks in those drills. I really only pay attention to drills when I sense a strong relationship between strong performance in that drill and eventual success in the league. I don't see much of that with the cones and shuttles, so I mostly ignore them unless a guy has a pitiful Benson-like time.

Well I think you have a good point, sounds to me like your more interested in what the guy does on the football field, rather than the combine in a pair of shorts.

 

[az_prof]

What do you guys think about 20yd shuttle time. I would think this could be more imprtant for a RB than a straight forward 40yd time. This would seem to be a better barometer and simulate what a RB does more than straight line 40yd speed. One reason I bring this up is I drafted Bradshaw late in my dynasty last year after reading about his vision, foot work, and shuttle time, (compared to Emmitt Smith) seems to of payed off. Also drafted B. Jackson in part from his shuttle time and information in this post, time will tell.

This could be another tool for our evaluation process.

Does anyone have a list of RB's shuttle times for the last few years, this may point out how usefull it really is?

It doesn't look very important. Peterson and Lynch both did relatively poorly in that drill last season. Same with the three cone. I don't pay much attention to either of those drills unless a prospect totally bombs like Cedric Benson.

EBF there is a good article here on the combine http://www.geocities.com/epark/raiders/dra...fl-combine.htmlThe shuttle times are the best indicator of quickness and change of direction. It is just as important as the 40 time. Both Lynch and Peterson timed at 7.09 in the shuttle drill which is considered good to excellent, A. Bradshaw timed at 6.70 which is rated at "Superb".

Cedric Benson timed a 7.50 which is rated as "Lousy".

I would like to see these guys run all of the drills in full pads.

Thanks for the link. As much as I respect EBF, I think you and this link make a good argument for the value of this measure. Also, I think as others have said that measurables do not replace on field performance, but college performance also does not always translate to NFL and so measurables give us another data point and when that data point is really bad (Benson's shuttle, eg) it should give pause. To discount the shuttle you would need alot more examples than don't fit the expectation IMO.

 

[rabidfireweasel]

What do you guys think about 20yd shuttle time. I would think this could be more imprtant for a RB than a straight forward 40yd time. This would seem to be a better barometer and simulate what a RB does more than straight line 40yd speed. One reason I bring this up is I drafted Bradshaw late in my dynasty last year after reading about his vision, foot work, and shuttle time, (compared to Emmitt Smith) seems to of payed off. Also drafted B. Jackson in part from his shuttle time and information in this post, time will tell.

This could be another tool for our evaluation process.

Does anyone have a list of RB's shuttle times for the last few years, this may point out how usefull it really is?

It doesn't look very important. Peterson and Lynch both did relatively poorly in that drill last season. Same with the three cone. I don't pay much attention to either of those drills unless a prospect totally bombs like Cedric Benson.

EBF there is a good article here on the combine http://www.geocities.com/epark/raiders/dra...fl-combine.htmlThe shuttle times are the best indicator of quickness and change of direction. It is just as important as the 40 time. Both Lynch and Peterson timed at 7.09 in the shuttle drill which is considered good to excellent, A. Bradshaw timed at 6.70 which is rated at "Superb".

Cedric Benson timed a 7.50 which is rated as "Lousy".

I just don't think the shuttles and cones are that important. Peterson, Addai, and Lynch are among the top 3 RBs to enter the league in the past two years and none of those guys had spectacular marks in those drills. I really only pay attention to drills when I sense a strong relationship between strong performance in that drill and eventual success in the league. I don't see much of that with the cones and shuttles, so I mostly ignore them unless a guy has a pitiful Benson-like time.

Well I think you have a good point, sounds to me like your more interested in what the guy does on the football field, rather than the combine in a pair of shorts.

ACtually, EBF is very interested in the combine and what happens in shorts. However, he looks for areas to make correlations between a combine metric and on the field performance: for instance, few rb's that have any success that have less than a 30-32" vertical. It relates to explosiveness. The fact that everyone's posterboy for the three cone/short shuttle Ahmad Bradshaw has a significantly better shuttle that Peterson/Addai/Lynch, but appears to be a much lesser player illustrates to some that it is not an indicator/predictor of success at the rb position.

 

[Rodeojones]

It still depends on where they get drafted, but making some guesses...

Mendenhall, Stewart and K Smith should be close to can't miss.

Forte and Jones are pretty good prospects.

