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

[switz]

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.

Most skinny backs try to put on weight for the combine, because they don't want to be viewed as "too light" to be n every dwn back in the NFL. So when you see guys like Chris Johnson still super light, it's a red flag.Most bigger backs try to drop a few pounds to increase their speed, so when you see a guy like Stewart at the combine, that too raises a red flag.But I do agree that their first year in the NFL their weight will change...

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.

Agreed, some guys will have an easier time putting on weight.

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.

You've got to start somewhere. I doubt any of the big RBs lose weight in the NFL, so the high BMI scares me. But skinny guys typically put on 5 pounds or so, sometimes 10 like Portis did one season. Still, some of those skinny guys will have too low of a BMI at that point.And though we looked a lot at the BMI, some of those guys ages and draft positions, as well as combine results, are unavoidable strikes against them. There's no guarantee they won't succeed because of it, but it's something to be considered when thinking about drafting them.

 

[switz]

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.

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.

EBF had a post a while back which stated minimum combine results needed to be very sucessful. I think that what you have put together applies this way as well. There's nothing about measurements, age, draft position, situation, etc. that guarantees success. But there are certain minimums that definitely are needed to have a shot at success. Using what you've written, what Chase wrote about BMI, and what EBF wrote about combine results, I feel pretty strongly that you can rank RBs chance at success, and have a very good result.

I look forward to seeing what you come up with I'm working on something myself in line with the three methods I've seen by you, Chase, and EBF - plus one other thing I've discerned has some influence on RB results.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

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.

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.

EBF had a post a while back which stated minimum combine results needed to be very sucessful. I think that what you have put together applies this way as well. There's nothing about measurements, age, draft position, situation, etc. that guarantees success. But there are certain minimums that definitely are needed to have a shot at success. Using what you've written, what Chase wrote about BMI, and what EBF wrote about combine results, I feel pretty strongly that you can rank RBs chance at success, and have a very good result.

I look forward to seeing what you come up with I'm working on something myself in line with the three methods I've seen by you, Chase, and EBF - plus one other thing I've discerned has some influence on RB results.

Whether or not their first name is Felix?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

But there are certain minimums that definitely are needed to have a shot at success.

I think this is exactly right. You're looking for RBs that exceed the minimum requirement on EVERY relevant attribute.The exception to this is for RBs taken in the first round. They have more leeway on the weight and the age. But while they may succeed, you're not getting as good a back as you would have if they were a first round back that fit all the criteria.

Said another way, on average you're not getting as good a back when you take Warrick Dunn, Joseph Addai, Jerome Bettis, DeAngelo Will and Larry Johnson as you would if you were picking other first rounders who weren't too old, too light or too heavy. The difference is that the 1st round prospects have enough talent as a runner to offset their flaw.

If you take RBs selected in the 2nd-4th round and compare the 'perfect' fits with those that have at least one flaw the discrepancy is much more pronounced.

From here I've got a couple other items I'm looking at - basically inefficiencies in the draft market. I think it's possible that where some RBs get drafted is too low due to scouts and GMs being risk averse. I'm working on an 'adjusted draft position' to reflect those aversions - and it seems to be pretty solid.

And BMI may end up being one of those attributes where a minimum score is required too. Peterson, McFadden, Forte and Kevin Smith should help us with that. Given that Chris Brown seems to have the talent to succeed, but fumbles a lot (which definitely correlates to low BMI) and gets hurt a lot I'm still leaning towards a cutoff around 29.0. But Brown could just be random - time will tell.

Also, I'm coming around to the idea that sometimes guys get misdrafted, and that EBF's right about adding a measurable or two to the mix as another 'minimum requirement.' Most of the guys with high modeled scores that didn't pan out have something in common, so I'm playing with that now as well.

FWIW... here's the modeled ranking for all RBs drafted in rounds 1-4 in the last ten years who have a 'perfect' profile:

LaDainian Tomlinson

Maurice Jones-Drew

Jamal Lewis

Frank Gore

J.J. Arrington

Edgerrin James

Thomas Jones

Marshawn Lynch

Peterson, Adrian

Laurence Maroney

Fred Taylor

Clinton Portis

Chris Henry

Kevin Jones

Ricky Williams

Deuce McAllister

Steven Jackson

Willis McGahee

Ryan Moats

Ahman Green

LaMont Jordan

Travis Henry

Rudi Johnson

Reggie Bush

Musa Smith

Marion Barber

And here's the rank order for those that are perfect except they had marginal measurables:

Brian Westbrook

Brandon Jackson

Chris Perry

Shaun Alexander

Domanick Williams

Cedric Benson

DeShaun Foster

Chris Brown

Kevan Barlow

So basically what I'm doing is slotting rookie RBs into position, which lets me see where they compare to past guys with similar model scores. Will be fun to see how it plays out.

And obviously we have the advantage of hindsight here - we know where the player was drafted. But since you can make pretty good estimates for where RBs are going to get drafted pre-draft this would actually have some utility in the real world (IMO).

Anyone not on this list I wouldn't have drafted.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

While I'm here...

One of the things that I've realized lately is that scouts do a fantastic job of evaluating a player's skill as a runner. The problems come in when those subjective evaluations are either adjusted for things they shouldn't be, or are not adjusted for things they should be.

If a team were doing something similar to this (and I'd think that some of them are), it'd be important for the guys doing the actual eyeball tests on the players to be kept as far from this info as you could. The last thing you'd want is for them to adjust their subjective evaluations based on other criteria - they really do seem to know what they're looking at. But that's just one piece of the puzzle.

