Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

The Chris Johnson Hype machine


Recommended Posts

Football sabermetrics is still in its infancy. Those of you who are dissing the BMI studies these guys have done sound an awful lot like the legion of naysayers who thought the baseball stat geeks were crazy 15 years ago. A lot of those geeks are now employed in major league front offices.

EBF et. al are onto something; I think BMI has a lot validity for examining the RB position. It's pretty evident that BMI is correlated with long term success as an every down back in the NFL.

That said, I also think the wide receiver/BMI study featured in the 2008 FO book (is this authored by wdcrob?) suffers from selection bias. It's pretty easy to draw four boxes around the best WR's in the NFL over the past 10 years and say you've discovered the four ideal body types for wideouts.

It is? :cry:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Football sabermetrics is still in its infancy. Those of you who are dissing the BMI studies these guys have done sound an awful lot like the legion of naysayers who thought the baseball stat geeks were crazy 15 years ago. A lot of those geeks are now employed in major league front offices.

EBF et. al are onto something; I think BMI has a lot validity for examining the RB position. It's pretty evident that BMI is correlated with long term success as an every down back in the NFL.

That said, I also think the wide receiver/BMI study featured in the 2008 FO book (is this authored by wdcrob?) suffers from selection bias. It's pretty easy to draw four boxes around the best WR's in the NFL over the past 10 years and say you've discovered the four ideal body types for wideouts.

It is? :)
Yes, I think it is. I am not trying to make any accusations and I think the article was informative and possibly even fascinating. However, I find it interesting that, for instance, two of the most prolific WRs in NFL history--Marvin Harrison and Randy Moss--are located in the far corners of the "slight body" box on the graph we're talking about. I think I would have given more credence to the study if one of the concluions was that Randy Moss is a stick-thin freak of nature whose career stats defy the study's logic. Instead the box appears tailored to fit him in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever happened to talking about Chris Johnson in this thread?

I'm trading a 2nd round pick down for two 3rd picks in my PPR keeper league to pick up Johnson. I really, really like him, even before yesterday I'd been raving about him. I feel I can draft him and start him the flex with confidence. But I don't need to take him early so I figure trade picks so I can pick up more depth at wide receiver. With 40 players already out of the pool, it would be the equivalent of Johnson going in the early 7th round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Football sabermetrics is still in its infancy. Those of you who are dissing the BMI studies these guys have done sound an awful lot like the legion of naysayers who thought the baseball stat geeks were crazy 15 years ago. A lot of those geeks are now employed in major league front offices.

EBF et. al are onto something; I think BMI has a lot validity for examining the RB position. It's pretty evident that BMI is correlated with long term success as an every down back in the NFL.

That said, I also think the wide receiver/BMI study featured in the 2008 FO book (is this authored by wdcrob?) suffers from selection bias. It's pretty easy to draw four boxes around the best WR's in the NFL over the past 10 years and say you've discovered the four ideal body types for wideouts.

It is? :shrug:
Yes, I think it is. I am not trying to make any accusations and I think the article was informative and possibly even fascinating. However, I find it interesting that, for instance, two of the most prolific WRs in NFL history--Marvin Harrison and Randy Moss--are located in the far corners of the "slight body" box on the graph we're talking about. I think I would have given more credence to the study if one of the concluions was that Randy Moss is a stick-thin freak of nature whose career stats defy the study's logic. Instead the box appears tailored to fit him in.
That is a good point, but I think it was still interesting to see how most of the WRs were grouped near each other, and most notorious busts were grouped near each other.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Football sabermetrics is still in its infancy. Those of you who are dissing the BMI studies these guys have done sound an awful lot like the legion of naysayers who thought the baseball stat geeks were crazy 15 years ago. A lot of those geeks are now employed in major league front offices.

EBF et. al are onto something; I think BMI has a lot validity for examining the RB position. It's pretty evident that BMI is correlated with long term success as an every down back in the NFL.

That said, I also think the wide receiver/BMI study featured in the 2008 FO book (is this authored by wdcrob?) suffers from selection bias. It's pretty easy to draw four boxes around the best WR's in the NFL over the past 10 years and say you've discovered the four ideal body types for wideouts.

It is? :shrug:
Yes, I think it is. I am not trying to make any accusations and I think the article was informative and possibly even fascinating. However, I find it interesting that, for instance, two of the most prolific WRs in NFL history--Marvin Harrison and Randy Moss--are located in the far corners of the "slight body" box on the graph we're talking about. I think I would have given more credence to the study if one of the concluions was that Randy Moss is a stick-thin freak of nature whose career stats defy the study's logic. Instead the box appears tailored to fit him in.
That is a good point, but I think it was still interesting to see how most of the WRs were grouped near each other, and most notorious busts were grouped near each other.
Agreed. Overall, I enjoyed the article. I just thought there was a tinge of selection bias in the mix.

Sorry for the threadjack. Back to Chris Johnson.