McFadden, Chris Johnson, Ray Rice, Jamaal Charles and Steve Slaton look really risky IMO. Especially given what you'll have to spend to get McFadden. It's really unusual to have so many borderline guys in one draft like this. I wouldn't be surprised if one or two of them panned out, but there's a lot of risk there and it wouldn't surprise me if none of them were reliable RB1s.

Note that I'm not saying McFadden's a bum. If he'd played 30 years ago he'd be OJ Simpson. I'm just not sure there's room for a cowbell RB that slight in today's NFL.

I would like Hart and Torain except that I suspect they'll get bumped into the back half of the draft now that they were so slow. FWIW...EBF says anything over 4.55 in the 40 is more or less a deal-breaker for him, so it may be worth dropping those two off your radar even if they sneak into the 3rd or early 4th rounds.

Choice you can write off as a long-term RB1. No one his age outside the 1st round has hit as a solid back in the last ten years. Of the 23 backs that share Choices's profile, Anthony Thomas and Tatum Bell are the best case scenario so far.

Are you referring to the fact that he redshirted and played the entire four years?? Is this really a reason write him off as a RB1??

First I have heard of this argument.

 

[cws3030]

It still depends on where they get drafted, but making some guesses...

Mendenhall, Stewart and K Smith should be close to can't miss.

Forte and Jones are pretty good prospects.

McFadden, Chris Johnson, Ray Rice, Jamaal Charles and Steve Slaton look really risky IMO. Especially given what you'll have to spend to get McFadden. It's really unusual to have so many borderline guys in one draft like this. I wouldn't be surprised if one or two of them panned out, but there's a lot of risk there and it wouldn't surprise me if none of them were reliable RB1s.

Note that I'm not saying McFadden's a bum. If he'd played 30 years ago he'd be OJ Simpson. I'm just not sure there's room for a cowbell RB that slight in today's NFL.

I would like Hart and Torain except that I suspect they'll get bumped into the back half of the draft now that they were so slow. FWIW...EBF says anything over 4.55 in the 40 is more or less a deal-breaker for him, so it may be worth dropping those two off your radar even if they sneak into the 3rd or early 4th rounds.

Choice you can write off as a long-term RB1. No one his age outside the 1st round has hit as a solid back in the last ten years. Of the 23 backs that share Choices's profile, Anthony Thomas and Tatum Bell are the best case scenario so far.

Are you referring to the fact that he redshirted and played the entire four years?? Is this really a reason write him off as a RB1??

First I have heard of this argument.

actually this entire thread is an argument against Choice. due to his age and where he is projected to be drafted which could be outside of the first 76 picks, he falls in the 2C catagoery. not saying that he couldn't be an exception to the rule but based on the "theory" set in place Choice should be avoided.

 

[dmac37]

What do you guys think about 20yd shuttle time. I would think this could be more imprtant for a RB than a straight forward 40yd time. This would seem to be a better barometer and simulate what a RB does more than straight line 40yd speed. One reason I bring this up is I drafted Bradshaw late in my dynasty last year after reading about his vision, foot work, and shuttle time, (compared to Emmitt Smith) seems to of payed off. Also drafted B. Jackson in part from his shuttle time and information in this post, time will tell.

This could be another tool for our evaluation process.

Does anyone have a list of RB's shuttle times for the last few years, this may point out how usefull it really is?

It doesn't look very important. Peterson and Lynch both did relatively poorly in that drill last season. Same with the three cone. I don't pay much attention to either of those drills unless a prospect totally bombs like Cedric Benson.

EBF there is a good article here on the combine http://www.geocities.com/epark/raiders/dra...fl-combine.htmlThe shuttle times are the best indicator of quickness and change of direction. It is just as important as the 40 time. Both Lynch and Peterson timed at 7.09 in the shuttle drill which is considered good to excellent, A. Bradshaw timed at 6.70 which is rated at "Superb".

Cedric Benson timed a 7.50 which is rated as "Lousy".

I would like to see these guys run all of the drills in full pads.

This just makes sense to me. A running back rarely gets the ball and goes to a full straight line sprint. In order to use that 40yd sprinter speed he must have the vision and quick side stepping footwork to get in the open field.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I know that age is a big factor in this calculation and so it IS definitely a positive that McFadden is so young. All of the guys under 22 are within the general range you want, however, but the younger the better. Also, Slaton and Hart's age are red flags according to this formula. Look forward to the original poster who designed this to comment, but really we have to wait until after the NFL draft to do a complete analysis using his system. Also, the guys under 200 pounds get red flagged.