The same holds true for WRs, btw. The subjective evaluations are very good and when you adjust those evaluations properly you can eliminate a great deal of the seeming randomness surrounding the drafting of WRs.

 

[switz]

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.

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.

EBF had a post a while back which stated minimum combine results needed to be very sucessful. I think that what you have put together applies this way as well. There's nothing about measurements, age, draft position, situation, etc. that guarantees success. But there are certain minimums that definitely are needed to have a shot at success. Using what you've written, what Chase wrote about BMI, and what EBF wrote about combine results, I feel pretty strongly that you can rank RBs chance at success, and have a very good result.

I look forward to seeing what you come up with I'm working on something myself in line with the three methods I've seen by you, Chase, and EBF - plus one other thing I've discerned has some influence on RB results.

Whether or not their first name is Felix?

No, but it is something that Felix measures up to

 

[switz]

But there are certain minimums that definitely are needed to have a shot at success.

I think this is exactly right. You're looking for RBs that exceed the minimum requirement on EVERY relevant attribute.Anyone not on this list I wouldn't have drafted.

So you would have bypassed Addai because he was 4 months too old - though he was drafted in the first round? But you would have drafted JJ Arrington whose BMI of 32.2 is a bit too high or Ryan Moats who was pick #77 - both drafted after the first round ??

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

But there are certain minimums that definitely are needed to have a shot at success.

I think this is exactly right. You're looking for RBs that exceed the minimum requirement on EVERY relevant attribute.Anyone not on this list I wouldn't have drafted.

So you would have bypassed Addai because he was 4 months too old - though he was drafted in the first round? But you would have drafted JJ Arrington whose BMI of 32.2 is a bit too high or Ryan Moats who was pick #77 - both drafted after the first round ??

I want value. First round guys who don't fit aren't value - you're going to pay the price of a first rounder, without getting, on average, the full talent of a first rounder.

 

[(HULK)]

While I'm here...

One of the things that I've realized lately is that scouts do a fantastic job of evaluating a player's skill as a runner. The problems come in when those subjective evaluations are either adjusted for things they shouldn't be, or are not adjusted for things they should be.

If a team were doing something similar to this (and I'd think that some of them are), it'd be important for the guys doing the actual eyeball tests on the players to be kept as far from this info as you could. The last thing you'd want is for them to adjust their subjective evaluations based on other criteria - they really do seem to know what they're looking at. But that's just one piece of the puzzle.

The same holds true for WRs, btw. The subjective evaluations are very good and when you adjust those evaluations properly you can eliminate a great deal of the seeming randomness surrounding the drafting of WRs.

Without giving away your WR model stuff yet, can you say how the Skins fared with the two they got?

 

[KSUinSFO]

.

 

[switz]

So you would have bypassed Addai because he was 4 months too old - though he was drafted in the first round? But you would have drafted JJ Arrington whose BMI of 32.2 is a bit too high or Ryan Moats who was pick #77 - both drafted after the first round ??

I want value. First round guys who don't fit aren't value - you're going to pay the price of a first rounder, without getting, on average, the full talent of a first rounder.

I still think that's a stretch, especially with reference to the examples I provided.

 

[awesomeness]

So you would have bypassed Addai because he was 4 months too old - though he was drafted in the first round? But you would have drafted JJ Arrington whose BMI of 32.2 is a bit too high or Ryan Moats who was pick #77 - both drafted after the first round ??

I want value. First round guys who don't fit aren't value - you're going to pay the price of a first rounder, without getting, on average, the full talent of a first rounder.

I still think that's a stretch, especially with reference to the examples I provided.

So you want him to scratch his model and start over just because 2 players out of 20 did not suceed? Thats like not hiring Tony Dungy to be your head coach because he didn't make the playoffs in 2 of the 12 years he has been a head coach.

 

[switz]

So you would have bypassed Addai because he was 4 months too old - though he was drafted in the first round? But you would have drafted JJ Arrington whose BMI of 32.2 is a bit too high or Ryan Moats who was pick #77 - both drafted after the first round ??

I want value. First round guys who don't fit aren't value - you're going to pay the price of a first rounder, without getting, on average, the full talent of a first rounder.

I still think that's a stretch, especially with reference to the examples I provided.

So you want him to scratch his model and start over just because 2 players out of 20 did not suceed? Thats like not hiring Tony Dungy to be your head coach because he didn't make the playoffs in 2 of the 12 years he has been a head coach.

No, I was just saying that passing on a guy 4 months outside of one criterii for a guy that would be drafted 2-3 spots down (Arrington) in a rookie draft just doesn't make sense.But ti does raise a question - what if you raise the age criteria to 23.5 years? How much do the results change? I'm assuming he did the work on that to establish 23 as the finite cutoff.

 

[awesomeness]

So you would have bypassed Addai because he was 4 months too old - though he was drafted in the first round? But you would have drafted JJ Arrington whose BMI of 32.2 is a bit too high or Ryan Moats who was pick #77 - both drafted after the first round ??

I want value. First round guys who don't fit aren't value - you're going to pay the price of a first rounder, without getting, on average, the full talent of a first rounder.

I still think that's a stretch, especially with reference to the examples I provided.

So you want him to scratch his model and start over just because 2 players out of 20 did not suceed? Thats like not hiring Tony Dungy to be your head coach because he didn't make the playoffs in 2 of the 12 years he has been a head coach.