BTW I think it's pretty funny that ECU has it's own Dirty Souf theme song. Mah heart is purple n gold...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys are the BMI GURUS, of course you're going to preach the validity of your religion.

Or maybe I believe in BMI because I spent almost two years looking at the career of every running back drafted since 1998 and figuring out what common features the successful ones have.What'd you do before you decided to write it off?
Why would you in 2005(?) decide to use a proportionate method developped in the year 1830?Why would you use such a method that does not deem these players in shape or in the best of shape but instead to be overweight and obese. That is what those BMI scores indicate and a fact everyone or almost everyone doing these studies fails to point out. These studies aren't even using BMI to form the conclusion it was developped for. You looked at what was available to you and height and weight were readily available. Had you every single tape of every game since 1998, would you have used a model from the year 1830 that gauges these players as overweight and obese? Edited by Bri
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Football sabermetrics is still in its infancy. Those of you who are dissing the BMI studies these guys have done sound an awful lot like the legion of naysayers who thought the baseball stat geeks were crazy 15 years ago. A lot of those geeks are now employed in major league front offices.EBF et. al are onto something; I think BMI has a lot validity for examining the RB position. It's pretty evident that BMI is correlated with long term success as an every down back in the NFL.That said, I also think the wide receiver/BMI study featured in the 2008 FO book (is this authored by wdcrob?) suffers from selection bias. It's pretty easy to draw four boxes around the best WR's in the NFL over the past 10 years and say you've discovered the four ideal body types for wideouts.

If there were a means to easily predict a player's success we wouldn't have gems like Housh and Colston going in the 7th round of drafts or all the undrafted free agents that make teams.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not BMI as much as common sense. As I explained earlier, I don't buy into BMI (nothing against guys who use it). Plenty of RBs have great BMIs who can't play. By itself, BMI virtually means nothing, IMO. Chris Johnson isn't a tiny guy. He's 5'11" 200 & will surely get to at least to 205, likely 210 considering his frame (after full maturity & a professional weight program). Even if he doesn't gain an ounce (but he will), he's plenty big enough the way they're going to use him.

If Reggie Bush can be a PPR semi-stud (who I wasn't high on coming out), I believe CJ can blow the roof off. He doesn't have to be LT. The Titans won't use him that way. He'll be used a lot like Westbrook. Nothing's for certain, of course, but man, I like this kid's chances.

Edited by Football Jones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys are the BMI GURUS, of course you're going to preach the validity of your religion.

Or maybe I believe in BMI because I spent almost two years looking at the career of every running back drafted since 1998 and figuring out what common features the successful ones have.What'd you do before you decided to write it off?
I know you weren't responding to me, but I wanted to reply. I don't write off anybody's research. It's just not something I look at. If a guy is 6'3" 200, yeah, I'll likely write him off. That's about as far as I get into BMI. If you look further into it, cool. I realize there's a typical build of a successful RB, but in relation to Chris Johnson (which is the only thing I'm talking about), he's in the area where he can certainly excel, IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Football sabermetrics is still in its infancy. Those of you who are dissing the BMI studies these guys have done sound an awful lot like the legion of naysayers who thought the baseball stat geeks were crazy 15 years ago. A lot of those geeks are now employed in major league front offices.EBF et. al are onto something; I think BMI has a lot validity for examining the RB position. It's pretty evident that BMI is correlated with long term success as an every down back in the NFL.That said, I also think the wide receiver/BMI study featured in the 2008 FO book (is this authored by wdcrob?) suffers from selection bias. It's pretty easy to draw four boxes around the best WR's in the NFL over the past 10 years and say you've discovered the four ideal body types for wideouts.

If there were a means to easily predict a player's success we wouldn't have gems like Housh and Colston going in the 7th round of drafts or all the undrafted free agents that make teams.
This isn't true at all. All it means is that maybe we haven't found it yet.Baseball was around for 120 years before Bill James even thought about it. Football sabremetrics are that much harder, because it's a team sport, and players rely on each other to excel, and we have to account for that.To dismiss people who try to think of new ways to look at things--just because it's new, is absolutely foolish. Could they be wrong? Certainly. But to categorically dismiss them is what stops good thinking from advancing past infancy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan Stewart - 33.5Rashard Mendenhall - 32.2Tashard Choice - 30.5Ray Rice - 30.3Ryan Torain - 29.9Felix Jones - 29.6Steve Slaton - 29.0Kevin Smith - 28.5Matt Forte - 28.4Jamaal Charles - 27.9Darren McFadden - 27.7Chris Johnson - 27.5

This is part of the reason why I'm down on guys like Charles, Forte, Smith, and McFadden. The BMI numbers don't trump what my eyeballs show me, but this year they align with my pre-established opinions almost perfectly. I always felt that Rice and Mendenhall looked like a RB should look when they ran the football, whereas most of the low BMI guys failed to win me over at any point in the process. I think I've been evaluating RBs long enough to have a rough idea of what a RB "should" look like. When a RB doesn't meet those standards, it concerns me. These numbers offer a clue about what I'm seeing in their play that doesn't sit well with me.
So if you had to choose, straight up, between Lendale White and Chris Johnson who would you prefer?
I can't imagine why I would ever be forced to choose between them.
That's a helpful response. Thanks.And it's actually meaningful, since the Titans presumably will make some variation on that choice every week.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, that's also my main argument against guys like Slaton, Charles, and McFadden. It's not that they suck, but rather that their overall portfolio is missing a few key items. The guys I like at their ADP are the guys who seem the most "complete" to me (Mendenhall, Stewart, Rice, Choice, and to a certain extent Jones).