AZ Prof... I think everything 23 and under can be treated the same after all. There doesn't look like there's any sort of bonus for being an underclassman, or 21 instead of 22 if you control for the other stuff.btw... if anyone's got combine data going back beyond 1998 I'd love to see it. There are a couple Qs that could be answered with more data.

 

[EBF]

I hear the argument. I just don't buy it.

Here are some shuttle times from 2006 and 2007:

Garrett Wolfe - 4.08

Brandon Jackson - 4.14

Antonio Pittman - 4.16

Brian Leonard - 4.22

Mike Bell - 4.21

Maurice Drew - 4.38

Adrian Peterson - 4.40

Joseph Addai - 4.47

Marshawn Lynch - 4.55

Oddly enough, a quick look at the results shows that the elite RBs tend to do worse than the marginal guys in this drill. Seriously. Lynch, Addai, Drew and Peterson are among the worst performers in this drill from the past two combines. To me the only thing this indicates is that the shuttle is mostly irrelevant.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

actually this entire thread is an argument against Choice. due to his age and where he is projected to be drafted which could be outside of the first 76 picks, he falls in the 2C catagoery. not saying that he couldn't be an exception to the rule but based on the "theory" set in place Choice should be avoided.

Again, this has been waaay simplified from that first post. Everything under 23 is treated the same, as is everything between 200 and 240 (205-235?).But here are the RBs taken between pick 33 and pick 110 with a 'good' weight that were older than 23.5 at the start of their first season:Anthony ThomasJames JohnsonTatum BellIrons, KennyBrian LeonardMichael CloudSedrick ShawTravis PrenticeJames JacksonSkip HicksVernand MorencyJustin FargasCurtis KeatonArtose PinnerMichael RobinsonRicky WhittleWright, DwayneSean BennettFrank MoreauRichard HuntleyLeon WashingtonOlandis GaryCedric CobbsCompare that to the guys who were under 23 with the same weight range and the same draft positioneShaun FosterCorey DillonJ.J. ArringtonLenDale WhiteLaMont JordanChris HenryClinton PortisMaurice MorrisTravis HenryMaurice Jones-DrewBrandon JacksonJay GrahamFrank GoreDuce StaleyBrian CalhounAhman GreenMusa SmithRyan MoatsKevan BarlowAbdul-Karim al-JabbarReuben DroughnsJerald MooreLamar GordonTony HuntBrian WestbrookChris BrownAmos ZereoueRudi JohnsonMaurice ClarettDomanick WilliamsStephen DavisSedrick IrvinOnterrio SmithDarnell AutryPittman, AntonioMarion BarberSame draft position, same weight range, but different age. Which group would you rather have?

 

[cws3030]

actually this entire thread is an argument against Choice. due to his age and where he is projected to be drafted which could be outside of the first 76 picks, he falls in the 2C catagoery. not saying that he couldn't be an exception to the rule but based on the "theory" set in place Choice should be avoided.

Again, this has been waaay simplified from that first post. Everything under 23 is treated the same, as is everything between 200 and 240 (205-235?).But here are the RBs taken between pick 33 and pick 110 with a 'good' weight that were older than 23.5 at the start of their first season:Same draft position, same weight range, but different age. Which group would you rather have?

i completely agree with what you have set in place. i think someone pointed out earlier that age is a reflection of talent. the most talented guys typically come out earlier so they enter the NFL younger because their talent warrants a higher selection in the draft.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

i completely agree with what you have set in place. i think someone pointed out earlier that age is a reflection of talent. the most talented guys typically come out earlier so they enter the NFL younger because their talent warrants a higher selection in the draft.

Believe it or not, I couldn't find anything that said the 21 year olds, or the underclassman had an advantage vs the other guys who fit the 'good' profile. And I drove myself nuts looking. It does look like there are three things that help sort the 'good' backs into tiers, but I don't have enough data to know for sure it works. There just aren't enough guys to say for sure yet. Hopefully in another five years (or with five more years going back if anyone's got the combine info) some of those things will either pan out or be debunked.Also... being drafted in the 1st round is enough to overcome the age thing. It's also enough to overcome being outside the normal weight range. But with more risk in both cases. Ricky Williams was 244 when he was drafted. Bettis was heavier than that. Dunn is tiny. Those guys won't be as good (on average) as the 1st round guys who are perfect, but they can still be good.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

bump. too lazy to update, but looking forward to post-draft results.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

bump. too lazy to update, but looking forward to post-draft results.

