Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I don't mean to dismiss it all together. I think there is something to guys built like MJD and Rice being able to better handle the beating an NFL back takes. I do buy into that, some. I just don't feel that injuries not related to that beating, are more common in backs not fitting that mold. If McFadden was 5'9" 225, he'd still have sprained his foot and ankle, and still would have gotten turf toe. No way to prove that; just my thoughts.'renesauz said:
Feel free to use the search function, I posted about this back in October or so and I'm sure during the offseason too. If there weren't an ongoing issue he'd be more heavily utilized.
Depending on the league, maybe a mid-late 2nd rounder. That is all I would personally pay for him. Just too much risk involved for me to invest any more than that. If he stays healthy, I think he could keep this up. But I won't bet much on that happening.
Just because you read it in your psych 1 textbook doesn't mean it always applies. Plenty of intuitive beliefs happen to have merit. In the case of anatomy, it's clear to anyone who knows anything about the animal kingdom, architecture, or engineering that function follows form. If people want to believe that this body will hold up as well to contact as this one, so be it. I think it's pretty clear that the job duties of an NFL featured back favor certain body types over others. I've missed one or two gems with this approach, but that number is far outweighed by the amount of scrubs and failures that I've completely avoided.'SSOG said:
Unless you're using him in a 2-for-1 deal to upgrade a position of need for the playoffs, hold. Hope he stays in one piece through the season then see if he gets a big contract somewhere in March a la Laurent Robinson last season. Hopefully he goes to a better location than Laurent and you can see about cashing in. His pricetag right now is probably equivalent to a WR in the 40-50 range, so given his weekly upside you'll get more with him on your roster than by moving him.
Yes, plenty of intuitive beliefs have merit. I never claimed that there was a negative correlation between intuition and accuracy (I.e. intuitive beliefs are more likely to be wrong than counterintuitive beliefs). I would expect a positive correlation between "intuitiveness" and "accuracy", I'm just saying that that correlation will be many orders of magnitude weaker than the correlation between "substantiated by data" and "accuracy". Which is why I prefer theories that are actually supported by the data. I have, as of yet, not seen a single attempt to support your "non-ideal body types are more likely to sustain injury" with actual real-world data. I haven't even seen an attempt to strictly define non-ideal body types, which allows for a lot of goalpost moving. As a result, I treat your theory with extreme skepticism. I'm also, by default, leery of any theory that suggests there is a very simple, intuitive, obvious heuristic to predict NFL success that has not yet occurred to and been accounted for by the results-driven, Multi-million dollar scouting industry.
What about injuries not caused by contact, though, EBF? Do you think body type lends to foot sprains and turf toe?
Yes, without proper functional body strength when the body is over-stressed already weaker areas (relatively speaking) have a tendency to become issues. Some people it's their back, others it's the knee, some hips, and others feet. Usually one of those four. Athletes also tend to overcompensate or lose their form/technique as they fatigue, this can more easily lead to injuries, and especially if the athlete doesn't have the appropriate functional body strength to star with. All of these reasons are why you see more injuries later in the year than earlier. There's usually a rash of injuries in camp because bodies aren't up to speed yet, but I've noticed the quantity of injuries occurring between late August and mid October seem to be much lower than the beginning of camp and midseason-on. Logically, it makes sense.There is no perfect formula, some injuries are just flukey and not avoidable. That said, there's a reason guys like Larry Fitzgerald don't miss games. He trains properly and has the appropriate strength levels throughout his body. A fluke injury could get him at any time like anyone else, but I think he's at much less risk of injury than other WR's. Similar story with the squatty runningbacks, it's why I was so high on Martin and Richardson coming out. I think you can separate players into risk categories - moderate, worried, high, and glass. Maybe more. I'll take glass and high risk players, but not at a premium price. Danario Alexander, Laurent Robinson, and Tony Moeaki? Sure, welcome aboard, lets see if the glue keeps you intact. Beanie, Demarco, and DMC? No thanks, I don't build my teams around players made of glass.