No, I was just saying that passing on a guy 4 months outside of one criterii for a guy that would be drafted 2-3 spots down (Arrington) in a rookie draft just doesn't make sense.But ti does raise a question - what if you raise the age criteria to 23.5 years? How much do the results change? I'm assuming he did the work on that to establish 23 as the finite cutoff.

The model helps you a lot more than it hurts you. In 1998, one would have passed over Curtis Enis for Fred Taylor, and would have passed over Robert Edwards, John Avery, and Skip Hicks in favor of Ahman Green.In 2002, one would have passed over T.J Duckett, William Green, and DeShaun Foster for Clinton Portis.etc. etc.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I still think that's a stretch, especially with reference to the examples I provided.

If I was ever going to make an exception Addai would be it. A 1st rounder with a perfect weight going to the Colts would be as good as it gets for a non-conforming RB.But the reason you think it's a stretch is because you already know the outcomes. It looks a lot different otherwise.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

In 2002, one would have passed over T.J Duckett, William Green, and DeShaun Foster for Clinton Portis.

I think Green was actually a good back under my model. But he went to an expansion club (Cleveland killed a bunch of good careers those years), and he was a freaking red-flag headcase. There were four backs I excluded from my list b/c it was well known ahead of the draft they were big time problems: Green, Onterio Smith, Maurice Clarett and Lawrence Phillips.The idea here is to target RBs who are as ideal as you can find. You'll still miss sometimes, but far less often. No sense in introducing new risk back into things by taking a chance on a bad character guy.

 

[EBF]

Apologies if this has already been covered, but who does the model like this year?

 

[switz]

I cheated a bit and bumped the ideal age range to 23.02 because it adds Alexander.

those under 23.02 years old (again, I cheated by a few days to include Westbrook at 23.01),

are a bit too old – between 23.03 and 23.5 years old. The 12 backs in this group have an average PPG (PPR) of 9.1 and include:

Backs who were older than 23.5 when they started their career

I'm just wondering, based on other comments, if 23 or 23.03 or 23.4 is the proper cutoff.

#2b: Next up are the players who qualified on draft position, pick 76 or earlier, but have a close miss on one of the other criteria – they’re either between 195 and 204 pounds with an ideal age; or are of an ideal weight (205-221), but are a bit too old – between 23.03 and 23.5 years old. The 12 backs in this group have an average PPG (PPR) of 9.1 and include:

Brian Calhoun, Maurice Morris, Byron Hanspard, Moe Williams, Tiki Barber, Ladell Betts, Michael Pittman, Julius Jones, Michael Bennett, Joseph Addai, DeAngelo Williams.

Of these listed, the only one who missed it on age alone is Joseph Addai. I'm thinking that the age is not quite accurate.I would have to do a more comprehensive study (as I'm trying to do) to know for sure.

 

[switz]

I still think that's a stretch, especially with reference to the examples I provided.

If I was ever going to make an exception Addai would be it. A 1st rounder going to the Colts would be as good as it gets for a non-conforming RB.But the reason you think it's a stretch is because you already know the outcomes. It looks a lot different otherwise.

Yeah, hindsight is 20-20. And my comments are in no way meant to minimize your study, all the work you put into it, etc. I think it's awesome.

 

[gianmarco]

Apologies if this has already been covered, but who does the model like this year?

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...t&p=8575456Relevant portion:

"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"

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Wesbrook is 23.01 and Alexander is 23.02 - after that it gets very clear cut on the age. I think having it be such a sharp line may have something to do with starting ages 1st grade. If you JUST miss a cutoff you're a year older than everyone else in your class. One theory on the age thing is that smaller, younger kids have to learn to compete with older kids using something other than brawn. Or that they develop faster because they're playing against better competition. Who knows - but there's a pretty clear break at 23+ for backs that fit otherwise. Again - being drafted in the 1st round means you're talented enough to overcome that, but on average you're not going to be as good as other 1st round backs.

Also remember that I've collapsed all those categories. There's basically backs that fit and those that don't. And all the ones that fit are given a model score that ranks them vs other backs in the good category. Seems to work pretty well so far, but there's a model item or two I know are relevant, but I think the weighting is off for due to low sample size. A couple years from now I should have it pinned down a bit better.

 

[switz]

Wesbrook is 23.01 and Alexander is 23.02 - after that it gets very clear cut on the age. I think having it be such a sharp line may have something to do with starting ages 1st grade. If you JUST miss a cutoff you're a year older than everyone else in your class. I'm not sure why exactly, but one theory on the age thing is still that smaller, younger kids have to learn to compete with older kids using something other than brawn. Or that they develop faster because they're playing against better competition. Who knows - but there's a pretty clear break at 23+ for backs that fit otherwise. Again - being drafted in the 1st round means you're talented enough to overcome that, but on average you're not going to be as good as other 1st round backs.Also remember that I've collapsed all those categories. There's basically backs that fit and those that don't. And all the ones that fit are given a model score that ranks them vs other backs in the good category. Seems to work pretty well so far, but there's a model item or two I know are relevant, but I think the weighting is off for due to low sample size. A couple years from now I should have it pinned down a bit better.

Cool, looking forward to it

 

[EBF]

Apologies if this has already been covered, but who does the model like this year?

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...t&p=8575456Relevant portion:

"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"

Thanks. It will be interesting to see if this has any predictive success. I like Ray Rice more than Forte and Smith.

I think Mendenhall will probably have the best FF career of these backs. I find the weight constraints a little arbitrary. 225 belongs in the ideal range IMO.

But as I've said, I think BMI is probably more important than weight. Steven Jackson is the poster boy for that. He looks heavy if you just look at his weight, but his BMI is within the ideal range.