I've got a bunch of dynasty startup/rookie drafts coming up, so won't be saying much until the summer.Also, I've totally reworked this - so be careful. The basics are still in place, but I eliminated the categories and simplified a lot of it.As far as the WRs go - I completely cracked it. At this point it looks like that research will be published as an article in the 2008 Pro Football Prospectus. If that falls through for some reason I'll post something here instead.

 

[Jene Bramel]

bump. too lazy to update, but looking forward to post-draft results.

I've got a bunch of dynasty startup/rookie drafts coming up, so won't be saying much until the summer.Also, I've totally reworked this - so be careful. The basics are still in place, but I eliminated the categories and simplified a lot of it.As far as the WRs go - I completely cracked it. At this point it looks like that research will be published as an article in the 2008 Pro Football Prospectus. If that falls through for some reason I'll post something here instead.

Good for you. Hope it works out.One of my favorite books of the summer. Looking forward to reading it.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

bump. too lazy to update, but looking forward to post-draft results.

I've got a bunch of dynasty startup/rookie drafts coming up, so won't be saying much until the summer.Also, I've totally reworked this - so be careful. The basics are still in place, but I eliminated the categories and simplified a lot of it.As far as the WRs go - I completely cracked it. At this point it looks like that research will be published as an article in the 2008 Pro Football Prospectus. If that falls through for some reason I'll post something here instead.

wdcrob - look forward to reading the update whenever you post it. Keep us posted on the WR article - would be eager to pick it up when it's published.

 

[dollarbill13]

 

[gheemony]

Bump. What's the ETA for the 2008 results?

 

[switz]

#1a: These are the cream of the crop for small backs – not just within the required ranges, but squarely on the good side of the range: backs between 205 and 221 pounds, under 22.5 years old, drafted in first 76 picks; and other back drafted in the first ~half of the first round under 22.5 years old. These backs are fantasy gold, with a career average of 16.2 PPG (PPR). They include the following RBs:

Clinton Portis, Edgerrin James, Maurice Jones-Drew, Marshawn Lynch, Reggie Bush (#2 pick), Ahman Green, Laurence Maroney, Brandon Jackson, Kevin Jones, Thomas Jones, Jay Graham, LaDanian Tomlinson, Frank Gore, Adrian Peterson

To summarize there are 128 RBs included in this data set, and the CAREER PPG (PPR) for backs in each group is as follows:

Group 1a: 16.2 PPG (14 backs, or 11%)

This year, this group includesarren McFadden, Rashard Mendenhall, and Felix Jones.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

#1a: These are the cream of the crop for small backs – not just within the required ranges, but squarely on the good side of the range: backs between 205 and 221 pounds, under 22.5 years old, drafted in first 76 picks; and other back drafted in the first ~half of the first round under 22.5 years old. These backs are fantasy gold, with a career average of 16.2 PPG (PPR). They include the following RBs:

Clinton Portis, Edgerrin James, Maurice Jones-Drew, Marshawn Lynch, Reggie Bush (#2 pick), Ahman Green, Laurence Maroney, Brandon Jackson, Kevin Jones, Thomas Jones, Jay Graham, LaDanian Tomlinson, Frank Gore, Adrian Peterson

To summarize there are 128 RBs included in this data set, and the CAREER PPG (PPR) for backs in each group is as follows:

Group 1a: 16.2 PPG (14 backs, or 11%)

This year, this group includesarren McFadden, Rashard Mendenhall, and Felix Jones.

Where do you see Jones as 205? And you're missing one: Kevin Smith is 212, 21.72 years old on 9/1 and was drafted 64th. And I have Mendenhall at 225.