I think most of the "complete" RB's you mentioned are just as much RBBC guys as Chris Johnson.
I have my doubts about Rice and Jones because they don't perfectly fit the size paradigm, but the other three physically resemble backs who can handle 300+ carries.
So would you draft Choice in front of McFadden? Or simply not draft McFadden? I'm trying to understand how it matters if a RB "physically resembles a back who can handle 300+ carries", if say the back isn't that talented (see: Choice)
The basic idea is that unless a RB has a BMI within the ideal range, he's almost certainly not going to become a true starter in the NFL. So you can pretty much assume that guys like McFadden, Charles, and Johnson aren't going to be the franchise type backs that you look for in FF. That doesn't mean they won't have value in some formats, but they appear to have almost no chance of becoming perennial stud workhorse backs based on recent NFL history.

This doesn't mean you should draft Choice over McFadden. Choice is a fourth round pick, which automatically makes him a longshot based on historical odds. However there are two first round RBs this year whose overall profile closely resembles the prototypical NFL back. I'm talking about Mendenhall and Stewart. They have a similar pedigree to McFadden and they have it packed onto compact 220+ pound frames. They are the guys I like within the first tier.

Now within the second or third tier, I might start warming up to someone like Choice. For example I might take him over Charles and Slaton. These three backs were taken in roughly the same range of the draft. Out of these three, Choice has the physical profile that most closely resembles an NFL starter. So while he might not be as talented as dynamic as talented Charles and Slaton, his talent comes in a form that's more conducive to FF success.

Think of it this way: A 6'4" power forward with great skills will probably not fare as well in the NBA as a 6'10" power forward with mediocre skills. That's sort of how I view Charles and Choice. I'm actually a big Charles fan, but he's built like a twig and he has very limited power. He's the NFL equivalent of a beastly 6'4" power forward. Choice is less dynamic, but he's 215+ pounds and he could probably carry the full load if he was forced into starting duty.

Including McFadden in any discussion of this nature is simply off the mark, to keep it plain and simple. Debuting with 12 carries in about a quarter-and-a half's work, on 90% between the tackle runs, for which he ran very hard I must add, only solidifies my already existing knowledge of this guy. Can't miss star and a future feature RB......As many carries as they want to give him, he can handle.

You're simply taking this BMI stuff a bit too far, IMO. You have to consider a player's age, work ethic, and more importantly, football ability. McFadden is simple a tremendous football player and is tough as nails as well as blessed with rare physical tools. You can keep knocking those other lightweight players all you like, but mentioning McFadden in these same circles will quickly become a huge error in judgment. A word of advice......stop now before you run off the cliff!........ :ptts:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PLEASE START A BMI THREAD AND LEAVE THIS TO CHRIS JOHNSON

We're discussing how BMI relates to Chris Johnson. Some people immediately dismissed it, so we're quickly going back and forth on it--which helps people reading this thread decide how much to take BMI into consideration when talking about him.It's really OK. It's a message board--these things happen. It's better for your blood pressure if you let it go.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PLEASE START A BMI THREAD AND LEAVE THIS TO CHRIS JOHNSONEBF - please now that you have made your point stop arguing off topic. This is a hype thread not an opinion thread.

Why is it off topic? EBF is arguing that Chris Johnson will never be a stud RB because his BMI is too low. I think that's an important perspective to discuss in here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Football sabermetrics is still in its infancy. Those of you who are dissing the BMI studies these guys have done sound an awful lot like the legion of naysayers who thought the baseball stat geeks were crazy 15 years ago. A lot of those geeks are now employed in major league front offices.EBF et. al are onto something; I think BMI has a lot validity for examining the RB position. It's pretty evident that BMI is correlated with long term success as an every down back in the NFL.That said, I also think the wide receiver/BMI study featured in the 2008 FO book (is this authored by wdcrob?) suffers from selection bias. It's pretty easy to draw four boxes around the best WR's in the NFL over the past 10 years and say you've discovered the four ideal body types for wideouts.

If there were a means to easily predict a player's success we wouldn't have gems like Housh and Colston going in the 7th round of drafts or all the undrafted free agents that make teams.
This isn't true at all. All it means is that maybe we haven't found it yet.
right and BMI was developped in 1830.