You don't really address my point, directly. I am talking stictly body type or BMI, or however you want to define it. Is a 6' 220 RB more likely to get turf toe than a 5'10 220 RB? How about foot sprain? Ankle Sprain? That is what needs to be answered. I'm not interested in who you have decided is glass or moderate, or anything else. I am talking strictly body type, and it's relation to injuries that don't come from a collection of hits.
As I have said all along I don't think there is an easy answer, from your posts I think this is what you're looking for and I don't think you will get it. If someone wants to take the time to do the research and there is an answer, have at it, I would be willing to bet the statistical answer is inconclusive so I'm not going to take the time to do it. Overall, I think each player is a puzzle, how those pieces get put together vary player to player - not speaking just from how they're physically built either. Put all the pieces together, make a valuation, then match it with how they're viewed by the consensus. Injury risk is a part of it and I think you can learn a lot about it by following college ball, so that's what I do. I think I saw the red flags in guys like Beanie, DMC, and Demarco long before others just by watching them in school. How they run, technique in traffic/in space, how they're built, how often they pull themselves from games, what causes them to be pulled from games, consistently be able to practice, ability to play hurt, etc. I saw too many issues with all of the above to covet any of them.The one mistake in these three cases is that I let this perception and my being right about Beanie and DMC deter me away from Demarco despite not demanding much of a price draft day. Liked the talent, didn't think he could survive in a feature role. That's definitely worth a 2nd or 3rd round rookie pick, should have pounced. Lesson learned, don't repeat the mistake again. But also don't compound it by trying to buy him after his value explodes, that's why I didn't try to trade for him anytime after that Rams game last year.
I don't have much to counter here. I think it is way too soon to say Murray is in the Wells, McFadden catagory. But that is a personal call. I don't disagree with much that you said, beyond that.
Unless you have an intimate knowledge of the inner workings of every personnel department in the league, I don't think you're qualified to say what they have and haven't accounted for. I'd venture to guess that quite a few teams have looked at the kind of things I'm talking about.
You're not going to find an objective measure. Durability is a combination of luck, toughness, running style, usage, and body type. BMI is a pretty good starting point for determining body type, but it's flawed because it doesn't provide any information about the distribution of a player's weight, which is important. All else being equal, a top-heavy back is going to be less durable than a back who carries his weight in his lower body. The best support for the "ideal body type" argument is the fact most of the RBs who have had great careers in recent history have fit the mold pretty well. Guys like Ricky Williams, LaDainain Tomlinson, Marshall Faulk, Barry Sanders, Clinton Portis, Shaun Alexander, Jamal Lewis, Frank Gore, and Edgerrin James are all built more or less the same. It's probably not a coincidence that Trent Richardson and Doug Martin are physically cut from this same cloth as well. Those guys are actually the exact same height (5'9.1"), and their weight is only separated by 5 pounds. The NFL clearly has a preference for a certain type of RB. It drafts more of them in the first round. More of them go on to great careers.To be fair, we've also seen some thinner backs like Darren McFadden and CJ Spiller earn very high draft slots in recent years, but neither has yet demonstrated the ability to accumulate a Tomlinson/Edge/Ricky workload over multiple seasons. The same goes for Reggie Bush, who has a career high of 216 carries after 8 years in the league. Jamaal Charles is hovering around the same territory right now. Chris Johnson is really the only guy with a non-traditional build who has shown the ability to handle a high volume of carries over multiple seasons, and he has a few subjective factors working in his favor (running style, distribution of weight, super freak athlete). I don't think BMI is a perfect indicator of body type, but I'd be interested in seeing a study that tracks all backs who were drafted within the past ten years and determines the average workload as it relates to body type, factoring in draft position (because a non-ideal first round RB is probably going to have a higher expected amount of touches than an ideal seventh rounder due to differences in talent). I'd venture to guess that a study like this might corroborate some of what I'm saying.