 

[switz]

#1a: These are the cream of the crop for small backs – not just within the required ranges, but squarely on the good side of the range: backs between 205 and 221 pounds, under 22.5 years old, drafted in first 76 picks; and other back drafted in the first ~half of the first round under 22.5 years old. These backs are fantasy gold, with a career average of 16.2 PPG (PPR). They include the following RBs:

Clinton Portis, Edgerrin James, Maurice Jones-Drew, Marshawn Lynch, Reggie Bush (#2 pick), Ahman Green, Laurence Maroney, Brandon Jackson, Kevin Jones, Thomas Jones, Jay Graham, LaDanian Tomlinson, Frank Gore, Adrian Peterson

To summarize there are 128 RBs included in this data set, and the CAREER PPG (PPR) for backs in each group is as follows:

Group 1a: 16.2 PPG (14 backs, or 11%)

This year, this group includesarren McFadden, Rashard Mendenhall, and Felix Jones.

Where do you see Jones as 205? And you're missing one: Kevin Smith is 212, 21.72 years old on 9/1 and was drafted 64th. And I have Mendenhall at 225.

Jones is 5'10.125 207Lbs (Post #207)Mendenhall is 225 - scratch him from the list of 1a RBs

Smith does indeed fit the criteria (217 not 212), but his BMI is <29, which is less than ideal for an RB. Of note, so is McFadden's.

A knock on Chris Johnson is both his weight, and his age is at the cutoff.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Hmm...missed Jones at 207. I had him at 200 at Arkansas. Did he gain that much weight getting ready for the draft?

 

[Titanium]

I also had Mendenhall at 225, but changed it due to

http://www.nfl.com/draft/tracker#tab:dt-by-position|pos-rb

I think these are supposed to be combine stats. They list Mendenhall at 210 and Jones at 200.

Which are correct?

Thanks.

 

[switz]

I also had Mendenhall at 225, but changed it due to

http://www.nfl.com/draft/tracker#tab:dt-by-position|pos-rb

I think these are supposed to be combine stats. They list Mendenhall at 210 and Jones at 200.

Which are correct?

Thanks.

Combine numbers are pretty accurate at nfldraftscout.com, that's the source I use.NFL.com seems to just copy what the colleges had on their sites. It's not very accurate, heck, even the NFL players measurements are off on NFL.com

 

[hephner]

Here's the updated list that I came up with:

1A - (Avg. 16.2 PPG) - 205-221, 1st 76 picks, under 22.5 age

McFadden

F. Jones

K. Smith

4A - (Avg. 15.0 PPG) - 222-240, 1st round, under 23

Stewart

Mendenhall

1B - (Avg. 12.9) - 205-221, 1st 76 picks, age 22.5-23.02

Forte

2A - (Avg. 10.4 PPG) - 205-221, picked 77-109, under 23.02

N/A

4B - (Avg. 9.3 PPG) - 222-240, Rounds 2,3,4, under 23

N/A

2B - (Avg. 9.1 PPG) - same as 2A, with one miss, either 195-204 or age 23.03-23.5

C. Johnson

Rice

J. Charles

2C - (Avg. 6.1 PPG) - same as 2B, except picked between 77-109

Slaton

3 - (Avg. 4.5 PPG) - smaller back - under 195, drafted after pick 109, or older than 23.5

T. Choice

4C - (Avg. not calculated, but a very small number) - big back who is either over 240, drafted after Rd. 4, or over 23

J. Hester

Torain

Hightower

Omon

Parmele

A few narrow misses:

Hester missed the age cutoff by 4 months to be in 4B, and ended up in 4C

Torain barely missed the cutoff for group 4B, as he was taken 4 picks into the 5th round. He also just barely ended up in the bigger back category since his weight is the starting point of 222. One pound less, and he'd be in group 3.

Choice was picked at 122, not much beyond the pick 109 threshold for the 2B group, and ended up as a 3

Let me know if you notice anything that doesn't look right.

 

[switz]

Here's the updated list that I came up with:

1A - (Avg. 16.2 PPG) - 205-221, 1st 76 picks, under 22.5 age

McFadden (27.6)

F. Jones (29.7)

K. Smith (28.6)

4A - (Avg. 15.0 PPG) - 222-240, 1st round, under 23

Stewart (33.5)

Mendenhall (31.4)

Taking into account BMI (in parentheses above):

A weighted average using rushing yards produces an average BMI of 29.6; the top 10 rushers of all time have a BMI of 29.7. It looks pretty clear that a BMI of close to 30 is ideal for a running back.

I'd have to rank their projected NFL success at:1. Jones

2. Mendenhall

3. Smith

4. McFadden

5. Stewart

I don't think it will really fall out that way, but that's what the numbers point to.