 

[switz]

Apologies if this has already been covered, but who does the model like this year?

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...t&p=8575456Relevant portion:

"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"

Thanks. It will be interesting to see if this has any predictive success. I like Ray Rice more than Forte and Smith.

I think Mendenhall will probably have the best FF career of these backs. I find the weight constraints a little arbitrary. 225 belongs in the ideal range IMO.

But as I've said, I think BMI is probably more important than weight. Steven Jackson is the poster boy for that. He looks heavy if you just look at his weight, but his BMI is within the ideal range.

1A - (Avg. 16.2 PPG) - 205-221, 1st 76 picks, under 22.5 ageMcFadden (27.6 BMI)

F. Jones (29.7 BMI)

K. Smith (28.6 BMI)

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

Stewart (33.5 BMI)

Mendenhall (31.4 BMI)

Of those, Stewart's BMI is too high, Smith's is too low. Jones and Mendenhall have the closest to perfect BMI in the class, though Jones is on the low end of the weight requirement for 1A (207)

 

[EBF]

Apologies if this has already been covered, but who does the model like this year?

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...t&p=8575456Relevant portion:

"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"

Thanks. It will be interesting to see if this has any predictive success. I like Ray Rice more than Forte and Smith.

I think Mendenhall will probably have the best FF career of these backs. I find the weight constraints a little arbitrary. 225 belongs in the ideal range IMO.

But as I've said, I think BMI is probably more important than weight. Steven Jackson is the poster boy for that. He looks heavy if you just look at his weight, but his BMI is within the ideal range.

1A - (Avg. 16.2 PPG) - 205-221, 1st 76 picks, under 22.5 ageMcFadden (27.6 BMI)

F. Jones (29.7 BMI)

K. Smith (28.6 BMI)

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

Stewart (33.5 BMI)

Mendenhall (31.4 BMI)

Of those, Stewart's BMI is too high, Smith's is too low. Jones and Mendenhall have the closest to perfect BMI in the class, though Jones is on the low end of the weight requirement for 1A (207)

On the flipside, Stewart has the best combine numbers of those guys and was a top 15 pick. It's tough to say he's going to fail because he's 10 pounds too thick. This is why it's dangerous to follow these things too closely. I do think they can be helpful in eliminating the extremes, but there are a lot of guys who fall in the gray area. I'm not sure how helpful the trends are in those cases.

 

[gianmarco]

Apologies if this has already been covered, but who does the model like this year?

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...t&p=8575456Relevant portion:

"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"

Thanks. It will be interesting to see if this has any predictive success. I like Ray Rice more than Forte and Smith.

I think Mendenhall will probably have the best FF career of these backs. I find the weight constraints a little arbitrary. 225 belongs in the ideal range IMO.

But as I've said, I think BMI is probably more important than weight. Steven Jackson is the poster boy for that. He looks heavy if you just look at his weight, but his BMI is within the ideal range.

1A - (Avg. 16.2 PPG) - 205-221, 1st 76 picks, under 22.5 ageMcFadden (27.6 BMI)

F. Jones (29.7 BMI)

K. Smith (28.6 BMI)

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

Stewart (33.5 BMI)

Mendenhall (31.4 BMI)

Of those, Stewart's BMI is too high, Smith's is too low. Jones and Mendenhall have the closest to perfect BMI in the class, though Jones is on the low end of the weight requirement for 1A (207)

On the flipside, Stewart has the best combine numbers of those guys and was a top 15 pick. It's tough to say he's going to fail because he's 10 pounds too thick. This is why it's dangerous to follow these things too closely. I do think they can be helpful in eliminating the extremes, but there are a lot of guys who fall in the gray area. I'm not sure how helpful the trends are in those cases.

Well, as you said, it can be helpfulp in eliminating the extremes and that's exactly what was posted in the OP. If you simply eliminate the bottom 2 groups, you get rid of 40% of the RB's and have almost no chance of missing a top prospect. When you're looking at 1a vs. 4a, you're splitting hairs to be honest. But, there is something to be said about the group listed in 1a. They truly are the cream of the crop. It's not to say that a guy in 4a can't be a stud, but the top studs seem to fall in 1a more than 4a. It's a guideline, though, not an absolute. It should be reassuring if someone you have ranked high falls in those top 2 groups and a red flag if they don't. I'm liking Kevin Smith being in the 1a group

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Well, as you said, it can be helpfulp in eliminating the extremes and that's exactly what was posted in the OP. If you simply eliminate the bottom 2 groups, you get rid of 40% of the RB's and have almost no chance of missing a top prospect. When you're looking at 1a vs. 4a, you're splitting hairs to be honest. But, there is something to be said about the group listed in 1a. They truly are the cream of the crop. It's not to say that a guy in 4a can't be a stud, but the top studs seem to fall in 1a more than 4a. It's a guideline, though, not an absolute. It should be reassuring if someone you have ranked high falls in those top 2 groups and a red flag if they don't.

Yeah - that's the way to think about it Gian - all you're doing is improving your odds. I hate that those categories won't die now though!Anyhow, there are a ton of weird backs in this draft. Almost more than the last ten years combined:McFadden - ridiculously low BMI (best guess, full on bust because he'll be used as a bellcow and that's not his NFL niche)Chris Johnson - sub-200 pound RB with ridiculously low BMI yet still drafted in the 1st round (best guess, returner/gimmick back - not FF starter)Forte - low BMI, non-major conference (best guess, he's good but Chicago may screw him up)Smith - low BMI, non-major conference (best guess, he's good but Detroit will screw him up)I'm honestly not sure what to do with those guys, so my best guesses are still pretty subjective. Otherwise:Mendenhall, Stewart (safe as it gets - Steven Jackson, Willis McGahee)Felix (safe bet to have a few good years - could be the best back in this draft, compares to Clinton Portis before he beefed up)Rice (very borderline - probably career 3rd down back/backup along the lines of Maurice Morris)Slaton, Charles, Choice (undraftable - stay far away)Torain and Thomas Brown are both worth watching VERY closely - there are legit reasons other than talent they might have been drafted late.