I acquire as many early picks as I can during the season then as the draft nears re-evaluate since you usually get the most return for picks right before the draft. Sometimes if I'm not liking what I'm seeing where I am picking I will bail (1.7, 2011), other times I will package them together to move up (Richardson), or sometimes I'll stay put and take what falls to me (RG3). This is why I just take the volume approach with picks so I have the flexibility come May and June to do what I want to do. There isn't always a willing buyer or seller (i.e. I tried to trade down from the middle of the 2nd last year because I thought I could get the top guy on my board - AJ Jenkins - a half dozen picks later and there were others I'd be happy with if someone sniped me, so may as well try to add more value and move back but I had no takers), but more often than not there is someone looking to move.
It's really hard to explain, I think. It is kind of something you pick up naturally. It took me a few years, and every league is different. So is every team. One thing I have picked up on, is the value of the top 3-4 picks in relation to the 5-8 and 9-12/14. The top pick in most drafts is usually a 2nd or 3rd round pick in a startup draft. While picks 5-8 go MUCH later. Looking at startup drafts that include rookies will give you a good idea. You can search for the startup thread in this forum and take a look at some. You'll always have guys that under value picks, and guys that over value them. Take advantage of both. Roster size is the biggest indicator of how valuable 2nd and 3rd rounders will be. The more shallow the roster, the less valuable they are; you can't afford to wait for guys to pan out, often. In bigger leagues, you can wait for guys like Shorts and Kaepernick to pan out, so the picks you would typically use on such guys are more valuable. Hope this helps some.
I agree. I think it's a virtual certainty that all teams have looked into the link between size and injury risk. Which is why when someone like Chris Johnson or Adrian Peterson, who is not the ideal shape, goes in the first round, I don't hold his size against him. After all, NFL teams, who have done a lot more research on the subject and have a lot more data on the players, sure didn't.
The problem I have with "I'll know it when I see it" as a rule for which backs are injury prone is that it very quickly morphs into "I'll see it once I know it". Absent objective criteria, the entire practice quickly devolves into a giant Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. It's the same problem I have with the Lewin Career Forecast or Sackseer or any other formula or rule that purports to separate the busts from the steals. Even if the formula does manage to identify a genuine inefficiency in the market, the market is extremely efficient and will incorporate that information to correct the inefficiency as soon as it's discovered. A decade ago, the As made a killing because the market undervalued OBP. The market quickly realized its error and corrected, to the point that OBP is no longer undervalued. Pitt used to be able to make a killing gobbling up tweeter LB/DEs that nobody else wanted for artificially low prices. Now we get guys like Von and Aldon going in the top 10 picks, where they belong. Tedford QBs were overvalued, the market reacted, and Rodgers almost fell out of the first entirely. By the time you identify an inefficiency, it's already being corrected for. If non-ideal guys really were enhanced risks, the market would have realized it, and guys like Bush, Peterson, Johnson, Spiller, and Charles wouldn't be so routinely getting taken with premium picks. The market is aware of your theory, and the market has roundly rejected it.
For what it's worth, I've been doing all I can to acquire 2014 1st round picks. I currently have 4 of them (in a 10 team league), as well as a likely early 2nd. I would gladly trade a "random" 2013 1st for a 2014 1st, though, and have done so. What's great is that the other guy thinks he's "fast forwarding" his pick a full year, so I've been able to get a little bit of a kicker on top of the 2014 pick (a third or a mid level IDP player).