 

[hephner]

Here's the updated list that I came up with:

1A - (Avg. 16.2 PPG) - 205-221, 1st 76 picks, under 22.5 age

McFadden (27.6)

F. Jones (29.7)

K. Smith (28.6)

4A - (Avg. 15.0 PPG) - 222-240, 1st round, under 23

Stewart (33.5)

Mendenhall (31.4)

Taking into account BMI (in parentheses above):

A weighted average using rushing yards produces an average BMI of 29.6; the top 10 rushers of all time have a BMI of 29.7. It looks pretty clear that a BMI of close to 30 is ideal for a running back.

I'd have to rank their projected NFL success at:1. Jones

2. Mendenhall

3. Smith

4. McFadden

5. Stewart

I don't think it will really fall out that way, but that's what the numbers point to.

I'd read some of the BMI discussion a little while back earlier in this thread, but I hadn't seen that piece over at pro football reference. Great stuff. How did you come up with that order based off that data though? Jones seems to be below the ideal range.

Looks like Forte has a very good BMI too at 29.9. A few others are in that range too, but much lesser prospects and were later round picks.

 

[switz]

Here's the updated list that I came up with:

1A - (Avg. 16.2 PPG) - 205-221, 1st 76 picks, under 22.5 age

McFadden (27.6)

F. Jones (29.7)

K. Smith (28.6)

4A - (Avg. 15.0 PPG) - 222-240, 1st round, under 23

Stewart (33.5)

Mendenhall (31.4)

Taking into account BMI (in parentheses above):

A weighted average using rushing yards produces an average BMI of 29.6; the top 10 rushers of all time have a BMI of 29.7. It looks pretty clear that a BMI of close to 30 is ideal for a running back.

I'd have to rank their projected NFL success at:1. Jones

2. Mendenhall

3. Smith

4. McFadden

5. Stewart

I don't think it will really fall out that way, but that's what the numbers point to.

I'd read some of the BMI discussion a little while back earlier in this thread, but I hadn't seen that piece over at pro football reference. Great stuff. How did you come up with that order based off that data though? Jones seems to be below the ideal range.

Jones BMI is 29.7 - exactly the average BMI of the top-10 rushers of all time. (That's based on his actual combine measurements, as opposed to what Chase had in the article which was inaccurate)

Looks like Forte has a very good BMI too at 29.9. A few others are in that range too, but much lesser prospects and were later round picks.

Unfortunately, his other attributes in line with the OP of this thread knock him down significantly compared to the above 5 mentioned.

 

[hephner]

Here's the updated list that I came up with:

1A - (Avg. 16.2 PPG) - 205-221, 1st 76 picks, under 22.5 age

McFadden (27.6)

F. Jones (29.7)

K. Smith (28.6)

4A - (Avg. 15.0 PPG) - 222-240, 1st round, under 23

Stewart (33.5)

Mendenhall (31.4)

Taking into account BMI (in parentheses above):

A weighted average using rushing yards produces an average BMI of 29.6; the top 10 rushers of all time have a BMI of 29.7. It looks pretty clear that a BMI of close to 30 is ideal for a running back.

I'd have to rank their projected NFL success at:1. Jones

2. Mendenhall

3. Smith

4. McFadden

5. Stewart

I don't think it will really fall out that way, but that's what the numbers point to.

I'd read some of the BMI discussion a little while back earlier in this thread, but I hadn't seen that piece over at pro football reference. Great stuff. How did you come up with that order based off that data though? Jones seems to be below the ideal range.

Jones BMI is 29.7 - exactly the average BMI of the top-10 rushers of all time. (That's based on his actual combine measurements, as opposed to what Chase had in the article which was inaccurate)

Looks like Forte has a very good BMI too at 29.9. A few others are in that range too, but much lesser prospects and were later round picks.

Unfortunately, his other attributes in line with the OP of this thread knock him down significantly compared to the above 5 mentioned.

Here's the BMI I come up with using combine numbers for the top backs:McFadden 27.65

Stewart 33.48

Mendenhall 31.82

Jones 29.28

C. Johnson 27.47

Forte 28.33

Rice 30.25

K. Smith 28.24

Charles 27.89

That was using 5'-10 1/2" and 207 for Jones, which was much different than the original figures Chase used. So you are right that Jones BMI is close to the median for the top backs. But Chase also mentioned that "most of the top RBs had BMIs over 30", which included 3 MVPs. So Stewart and Mendenhall still have good BMI numbers, so I wouldn't necessarily push Jones to the top just because his is closer to the median for the top 10.