 

[switz]

Well, as you said, it can be helpfulp in eliminating the extremes and that's exactly what was posted in the OP. If you simply eliminate the bottom 2 groups, you get rid of 40% of the RB's and have almost no chance of missing a top prospect. When you're looking at 1a vs. 4a, you're splitting hairs to be honest. But, there is something to be said about the group listed in 1a. They truly are the cream of the crop. It's not to say that a guy in 4a can't be a stud, but the top studs seem to fall in 1a more than 4a. It's a guideline, though, not an absolute. It should be reassuring if someone you have ranked high falls in those top 2 groups and a red flag if they don't.

Yeah - that's the way to think about it Gian - all you're doing is improving your odds. I hate that those categories won't die now though!Anyhow, there are a ton of weird backs in this draft. Almost more than the last ten years combined:McFadden - ridiculously low BMI (best guess, full on bust because he'll be used as a bellcow and that's not his NFL niche)Chris Johnson - sub-200 pound RB with ridiculously low BMI yet still drafted in the 1st round (best guess, returner/gimmick back - not FF starter)Forte - low BMI, non-major conference (best guess, he's good but Chicago may screw him up)Smith - low BMI, non-major conference (best guess, he's good but Detroit will screw him up)I'm honestly not sure what to do with those guys, so my best guesses are still pretty subjective. Otherwise:Mendenhall, Stewart (safe as it gets - Steven Jackson, Willis McGahee)Felix (safe bet to have a few good years - could be the best back in this draft, compares to Clinton Portis before he beefed up)Rice (very borderline - probably career 3rd down back/backup along the lines of Maurice Morris)Slaton, Charles, Choice (undraftable - stay far away)Torain and Thomas Brown are both worth watching VERY closely - there are legit reasons other than talent they might have been drafted late.

Very fair asessments, even though I'm not as high on Stewart. Do I have to like him now that he's a Panther???

 

[EBF]

Well, as you said, it can be helpfulp in eliminating the extremes and that's exactly what was posted in the OP. If you simply eliminate the bottom 2 groups, you get rid of 40% of the RB's and have almost no chance of missing a top prospect. When you're looking at 1a vs. 4a, you're splitting hairs to be honest. But, there is something to be said about the group listed in 1a. They truly are the cream of the crop. It's not to say that a guy in 4a can't be a stud, but the top studs seem to fall in 1a more than 4a. It's a guideline, though, not an absolute. It should be reassuring if someone you have ranked high falls in those top 2 groups and a red flag if they don't.

Yeah - that's the way to think about it Gian - all you're doing is improving your odds. I hate that those categories won't die now though!Anyhow, there are a ton of weird backs in this draft. Almost more than the last ten years combined:

McFadden - ridiculously low BMI (best guess, full on bust because he'll be used as a bellcow and that's not his NFL niche)

Chris Johnson - sub-200 pound RB with ridiculously low BMI yet still drafted in the 1st round (best guess, returner/gimmick back - not FF starter)

Forte - low BMI, non-major conference (best guess, he's good but Chicago may screw him up)

Smith - low BMI, non-major conference (best guess, he's good but Detroit will screw him up)

I'm honestly not sure what to do with those guys, so my best guesses are still pretty subjective. Otherwise:

Mendenhall, Stewart (safe as it gets - Steven Jackson, Willis McGahee)

Felix (safe bet to have a few good years - could be the best back in this draft, compares to Clinton Portis before he beefed up)

Rice (very borderline - probably career 3rd down back/backup along the lines of Maurice Morris)

Slaton, Charles, Choice (undraftable - stay far away)

Torain and Thomas Brown are both worth watching VERY closely - there are legit reasons other than talent they might have been drafted late.

Good stuff. You're on the money about there being an unusually high amount of "weird" backs at the top of this draft. I think you can break this year's runners into a few groups:Featured Back - Major

Rashard Mendenhall

Jonathan Stewart

Felix Jones

First tier backs with ideal bulk.

Featured Back - Minor

Matt Forte

Kevin Smith

Tashard Choice

Ryan Torain

Second tier backs with ideal bulk.

Undersized - Major

Darren McFadden

Chris Johnson

First tier backs without ideal bulk.

Undersized - Minor

Jamaal Charles

Steve Slaton

Second tier backs without ideal bulk.

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

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

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

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

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

Why do I suggest avoiding Forte/Smith/Torain and targeting Choice? Simple. Cost. Forte and Smith are bad gambles at their cost. Choice would also be a bad gamble at that cost, but since he is slipping to the third round of rookie drafts and the 10th-15th round of vet drafts, he becomes a quality value instead of a reach.

As far as sleepers go, there aren't many guys who have top bulk and combine numbers. Jalen Parmele is one guy my system loves. However, I haven't had enough faith in his talent to roll the dice on him in any of my drafts. If there's a Priest Holmes or Willie Parker out there this year, I don't know who it is.