Baseball was around for 120 years before Bill James even thought about it. Football sabremetrics are that much harder, because it's a team sport, and players rely on each other to excel, and we have to account for that.To dismiss people who try to think of new ways to look at things--just because it's new, is absolutely foolish. Could they be wrong? Certainly. But to categorically dismiss them is what stops good thinking from advancing past infancy.

please check out the thread or at least the rest of the discussion on BMI before you jump on one single post
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Football sabermetrics is still in its infancy. Those of you who are dissing the BMI studies these guys have done sound an awful lot like the legion of naysayers who thought the baseball stat geeks were crazy 15 years ago. A lot of those geeks are now employed in major league front offices.EBF et. al are onto something; I think BMI has a lot validity for examining the RB position. It's pretty evident that BMI is correlated with long term success as an every down back in the NFL.That said, I also think the wide receiver/BMI study featured in the 2008 FO book (is this authored by wdcrob?) suffers from selection bias. It's pretty easy to draw four boxes around the best WR's in the NFL over the past 10 years and say you've discovered the four ideal body types for wideouts.

If there were a means to easily predict a player's success we wouldn't have gems like Housh and Colston going in the 7th round of drafts or all the undrafted free agents that make teams.
I don't think anyone is saying that there is some magical way to turn the inexact science of scouting into something completely formulaic. That will never happen. But there are early indications that BMI acts as a prerequisite to long term success as a RB in the NFL, and that interests me.I actually think this argument may be moot with respect to Chris Johnson since the Titans probably understand the risks of exposing him to the kind of beating a traditional every down back takes. One thing we all agree on is this dude is FAST!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just compiled a quick list of BMI scores for the top 30 RBs in my PPR league. I got all of my heights and weights from NFL.com and used a BMI calculator from the following link: http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/.

The results:

Brian Westbrook - 29.1

LaDainian Tomlinson - 31.7

Clinton Portis - 31.1

Joseph Addai - 29.8

Adrian Peterson - 28.6

Jamal Lewis - 34.2

Frank Gore - 32.9

Marion Barber - 30.0

Willis McGahee - 31.5

Earnest Graham - 33.2

Reggie Bush - 27.5

Maurice Drew - 32.6

Edgerrin James - 29.8

Kenny Watson - 29.6

Steven Jackson - 29.7

Marshawn Lynch - 30.0

Ryan Grant - 29.6

LenDale White - 31.0

Chester Taylor - 29.7

Willie Parker - 30.0

Brandon Jacobs - 32.1

Thomas Jones - 30.8

Ronnie Brown - 31.5

Justin Fargas - 29.0

Adrian Peterson II - 30.1

Fred Taylor - 30.1

Kevin Jones - 30.9

Warrick Dunn - 27.6

DeShaun Foster - 30.1

DeAngelo Williams - 32.0

High: Jamal Lewis 34.2

Low: Reggie Bush 27.5

Average: 30.5

27 out of 30 RBs were between 28.6 and 33.2. That means 90% of the top 30 RBs in 2007 had a BMI between 28.6 and 33.2.

Note that the above numbers were compiled using NFL.com's listed heights and weights, which are not completely accurate. A lot of people claim that Brian Westbrook and Chris Johnson have similar builds because Westbrook is listed at 5'10" 203 and Johnson is listed at 5'11" and 200. If these numbers were accurate then Westbrook would have a 29.1 BMI and Johnson would have a 27.9 BMI. But those numbers aren't accurate. Brian Westbrook isn't 5'10". At the combine he was 5'8.3" and 200 pounds. That's good for a BMI of 30.1, which is barely below the league average for a top 30 back. Westbrook isn't small. He's just short. Johnson was 5'11" and 197 pounds, which is good for a BMI of 27.5. That's lower than everyone on my list except Reggie Bush. And guess what? Reggie Bush's actual combine size was 5'10.7" and 201 pounds for a BMI of 28.3. So Chris Johnson is actually smaller than any of these top 30 RBs. Unless he bulks up considerably, he is probably a RBBC type for life.

As for Ahmad Bradshaw, he was 5'9.4" and 198 pounds at the combine. That's good for a BMI of 28.9, which is a little lower than you like to see.

For reference, here's this year's top rookies using actual heights and weights:

Jonathan Stewart - 33.5

Rashard Mendenhall - 32.2

Tashard Choice - 30.5

Ray Rice - 30.3

Ryan Torain - 29.9

Felix Jones - 29.6

Steve Slaton - 29.0

Kevin Smith - 28.5

Matt Forte - 28.4

Jamaal Charles - 27.9

Darren McFadden - 27.7

Chris Johnson - 27.5

How could you use that link and leave this out

BMI Categories: Underweight = <18.5 Normal weight = 18.5-24.9 Overweight = 25-29.9 Obesity = BMI of 30 or greater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Football sabermetrics is still in its infancy. Those of you who are dissing the BMI studies these guys have done sound an awful lot like the legion of naysayers who thought the baseball stat geeks were crazy 15 years ago. A lot of those geeks are now employed in major league front offices.EBF et. al are onto something; I think BMI has a lot validity for examining the RB position. It's pretty evident that BMI is correlated with long term success as an every down back in the NFL.That said, I also think the wide receiver/BMI study featured in the 2008 FO book (is this authored by wdcrob?) suffers from selection bias. It's pretty easy to draw four boxes around the best WR's in the NFL over the past 10 years and say you've discovered the four ideal body types for wideouts.