Peterson probably doesn't belong in the conversation. He is a touch light for his height, but overall pretty close to the ideal range. And, to be subjective for a minute, I don't think anyone who has ever watched him run would say he's undersized or lacking power. As for light backs in general, I think most teams know what they're getting. Guys like Bush and Spiller probably aren't going to be your 300 carry bell cow, but that's not what they're drafted for. They're drafted for their ability to make game-changing big plays. This is a rare skill and it can absolutely be worth a first round pick in NFL terms, but that doesn't change the fact that these types rarely become every down players. Chris Johnson is doing it. Jamaal Charles, Reggie Bush, and CJ Spiller aren't. Their own teams have generally limited their touches to below Ricky/Edge/LT levels, which actually corroborates what I'm saying about this type of back. In general, they aren't fit to carry a full load. The fact that their own teams are seemingly aware of this kind of punches a hole in your assertion that the NFL has rejected what I'm saying. If anything, it's demonstrating quite the opposite. Teams don't trust thin backs to carry a full load (and when they do, the back usually gets injured). The NFL views players like Bush and Spiller as dynamic committee backs, which is also how I view them. Useful players in FF. So explosive that they can still put up RB1 numbers for stretches of time without the high volume of touches. But ultimately, they're not as valuable as true bell cows of equivalent talent.
There are 32 teams in the NFL and they all do things differently. This makes it difficult to speak of the market as a single entity. The Raiders spent a top 4 pick on McFadden. Was that reflective of the market or the lunacy of one rudderless franchise? Bear in mind that this is the same team that took JaMarcus Russell with the first pick and Darrius Heyward-Bey as the first WR in a draft that included Crabtree, Maclin, Harvin, and Nicks. Trends are valuable, but the market is ultimately a collection of individual agents who all have their own modus operandi. Something like the draft is not going to offer a perfect reflection of what the league in general is doing. It's just going to provide partial evidence about individual philosophies and approaches.
For more on this read Gladwell's Blink. Gut reactions aren't invalid because they're based on simple intuition.
I actually agree with your main point 100%. I always go after RBs with those tree trunks for legs. In addition to durability, it allows them to run through shots to their lower body without losing acceleration. Doug Martin doesn't keep breaking off long runs because he's fast. He keeps breaking off long runs because those lower body shots just glance off him and don't slow him down, whereas a guy like Reggie Bush is much faster but has to slow down a lot more when shedding a tackle, allowing people to gang up on him.However, I think you're being a bit disingenuous with your examples. You're taking pictures of a guy like Beanie Wells when he was 18 and comparing him to the other guys when they were 25. Beanie actually has pretty hefty legs now.
You give NFL management far too much credit. This is a league full of guys that still make decisions that are obviously statistically poor because that's the way people were doing it 50 years ago.Most of the NFL can barely keep up with blatant in your face statistics. If you think they're doing any kind of advanced statistics on some of these things to read between the lines then I think you're misplacing how they spend their time. Jim Brown was tall and didn't have particularly bulky legs. That's probably enough for them to ignore looking into how body type relates to RB injuries for at least another 100 years.'SSOG said:
Me too, owners seem less attached to #1's more than a year out and are more willing to part with those now to fix current issues. I realized around October that the 2013 class may leave some to be desired so I made targeting 2014 picks instead a priority. That said, I have noticed others realizing the 14 class looks stronger than the 13 class so it may be more difficult to pull this off now vs. a month ago. I have three 2014 #1's and what should be an early 2 in my hip pocket so far, betting I flip one of my 2013 #1's into another 2014 #1 too once the draft gets closer. Fingers crossed...
I respect your opinion, but I must say: I was surprised to read this from you. You honestly think random people on the internet invest more time or thought into pretend draft picks than NFL franchises? I think you give NFL franchises far too little credit. I find it nearly impossible to think that there is proof to be found and documented, but NFL teams are too lazy or dumb to pay someone to do it.'FreeBaGeL said:
Explain the Raiders recent draft choices.
Al DavisExplain the Raiders recent draft choices.
I don't get what you're saying here. I understand it, but I don't see an argument for the entire NFL missing out on the fact that taller human beings sprain their feet or get turf toe more often that shorter human beings. Name me a quality franchise and I will show you a RB they drafted that doesn't fit the MJD mold. Give me a BMI and I'll do the same, for any team in the league.
Everyone had Russell as a top pick. Name me a person you repsect and lets see where they ranked Russell. McFadden got hurt. Darrius Heyward-Bey, Al Davis.
I thought they were all lousy picks at the time they were made.