 

[EBF]

Added:

Ray Rice and Darren McFadden are tougher to peg than the rest of the guys. This is because they're each a combination of ideal/undersized. McFadden has ideal weight with an undersized BMI. Rice has ideal BMI with an undersized weight. My hunch is that BMI is the more significant of the two measures, so I'd be more inclined to consider Rice ideal and McFadden undersized.

 

[dmac37]

Well, as you said, it can be helpfulp in eliminating the extremes and that's exactly what was posted in the OP. If you simply eliminate the bottom 2 groups, you get rid of 40% of the RB's and have almost no chance of missing a top prospect. When you're looking at 1a vs. 4a, you're splitting hairs to be honest. But, there is something to be said about the group listed in 1a. They truly are the cream of the crop. It's not to say that a guy in 4a can't be a stud, but the top studs seem to fall in 1a more than 4a. It's a guideline, though, not an absolute. It should be reassuring if someone you have ranked high falls in those top 2 groups and a red flag if they don't.

Yeah - that's the way to think about it Gian - all you're doing is improving your odds. I hate that those categories won't die now though!Anyhow, there are a ton of weird backs in this draft. Almost more than the last ten years combined:McFadden - ridiculously low BMI (best guess, full on bust because he'll be used as a bellcow and that's not his NFL niche)Chris Johnson - sub-200 pound RB with ridiculously low BMI yet still drafted in the 1st round (best guess, returner/gimmick back - not FF starter)Forte - low BMI, non-major conference (best guess, he's good but Chicago may screw him up)Smith - low BMI, non-major conference (best guess, he's good but Detroit will screw him up)I'm honestly not sure what to do with those guys, so my best guesses are still pretty subjective. Otherwise:Mendenhall, Stewart (safe as it gets - Steven Jackson, Willis McGahee)Felix (safe bet to have a few good years - could be the best back in this draft, compares to Clinton Portis before he beefed up)Rice (very borderline - probably career 3rd down back/backup along the lines of Maurice Morris)Slaton, Charles, Choice (undraftable - stay far away)Torain and Thomas Brown are both worth watching VERY closely - there are legit reasons other than talent they might have been drafted late.

Why do you have Rice borderline?Weight/Size? his BMI should be on the low side of ideal considering his height, rather have 200lbs on his frame than a 6ft frameTalent? best inside runner in the draft, was rated in top 5 before draft and is a work horseDraft spot? could be a red flag not drafted until 55th pickOther than Stewart & Mende I think he is the safest bet long term

 

[EBF]

If you wanted to build rookie rankings strictly using this type of system, I think you could break the players into their respective groups. Then you would rank each player within his group based on where he was drafted. Then you would rank the groups. So...

Featured Backs - Major

1.13 - Jonathan Stewart

1.22 - Felix Jones

1.23 - Rashard Mendenhall

Featured Backs - Minor

2.13 - Matt Forte

2.24 - Ray Rice

3.01 - Kevin Smith

4.23 - Tashard Choice

Undersized - Major

1.04 - Darren McFadden

1.24 - Chris Johnson

Undersized - Minor

3.10 - Jamaal Charles

3.26 - Steve Slaton

Now we have to rank the groups. I think the minor featured backs should be ranked ahead of the major undersized backs because there are virtually no undersized runners making a significant FF impact in the NFL. So...

1. Jonathan Stewart

2. Felix Jones

3. Rashard Mendenhall

4. Matt Forte

5. Ray Rice

6. Kevin Smith

7. Tashard Choice

8. Darren McFadden

9. Chris Johnson

10. Jamaal Charles

11. Steve Slaton

Interesting results. I'm not sure I'd be comfortable ranking McFadden that low, but I do feel his bust/disappointment risk is far greater than the mass media would lead you to believe. This list confirms my hunches that Ray Rice and Tashard Choice are undervalued and that Jamaal Charles and Steve Slaton are overrated. I think Slaton/Charles/Torain represent the worst three picks in the top 15 of this year's rookie drafts.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

If you wanted to build rookie rankings strictly using this type of system, I think you could break the players into their respective groups. Then you would rank each player within his group based on where he was drafted. Then you would rank the groups. So...

Featured Backs - Major

1.13 - Jonathan Stewart

1.22 - Felix Jones

1.23 - Rashard Mendenhall

Featured Backs - Minor

2.13 - Matt Forte

2.24 - Ray Rice

3.01 - Kevin Smith

4.23 - Tashard Choice

Undersized - Major

1.04 - Darren McFadden

1.24 - Chris Johnson

Undersized - Minor

3.10 - Jamaal Charles

3.26 - Steve Slaton

Now we have to rank the groups. I think the minor featured backs should be ranked ahead of the major undersized backs because there are virtually no undersized runners making a significant FF impact in the NFL. So...

1. Jonathan Stewart

2. Felix Jones

3. Rashard Mendenhall

4. Matt Forte

5. Ray Rice

6. Kevin Smith

7. Tashard Choice

8. Darren McFadden

9. Chris Johnson

10. Jamaal Charles

11. Steve Slaton

Interesting results. I'm not sure I'd be comfortable ranking McFadden that low, but I do feel his bust/disappointment risk is gar greater than the mass media would lead you to believe. This list confirms my hunches that Ray Rice and Tashard Choice are undervalued and that Jamaal Charles and Steve Slaton are overrated. I think Slaton/Charles/Torain represent the worst three picks in the top 15 of this year's rookie drafts.

I agree with you on pretty much everything except Charles. I think his talent is better than minor and I don't think his body type is that bad. He's a little taller than you'd like, but it looks to me like he can put on 10 pounds easily with that frame. That's just me though.