If there were a means to easily predict a player's success we wouldn't have gems like Housh and Colston going in the 7th round of drafts or all the undrafted free agents that make teams.
This isn't true at all. All it means is that maybe we haven't found it yet.
right and BMI was developped in 1830.

Baseball was around for 120 years before Bill James even thought about it. Football sabremetrics are that much harder, because it's a team sport, and players rely on each other to excel, and we have to account for that.To dismiss people who try to think of new ways to look at things--just because it's new, is absolutely foolish. Could they be wrong? Certainly. But to categorically dismiss them is what stops good thinking from advancing past infancy.

please check out the thread or at least the rest of the discussion on BMI before you jump on one single post
I've read 99% of it. I haven't made a decision one way or another, but I love people who think differently.It's the people who say, "right, and BMI was developed in 1830" who fit my point. You're not looking at this the right way, and it's almost like you're getting offended that people are trying to look at things in a new light, and use analysis and reasoning to find new methods of better analysis. It happened during the sabremetrics revolution, and it's happening (albeit in a much, much smaller way) with the BMI discussion.Is it absolutely correct to just use BMI? Absolutely not. We don't know enough to nearly be able to make a decision on it as a tool at all. Should we dismiss it completely? That's where you miss the boat, Bri--and you do on most issues like this, unfortunately. You get too emotional about stuff that takes place on a message board, and it clouds your judgment.Certain people have a very hard time when their preferred ways of thinking are challenged. Some people thrive on it. It's the latter that usually succeed.To think you can ever possibly know everything is a very shallow way of thinking. We can agree on that, right? So why not try out new ways of thinking when they come around? To push them aside and dismiss people who promote these ideas is pretty foolish, imo. Why? Disagree with it. That's fine. Analytically debunk it. That's even better.Just to wave your hand and push it aside with a snarky comment is the worst option of all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please note googling the date of the "invention" of BMI ranges from 1830-1869

Stop it.Nobody's saying BMI is a new invention. Using it to predict running back success in the NFL is a new way of thinking.Do you really not see that distinction, or are you just so upset by this that you're resorting to this tactic?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please note googling the date of the "invention" of BMI ranges from 1830-1869

And was BMI used in 1830 to assess an NFL player's likelihood of achieving success? Um, no. So please explain why it's relevant when BMI was "invented"? Answer: it's completely irrelevant. All that matters for purposes of this discussion is when BMI started being used to assess NFL players.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please note googling the date of the "invention" of BMI ranges from 1830-1869

Stop it.Nobody's saying BMI is a new invention. Using it to predict running back success in the NFL is a new way of thinking.Do you really not see that distinction, or are you just so upset by this that you're resorting to this tactic?
Looks like we read each other's minds yet again. :hey:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what if CJ adds a massive 8 lbs. after he actually does some real core and lower body training, putting him within the almighty BMI range at 28.6? CJ has good leg drive and much more of a North-South style than Bush or others, which gives him an advantage already. 28-33 is also a large range, not exactly very scientific.

Thicker RBs are better. Wow, did it really take 10 years of research to figure this out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what if CJ adds a massive 8 lbs. after he actually does some real core and lower body training, putting him within the almighty BMI range at 28.6? CJ has good leg drive and much more of a North-South style than Bush or others, which gives him an advantage already. 28-33 is also a large range, not exactly very scientific.

This is a very good point, and well thought out.

Thicker RBs are better. Wow, did it really take 10 years of research to figure this out?

This is the type of post that is completely unnecessary, and is the type of post that killed this place.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please note googling the date of the "invention" of BMI ranges from 1830-1869

Stop it.Nobody's saying BMI is a new invention. Using it to predict running back success in the NFL is a new way of thinking.Do you really not see that distinction, or are you just so upset by this that you're resorting to this tactic?
what tactic? I stated 1830 a number of times and was clarifying my own 1830 comment
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, CJ was 197 at the combine, where I'm sure he was a little light to run a fast time. He could easily play at 205 and be within your "magic range." BMI makes sense, but it's mostly common sense. I'd bet there's a stronger correlation with lower body strength, or Power Clean, Deadlift, Squat, and Leg Press numbers than BMI alone.