Looks like Forte's BMI drops down as well with his updated height and weight figures. And on Forte, yes, he's not in the top tier of the smaller backs, but he hits category 1B, which still puts him as the #6 RB after the group you mentioned, based on wdcrob's analysis anyway.

 

[gheemony]

Here's the updated list that I came up with:

1A - (Avg. 16.2 PPG) - 205-221, 1st 76 picks, under 22.5 age

McFadden (27.6)

F. Jones (29.7)

K. Smith (28.6)

4A - (Avg. 15.0 PPG) - 222-240, 1st round, under 23

Stewart (33.5)

Mendenhall (31.4)

Taking into account BMI (in parentheses above):

A weighted average using rushing yards produces an average BMI of 29.6; the top 10 rushers of all time have a BMI of 29.7. It looks pretty clear that a BMI of close to 30 is ideal for a running back.

I'd have to rank their projected NFL success at:1. Jones

2. Mendenhall

3. Smith

4. McFadden

5. Stewart

I don't think it will really fall out that way, but that's what the numbers point to.

Thanks for the work Switz. I've got 1.04 and have been debating Forte and Smith. This makes me lean towards Smith, but it's put Jones into the discussion as well.

 

[switz]

McFadden 27.65Stewart 33.48Mendenhall 31.82Jones 29.28C. Johnson 27.47Forte 28.33Rice 30.25K. Smith 28.24Charles 27.89

Yeah, those are much closer to accurate than what Chase originally had, but that was before the combine gave us a valid set of measurements.

That was using 5'-10 1/2" and 207 for Jones, which was much different than the original figures Chase used. So you are right that Jones BMI is close to the median for the top backs. But Chase also mentioned that "most of the top RBs had BMIs over 30", which included 3 MVPs. So Stewart and Mendenhall still have good BMI numbers, so I wouldn't necessarily push Jones to the top just because his is closer to the median for the top 10.

Only 19 of the top-50 had BMIs 30.0 and above, so that's not entirely accurate. Of those, only two had BMIs over 33, which to me makes Stewart slip down a bit.Only 4 had a BMI over 33.7, Mendenhall is 33.8.The subset from 29.0-29.9 had the most (12) of the top-50 (looking at whole number ranges), and if you take the median within a tolerance of <1.0 you get 22 of the top 50, meaning a BMI of 28.8-30.6 is very likely to get you a STUD RB. Thirty of the top 50 are median +/- 1.2 (28.5-30.9). Only Rice & Jones fit in there, but Rice doesn't pass the other criterii.

Looks like Forte's BMI drops down as well with his updated height and weight figures. And on Forte, yes, he's not in the top tier of the smaller backs, but he hits category 1B, which still puts him as the #6 RB after the group you mentioned, based on wdcrob's analysis anyway.

That's where I had him, #6

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

It's painful to see those categories now. I really wish I'd waited a year to post, but I had no idea I'd get further than I did.

I'll update this after my two startup dynasties and first rookie draft are done in May.

 

[switz]

Thanks for the work Switz. I've got 1.04 and have been debating Forte and Smith. This makes me lean towards Smith, but it's put Jones into the discussion as well.

Thank Chase and rob, as they were the guys who did all the initial work. I've just played around with their ideas in regards to this year's group of RBs.

 

[switz]

It's painful to see those categories now.

Why is that?

 

[hephner]

McFadden 27.65Stewart 33.48Mendenhall 31.82Jones 29.28C. Johnson 27.47Forte 28.33Rice 30.25K. Smith 28.24Charles 27.89

Yeah, those are much closer to accurate than what Chase originally had, but that was before the combine gave us a valid set of measurements.

That was using 5'-10 1/2" and 207 for Jones, which was much different than the original figures Chase used. So you are right that Jones BMI is close to the median for the top backs. But Chase also mentioned that "most of the top RBs had BMIs over 30", which included 3 MVPs. So Stewart and Mendenhall still have good BMI numbers, so I wouldn't necessarily push Jones to the top just because his is closer to the median for the top 10.