 

[EBF]

If you wanted to build rookie rankings strictly using this type of system, I think you could break the players into their respective groups. Then you would rank each player within his group based on where he was drafted. Then you would rank the groups. So...

Featured Backs - Major

1.13 - Jonathan Stewart

1.22 - Felix Jones

1.23 - Rashard Mendenhall

Featured Backs - Minor

2.13 - Matt Forte

2.24 - Ray Rice

3.01 - Kevin Smith

4.23 - Tashard Choice

Undersized - Major

1.04 - Darren McFadden

1.24 - Chris Johnson

Undersized - Minor

3.10 - Jamaal Charles

3.26 - Steve Slaton

Now we have to rank the groups. I think the minor featured backs should be ranked ahead of the major undersized backs because there are virtually no undersized runners making a significant FF impact in the NFL. So...

1. Jonathan Stewart

2. Felix Jones

3. Rashard Mendenhall

4. Matt Forte

5. Ray Rice

6. Kevin Smith

7. Tashard Choice

8. Darren McFadden

9. Chris Johnson

10. Jamaal Charles

11. Steve Slaton

Interesting results. I'm not sure I'd be comfortable ranking McFadden that low, but I do feel his bust/disappointment risk is gar greater than the mass media would lead you to believe. This list confirms my hunches that Ray Rice and Tashard Choice are undervalued and that Jamaal Charles and Steve Slaton are overrated. I think Slaton/Charles/Torain represent the worst three picks in the top 15 of this year's rookie drafts.

I agree with you on pretty much everything except Charles. I think his talent is better than minor and I don't think his body type is that bad. He's a little taller than you'd like, but it looks to me like he can put on 10 pounds easily with that frame. That's just me though.

I love his talent, but he's just sooooo skinny. I wavered on him throughout the evaluation process, but watching him run the 40 at the NFL combine was the deal breaker for me. He has tiny thighs.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Added:Ray Rice and Darren McFadden are tougher to peg than the rest of the guys. This is because they're each a combination of ideal/undersized. McFadden has ideal weight with an undersized BMI. Rice has ideal BMI with an undersized weight. My hunch is that BMI is the more significant of the two measures, so I'd be more inclined to consider Rice ideal and McFadden undersized.

This is the biggest unanswered Q right now for me.Based on the other research I've done with WRs (which looks like it'll be in the 2008 Football Prospectus - buy a copy) I've got a few working theories going about the NFL generally. One of them is that simple physics dictates as much or more of the game than some things that are widely perceived as 'talent.'With that in mind, I don't think there's any question that weight alone is very important. If I remember my freshman physics right, mass x velocity = momentum - and there seems to be a very clear minimum level of momentum a RB has to generate to be successful.What's less clear is exactly how much it matters how the mass is distributed (BMI). Does 'density' matter in terms of effectiveness as a runner? Intuitively the answer seems like it has to be "yes" - at least beyond a certain threshold. A denser object of the same weight moving at a similar speed as a second object would seem to be more violent to me. More difficult to stop. But it doesn't really show up in my data set if you control for a couple other things. So I guess this year's draft class will tell us an awful lot.At first glance lean, low-BMI runners tend to fumble at a rate 2+ times that of higher BMI guys. That's pretty significant given the role of turnovers in Ws and Ls. I also suspect low BMI guys get injured more below a certain threshold, but haven't even started looking at that yet.

 

[EBF]

Added:Ray Rice and Darren McFadden are tougher to peg than the rest of the guys. This is because they're each a combination of ideal/undersized. McFadden has ideal weight with an undersized BMI. Rice has ideal BMI with an undersized weight. My hunch is that BMI is the more significant of the two measures, so I'd be more inclined to consider Rice ideal and McFadden undersized.

This is the biggest unanswered Q right now for me.Based on the other research I've done with WRs (which looks like it'll be in the 2008 Football Prospectus - buy a copy) I've got a few working theories going about the NFL generally. One of them is that simple physics dictates as much or more of the game than some things that are widely perceived as 'talent.'With that in mind, I don't think there's any question that weight alone is very important. If I remember my freshman physics right, mass x velocity = momentum - and there seems to be a very clear minimum level of momentum a RB has to generate to be successfulWhat's less clear is exactly how much it matters how the mass is distributed (BMI). Does 'density' matter in terms of effectiveness as a runner? Intuitively the answer seems like it has to be "yes" - at least beyond a certain threshold. A denser object of the same weight moving at a similar speed as a second object would seem to be more violent to me. More difficult to stop. But it doesn't really show up in my data set if you control for a couple other things. So I guess this year's draft class will tell us an awful lot.At first glance lean, low-BMI runners tend to fumble at a rate 2+ times that of higher BMI guys. That's pretty significant given the role of turnovers in Ws and Ls. I also suspect low BMI guys get injured more below a certain threshold, but haven't even started looking at that yet.