The other thing is that BMI only matters if you have skills. BMI in itself doesn't tell you anything. I'm 6'2.5'' and 245 lbs. with a BMI of 31, but I don't think I'd be a very good NFL RB. Vision, instincts, hands, balance, quickness, toughness, burst, etc. are all very important for a RB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read 99% of it. I haven't made a decision one way or another, but I love people who think differently.It's the people who say, "right, and BMI was developed in 1830" who fit my point. You're not looking at this the right way, and it's almost like you're getting offended that people are trying to look at things in a new light, and use analysis and reasoning to find new methods of better analysis. It happened during the sabremetrics revolution, and it's happening (albeit in a much, much smaller way) with the BMI discussion.Is it absolutely correct to just use BMI? Absolutely not. We don't know enough to nearly be able to make a decision on it as a tool at all. Should we dismiss it completely? That's where you miss the boat, Bri--and you do on most issues like this, unfortunately. You get too emotional about stuff that takes place on a message board, and it clouds your judgment.Certain people have a very hard time when their preferred ways of thinking are challenged. Some people thrive on it. It's the latter that usually succeed.To think you can ever possibly know everything is a very shallow way of thinking. We can agree on that, right? So why not try out new ways of thinking when they come around? To push them aside and dismiss people who promote these ideas is pretty foolish, imo. Why? Disagree with it. That's fine. Analytically debunk it. That's even better.Just to wave your hand and push it aside with a snarky comment is the worst option of all.

Keys this post is ridiculous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan Stewart - 33.5Rashard Mendenhall - 32.2Tashard Choice - 30.5Ray Rice - 30.3Ryan Torain - 29.9Felix Jones - 29.6Steve Slaton - 29.0Kevin Smith - 28.5Matt Forte - 28.4Jamaal Charles - 27.9Darren McFadden - 27.7Chris Johnson - 27.5

This is part of the reason why I'm down on guys like Charles, Forte, Smith, and McFadden. The BMI numbers don't trump what my eyeballs show me, but this year they align with my pre-established opinions almost perfectly. I always felt that Rice and Mendenhall looked like a RB should look when they ran the football, whereas most of the low BMI guys failed to win me over at any point in the process. I think I've been evaluating RBs long enough to have a rough idea of what a RB "should" look like. When a RB doesn't meet those standards, it concerns me. These numbers offer a clue about what I'm seeing in their play that doesn't sit well with me.
So if you had to choose, straight up, between Lendale White and Chris Johnson who would you prefer?
I can't imagine why I would ever be forced to choose between them.
That's a helpful response. Thanks.And it's actually meaningful, since the Titans presumably will make some variation on that choice every week.
It was a somewhat pointless question IMO. White is junk. Whether or not Chris Johnson is junk is a different discussion. Edited by EBF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan Stewart - 33.5Rashard Mendenhall - 32.2Tashard Choice - 30.5Ray Rice - 30.3Ryan Torain - 29.9Felix Jones - 29.6Steve Slaton - 29.0Kevin Smith - 28.5Matt Forte - 28.4Jamaal Charles - 27.9Darren McFadden - 27.7Chris Johnson - 27.5

This is part of the reason why I'm down on guys like Charles, Forte, Smith, and McFadden. The BMI numbers don't trump what my eyeballs show me, but this year they align with my pre-established opinions almost perfectly. I always felt that Rice and Mendenhall looked like a RB should look when they ran the football, whereas most of the low BMI guys failed to win me over at any point in the process. I think I've been evaluating RBs long enough to have a rough idea of what a RB "should" look like. When a RB doesn't meet those standards, it concerns me. These numbers offer a clue about what I'm seeing in their play that doesn't sit well with me.
So if you had to choose, straight up, between Lendale White and Chris Johnson who would you prefer?
I can't imagine why I would ever be forced to choose between them.
That's a helpful response. Thanks.And it's actually meaningful, since the Titans presumably will make some variation on that choice every week.
It was a somewhat pointless question IMO. White is junk. Whether or not Chris Johnson is junk is a different discussion.
I actually wanted to know your answer... Don't get mad. Which one would you choose?EDIT - disregard. you edited your first respone and answered already. Ok, lets go start a BMI thread and debate there. This is HYPE thread where those of us high on him enjoy being that way. Edited by benm3218
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just compiled a quick list of BMI scores for the top 30 RBs in my PPR league. I got all of my heights and weights from NFL.com and used a BMI calculator from the following link: http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/.

The results:

Brian Westbrook - 29.1

LaDainian Tomlinson - 31.7

Clinton Portis - 31.1

Joseph Addai - 29.8

Adrian Peterson - 28.6

Jamal Lewis - 34.2

Frank Gore - 32.9

Marion Barber - 30.0

Willis McGahee - 31.5

Earnest Graham - 33.2

Reggie Bush - 27.5

Maurice Drew - 32.6

Edgerrin James - 29.8

Kenny Watson - 29.6

Steven Jackson - 29.7

Marshawn Lynch - 30.0

Ryan Grant - 29.6

LenDale White - 31.0

Chester Taylor - 29.7

Willie Parker - 30.0

Brandon Jacobs - 32.1

Thomas Jones - 30.8

Ronnie Brown - 31.5

Justin Fargas - 29.0

Adrian Peterson II - 30.1

Fred Taylor - 30.1

Kevin Jones - 30.9

Warrick Dunn - 27.6

DeShaun Foster - 30.1

DeAngelo Williams - 32.0

High: Jamal Lewis 34.2

Low: Reggie Bush 27.5

Average: 30.5

27 out of 30 RBs were between 28.6 and 33.2. That means 90% of the top 30 RBs in 2007 had a BMI between 28.6 and 33.2.