Only 19 of the top-50 had BMIs 30.0 and above, so that's not entirely accurate. Of those, only two had BMIs over 33, which to me makes Stewart slip down a bit.Only 4 had a BMI over 33.7, Mendenhall is 33.8.The subset from 29.0-29.9 had the most (12) of the top-50 (looking at whole number ranges), and if you take the median within a tolerance of <1.0 you get 22 of the top 50, meaning a BMI of 28.8-30.6 is very likely to get you a STUD RB. Only Rice & Jones fit in there, but Rice doesn't pass the other criterii.

Looks like Forte's BMI drops down as well with his updated height and weight figures. And on Forte, yes, he's not in the top tier of the smaller backs, but he hits category 1B, which still puts him as the #6 RB after the group you mentioned, based on wdcrob's analysis anyway.

That's where I had him, #6

I'm not coming up with the same BMI numbers you are, and I'm using current combine info, at least I think so, but nonetheless, good points when you break the info down further like that. The only comment I would take caution on is when you say "a BMI of 28.8-30.6 is very likely to get you a STUD RB". You have to take into consideration that Chase was just looking at the top 50 RBs, so they were basically all studs, or very close. But there are many more that probably had very similar BMI that weren't studs. Chase was only looking at the very top as his sample. So while BMI close to the ideal range certainly seems to help and may be a tie-breaker, I wouldn't look at that as anything close to a guarantee of landing a stud. Just look at some of the other guys like Forsett or Green-Ellis who had BMI in the ideal range. I doubt seriously either of those guys ever becomes a stud.

 

[switz]

I'm not coming up with the same BMI numbers you are, and I'm using current combine info, at least I think so, but nonetheless, good points when you break the info down further like that.

I used your numbers when commenting in the last post. I did see in your comment you had Jones at 5'10.5, where the combine had him at 5'10.125 but for the sake of this, the difference is negligible. 29.28BMI which you had is still the closest to 29.7, and well within the range.

The only comment I would take caution on is when you say "a BMI of 28.8-30.6 is very likely to get you a STUD RB". You have to take into consideration that Chase was just looking at the top 50 RBs, so they were basically all studs, or very close. But there are many more that probably had very similar BMI that weren't studs. Chase was only looking at the very top as his sample. So while BMI close to the ideal range certainly seems to help and may be a tie-breaker, I wouldn't look at that as anything close to a guarantee of landing a stud. Just look at some of the other guys like Forsett or Green-Ellis who had BMI in the ideal range. I doubt seriously either of those guys ever becomes a stud.

That is true, BMI is not the only indicator which comes into play. That's where the other points wdcrob brought out come in. When you see a player that meets all of the criterii (as well as what EBF posted about certain measurables) it's not a guarantee the player will be a STUD, but it is more likely than a player that misses on most of the criterii.Basically, the criterii set certain minimums that STUD RBs measure up to. Measuring up doesn't make you a stud, but missing those certainly indicates a player has less of a chance of being very successful.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

This has been a great thread and I like a lot about it. The only thing that bothers me is the weight. What bothers me is that RBs gain and lose 5-10 pounds quite often in the transition from college to the pros. In college, you don't know what their weight really is because college media guides are brutally inaccurate. Then they prepare for the combine in which the marquee event, the 40 yard dash, generally leads them to lose weight and be lighter. Then they get to a NFL training camp and are pushed to put on muscle and bulk. So I think that passing on someone in your rookie draft because they aren't the right weight or BMI might be dangerous.

Another issue is whether the back has the body type to put on weight. Take the three 6'1" guys, McFadden, Smith and Forte. As others have said, to me McFadden looks too skinny legged. I'm not sure he can put on a bunch of weight. Smith looks skinny chested to me. I think he could put on some more weight even though his BMI is already fine. Forte, to me, already looks perfect and proportional.

Great thread and ideas, I just don't know if you can really have such strict cutoffs for weight/BMI when using Combine weights. Should be interesting to see how these work going forward.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Why is that?

Short answer, because it's over complicating something.Age, weight, draft position basically tells the tale. There are a couple exceptions that really help clean that basic framework up, but they don't require all the categories.Long answer is that I was overfitting the data. I was right that there was something else going on but I hadn't figured it out in that first post and was just fumbling around for an answer.Bill Barnwell says BMI isn't important, but I'm not convinced yet. There are so many guys that fit the mold this year except they have low BMIs that I think we'll have an answer in a year or two on that one.I've got a pretty decent model going that helps sort the RBs that fit the basic criteria (i.e. almost all the really good ones) into different tiers. If it works I'll share it in a year or two.