Chase Stuart did a little study on RB size and, if I'm not mistaken, he came to the conclusion that elite long-term RB's are getting heavier and shorter. I'm not 100% sure about the weight thing, but I'm positive that his results showed the top RB's shrinking in terms of height. I think this is evidence of a "natural selection" for shorter and stockier RB's. To me the fact that this body type prevails indicates that it must play some positive role in surviving and succeeding in the NFL. Consider that arguably the top 4 running backs of the past 15 years were all very short and stocky (Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith, Marshall Faulk, LaDainian Tomlinson). I don't think that's a coincidence. It's a matter of physics. Function follows form. A low center of gravity combined with a solid weight gives the best combination of ability and durability.I think this is something experienced evaluators subconsciously look for. I'm not a pro scout by any means, but I've seen enough RB prospects play to where I have a decent sense of what a good RB should look like. I've maintained a fairly optimistic view of Ray Rice and Rashard Mendenhall since the very first time I saw them play. I think that's partially because both players physically LOOK like a RB. They have the low center of gravity and the sturdy build. On the flipside, I look at McFadden and Forte and cringe at the idea of linebackers colliding with their skinny spider legs. I think there's a little bit of method to this madness. Time will tell.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

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

Matt Forte

Kevin Smith

Darren McFadden

Rashard Mendenhall

Jonathan Stewart

Felix Jones

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

 

[aposulli]

btw... sticking strictly to the goal here of finding "An Objective Measure of Talent," here are the RBs my model says to draft if you ignore BMI, ranked according to their model score. Again, I don't think this is right since there are a couple questions I haven't got completely answered yet and this draft perversely hit all of them pretty hard, but here it is:Matt ForteKevin Smith Darren McFaddenRashard Mendenhall Jonathan StewartFelix JonesYou could do worse considering this was put together without anything that would ever require you to see the RB play, or watch a second of film.

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

 

[gianmarco]

btw... sticking strictly to the goal here of finding "An Objective Measure of Talent," here are the RBs my model says to draft if you ignore BMI, ranked according to their model score. Again, I don't think this is right since there are a couple questions I haven't got completely answered yet and this draft perversely hit all of them pretty hard, but here it is:Matt ForteKevin Smith Darren McFaddenRashard Mendenhall Jonathan StewartFelix JonesYou could do worse considering this was put together without anything that would ever require you to see the RB play, or watch a second of film.

Depending on how these guys pan out, if these guys truly "hit", which we have a good chance of seeing sooner rather than later, then you may be seriously onto something considering how many "weird" RB's there are.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

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

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

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Here are the good RBs from 2006 and 2007, ranked according to model scores. Far fewer weird backs in this group. My fantasy life kind of depends on being right since I've swept up Jackson in all five of my dynasties, landed Chris Henry in four of them and most of my RBs in every league are on this list.

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

Brandon Jackson

Peterson, Adrian

Marshawn Lynch

Laurence Maroney

Chris Henry

Reggie Bush

Note that I DQ'd Lendale White based on pre-draft character reports. He'd be on this list otherwise.

 

[switz]

btw... sticking strictly to the goal here of finding "An Objective Measure of Talent," here are the RBs my model says to draft if you ignore BMI, ranked according to their model score. Again, I don't think this is right since there are a couple questions I haven't got completely answered yet and this draft perversely hit all of them pretty hard, but here it is:Matt ForteKevin Smith Darren McFaddenRashard Mendenhall Jonathan StewartFelix JonesYou could do worse considering this was put together without anything that would ever require you to see the RB play, or watch a second of film.

Huh? Felix Jones falls squarely into group 1a per your criteria.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Huh? Felix Jones falls squarely into group 1a per your criteria.

lol... not sure how many times I need to say that my original post is out of date. It's still directionally right, but I've gotten a long way down the road since that.

 

[switz]

Huh? Felix Jones falls squarely into group 1a per your criteria.

lol... not sure how many times I need to say that my original post is out of date. It's still directionally right, but I've gotten a long way down the road since that.

Oh, I didn't get that this was per your new system, sorry.I would wager though that your new system is off by quite a bit, if that's the results from this year's crop. Sorry It just doesn't add up

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Huh? Felix Jones falls squarely into group 1a per your criteria.

lol... not sure how many times I need to say that my original post is out of date. It's still directionally right, but I've gotten a long way down the road since that.

Oh, I didn't get that this was per your new system, sorry.I would wager though that your new system is off by quite a bit, if that's the results from this year's crop. Sorry It just doesn't add up

I agree. It's a function of all those 'weird' backs we've been talking about. I just wanted to post something 'objective' per the quest in my 1st post. I need two or three years more data to get some of this sorted out. Definitely still a work in progress.

 

[gianmarco]

Huh? Felix Jones falls squarely into group 1a per your criteria.

lol... not sure how many times I need to say that my original post is out of date. It's still directionally right, but I've gotten a long way down the road since that.

Oh, I didn't get that this was per your new system, sorry.I would wager though that your new system is off by quite a bit, if that's the results from this year's crop. Sorry :( It just doesn't add up

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

 

[EBF]

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

 

[gheemony]

Huh? Felix Jones falls squarely into group 1a per your criteria.

lol... not sure how many times I need to say that my original post is out of date. It's still directionally right, but I've gotten a long way down the road since that.

Oh, I didn't get that this was per your new system, sorry.I would wager though that your new system is off by quite a bit, if that's the results from this year's crop. Sorry It just doesn't add up

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

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

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

Yeah, it's really hard to believe when there's so much subjective stuff out there that undermines some of my predictions. But neither guy has cost me much, and you'd be hard pressed to go 0-2 on any other pair on my list of desirable RBs, so I'm trying to trust the data and put my own opinions aside.In a way that was the point of this from the start. You can read conflicting opinions about every single player out there. That really irritated me when I started playing FF and I wanted to see if there were objective criteria that cut through some of the gobbledy####.I suspect that my RB model is creeping in on that, but it's nowhere near as definitive. Still, at the end of the day I think this stuff is WAY more objective than subjective - and that you can do most or all of it by the numbers. If I'm wrong, oh well - it was a hell of a fun project to work on. And no one died.

 

[SayWhat?]

Love the out of the box thinking, keep up the great work!