Note that the above numbers were compiled using NFL.com's listed heights and weights, which are not completely accurate. A lot of people claim that Brian Westbrook and Chris Johnson have similar builds because Westbrook is listed at 5'10" 203 and Johnson is listed at 5'11" and 200. If these numbers were accurate then Westbrook would have a 29.1 BMI and Johnson would have a 27.9 BMI. But those numbers aren't accurate. Brian Westbrook isn't 5'10". At the combine he was 5'8.3" and 200 pounds. That's good for a BMI of 30.1, which is barely below the league average for a top 30 back. Westbrook isn't small. He's just short. Johnson was 5'11" and 197 pounds, which is good for a BMI of 27.5. That's lower than everyone on my list except Reggie Bush. And guess what? Reggie Bush's actual combine size was 5'10.7" and 201 pounds for a BMI of 28.3. So Chris Johnson is actually smaller than any of these top 30 RBs. Unless he bulks up considerably, he is probably a RBBC type for life.

As for Ahmad Bradshaw, he was 5'9.4" and 198 pounds at the combine. That's good for a BMI of 28.9, which is a little lower than you like to see.

For reference, here's this year's top rookies using actual heights and weights:

Jonathan Stewart - 33.5

Rashard Mendenhall - 32.2

Tashard Choice - 30.5

Ray Rice - 30.3

Ryan Torain - 29.9

Felix Jones - 29.6

Steve Slaton - 29.0

Kevin Smith - 28.5

Matt Forte - 28.4

Jamaal Charles - 27.9

Darren McFadden - 27.7

Chris Johnson - 27.5

How could you use that link and leave this out

BMI Categories: Underweight = <18.5 Normal weight = 18.5-24.9 Overweight = 25-29.9 Obesity = BMI of 30 or greater
Those definitions don't apply to elite pro athletes. LaDainian Tomlinson is not obese.

A guy like Jonathan Stewart has a freakish amount of muscle mass, which is why his weight is enormous for his height.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan Stewart - 33.5Rashard Mendenhall - 32.2Tashard Choice - 30.5Ray Rice - 30.3Ryan Torain - 29.9Felix Jones - 29.6Steve Slaton - 29.0Kevin Smith - 28.5Matt Forte - 28.4Jamaal Charles - 27.9Darren McFadden - 27.7Chris Johnson - 27.5

This is part of the reason why I'm down on guys like Charles, Forte, Smith, and McFadden. The BMI numbers don't trump what my eyeballs show me, but this year they align with my pre-established opinions almost perfectly. I always felt that Rice and Mendenhall looked like a RB should look when they ran the football, whereas most of the low BMI guys failed to win me over at any point in the process. I think I've been evaluating RBs long enough to have a rough idea of what a RB "should" look like. When a RB doesn't meet those standards, it concerns me. These numbers offer a clue about what I'm seeing in their play that doesn't sit well with me.
So if you had to choose, straight up, between Lendale White and Chris Johnson who would you prefer?
I can't imagine why I would ever be forced to choose between them.
That's a helpful response. Thanks.And it's actually meaningful, since the Titans presumably will make some variation on that choice every week.
It was a somewhat pointless question IMO. White is junk. Whether or not Chris Johnson is junk is a different discussion.
Just give him an answer to the question :popcorn: Could it be that you don't want to have to say Chris Johnson? Edited by Hoss_Cartwright
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what if CJ adds a massive 8 lbs. after he actually does some real core and lower body training, putting him within the almighty BMI range at 28.6? CJ has good leg drive and much more of a North-South style than Bush or others, which gives him an advantage already. 28-33 is also a large range, not exactly very scientific.Thicker RBs are better. Wow, did it really take 10 years of research to figure this out?

The argument that he's going to add weight is more compelling to me than the argument that he's going to revolutionize the position. However, I don't recommend making assumptions about weight gain just because it's convenient. As I mentioned earlier, a good percentage of top RB prospects enter the league maxed out or very close. Just because a guy is undersized doesn't mean he's an exception to this rule.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, CJ was 197 at the combine, where I'm sure he was a little light to run a fast time. He could easily play at 205 and be within your "magic range." BMI makes sense, but it's mostly common sense. I'd bet there's a stronger correlation with lower body strength, or Power Clean, Deadlift, Squat, and Leg Press numbers than BMI alone.

The other thing is that BMI only matters if you have skills. BMI in itself doesn't tell you anything. I'm 6'2.5'' and 245 lbs. with a BMI of 31, but I don't think I'd be a very good NFL RB. Vision, instincts, hands, balance, quickness, toughness, burst, etc. are all very important for a RB.