I would confidently take several people on this board before the Jacksonville front office. Several others too, but that one especially sticks out.
In a hypothetical world where every organization is run perfectly, you would be right.But that's not reality.
Jamarcus was far from a consensus #1 pick until the last few weeks or so. Brady Quinn was right up there.
I wanted nothing to do with either of them, but I am mildly curious if someone held a gun to my head which one I would have said then. Trying to remember if I liked any QB in that class. Come to think of it, I have hated each of the last 3 QB picks by the Browns. Maybe this is why all the Browns homers on this board always get on my case, I haven't had any hope since 08! Definitely dropped the ball on Frye though
Off the top of my head I don't think Ziggy Hood has done much since he got there, I think he was their #1 pick the year after they won the Super Bowl vs. Arizona? Not a round 1 pick, but as a draft guy I thought the Mike Adams pick was monumentally bad...but as a Browns fan was happy to see. Didn't question the Ziggy pick at the time, didn't know enough about him, but I've seen enough of Adams to comfortably say he'll be out of the league quickly.
He never had the right approach. His greatest focus was on the weight room, felt the rest would follow suit, and the locker room never bought in. Most pegged it as a Browns issue, but the rumors I read from Denver after he wasn't brought back were hilarious. He just didn't care enough about football, he didn't care to be great, and to be a franchise QB in the NFL you have to. He flamed out so quickly because he didn't have the necessary football skills, if he could throw a deep ball that didn't look like a wounded duck it may have bought him another year or two but that's probably it.
Hey, nobody's perfect. The Patriots drafted Chad Jackson in the 2nd round.I'll see your Ziggy Hood and raise you Plaxico Burress, Ben Roethlisberger, Heath Miller, Santonio Holmes, Troy Polamalu, Rashard Mendenhall, Kendall Simmons, and Lawrence Timmons.
Yep - this is pretty much was I was trying to say.
I don't agree with EBF often - but I'm right along side him on this point.
I fold.
They have not had great drafts, but they have added a few core pieces (Gronk, Hernandez, Chandler Jones, Mayo), mixed in role players behind them (Spikes, Hightower, Ridley), still have some unproven commodities that could develop into mainstays (Dennard, Solder), and most importantly do a very good job picking up other teams garbage.I have less doubts about them surviving without Brady than I do the Steelers without Ben. The last 2 1/2 games showed what I think many thought in that the defense is old and outside of speed at WR and Heath Miller they're below average or bad everywhere on offense. They really need to nail the next couple of drafts or else when Big Ben's time comes up salary cap hell will probably force them to blow it all up.
Obviously some GMs are more successful than others. That's not what we are talking about here at all. We are talking about you (or anyone else) being able to assess football talent better than organizations that ALL have multi-million dollar budgets, full time staff that watch games in person, meet and interview players and college coaches, and break down film of every single play in players' careers. Obviously some teams aren't as good as others, but I'm pretty confident that the worst of them is better than any fantasy nerd armed with some spare time and YouTube. A guy like Al Davis was a rogue owner in many aspects, and without question he was pretty out of touch as he got older, but that situation is also the exception rather than the norm. Most owners aren't nearly as intrusive into the football side of the business. The vast majority of all NFL front office personnel have spent their entire lives around the game with multiple organizations. They know more than we do.
Run well <> In my spare time I personally can better identify NFL talent than an NFL team. YMMV.
Pretty much missing the point entirely, which is that a single toxic influence at the top of the organization can undo the work of a hundred competent people. I wouldn't dispute that the average pro scout has a better football acumen than most NFL fans, but that isn't necessarily reflected in the decisions made by the team he works for. I'm sure the Warriors had some great scouts on their staff when they took Todd Fuller over Kobe Bryant and Joe Smith over Kevin Garnett. Didn't matter. Also, I don't think evaluating talent in sports is some kind of amazingly difficult job that only a select few can do. There is probably some degree of natural talent to it, but it's something that a lot of people could probably do at a really high level if they were willing to invest the time.