A lot of people misunderstand what I'm saying about BMI. I've never said that every person with an ideal BMI is going to be a great NFL running back. That's a ridiculous argument that I would never make. My basic argument about BMI is as follows:

- Most of the elite RBs in the NFL fall within a narrow range of BMIs (roughly 29.5-33.5).

- There are very few RBs outside this range who have achieved sustained success in the modern NFL. Therefore...

- We should probably be wary of RB prospects who don't fall within this range. And...

- When given a choice between a RB prospect with a poor BMI and a RB prospect with an ideal BMI, we should probably favor the RB prospect with the ideal BMI assuming that he has a similar draft pedigree (i.e. favor Mendenhall over Johnson and Rice over Charles).

This year offers a great test of the importance of BMI since there were several ideal guys drafted in the first few rounds and several undersized guys drafted in the same general range. We could split them up into two groups leaving out some of the tweeners:

Ideal BMI

Jonathan Stewart - First Round

Rashard Mendenhall - First Round

Ray Rice - Second Round

Tashard Choice - Fourth Round

Low BMI

Darren McFadden - First Round

Chris Johnson - First Round

Matt Forte - Second Round

Jamaal Charles - Third Round

Anything can happen, but my prediction is that the four backs in the first group will cumulatively outperform the four backs in the second group over the next 6-8 years. Feel free to bookmark this post and bump it in the future. It will be interesting to look back on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan Stewart - 33.5Rashard Mendenhall - 32.2Tashard Choice - 30.5Ray Rice - 30.3Ryan Torain - 29.9Felix Jones - 29.6Steve Slaton - 29.0Kevin Smith - 28.5Matt Forte - 28.4Jamaal Charles - 27.9Darren McFadden - 27.7Chris Johnson - 27.5

This is part of the reason why I'm down on guys like Charles, Forte, Smith, and McFadden. The BMI numbers don't trump what my eyeballs show me, but this year they align with my pre-established opinions almost perfectly. I always felt that Rice and Mendenhall looked like a RB should look when they ran the football, whereas most of the low BMI guys failed to win me over at any point in the process. I think I've been evaluating RBs long enough to have a rough idea of what a RB "should" look like. When a RB doesn't meet those standards, it concerns me. These numbers offer a clue about what I'm seeing in their play that doesn't sit well with me.
So if you had to choose, straight up, between Lendale White and Chris Johnson who would you prefer?
I can't imagine why I would ever be forced to choose between them.
That's a helpful response. Thanks.And it's actually meaningful, since the Titans presumably will make some variation on that choice every week.
It was a somewhat pointless question IMO. White is junk. Whether or not Chris Johnson is junk is a different discussion.
Just give him an answer to the question :goodposting: Could it be that you don't want to have to say Chris Johnson?
I can find plenty of examples of thin backs who are better than big backs. I would rather have Jerious Norwood on my team than Musa Smith. Isolating these exceptions isn't helpful. The real question is not whether a good low BMI back can be better than a terrible ideal BMI back, but rather whether a good high BMI back is better than a good low BMI back. It must be true that even the best low BMI backs are not as good as the best high BMI backs since you simply don't find many succeeding in the NFL (and not for lack of supply since there are undoubtedly thousands of good low BMI athletes in the USA). The best low BMI athletes don't play RB. They play WR, CB, S, and basketball. The fact that you don't find them starting in the backfield of NFL teams is because they don't have the proper physical equipment to do the job well. Edited by EBF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You look at Chris Johnson & your first impression is he's not a skinny guy. Fairly thick upper body with decent legs. He definitely looks like he's over 200. He may just be really lean, tho (hardly any fat). Interestingly, I also like several of the other less bulky RBs this year (besides being high on CJ, I love Forte & feel Charles will eventually be a feature back). Oddly, I'm not super-high on McFadden.

I like Stewart & Mendenhall, as well, so I'm not picky. To me, RBs are like women. I'll take 'em short, tall, skinny or chunky. :no:

Edited by Football Jones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, CJ was 197 at the combine, where I'm sure he was a little light to run a fast time. He could easily play at 205 and be within your "magic range." BMI makes sense, but it's mostly common sense. I'd bet there's a stronger correlation with lower body strength, or Power Clean, Deadlift, Squat, and Leg Press numbers than BMI alone.

The other thing is that BMI only matters if you have skills. BMI in itself doesn't tell you anything. I'm 6'2.5'' and 245 lbs. with a BMI of 31, but I don't think I'd be a very good NFL RB. Vision, instincts, hands, balance, quickness, toughness, burst, etc. are all very important for a RB.

A lot of people misunderstand what I'm saying about BMI. I've never said that every person with an ideal BMI is going to be a great NFL running back. That's a ridiculous argument that I would never make. My basic argument about BMI is as follows:

- Most of the elite RBs in the NFL fall within a narrow range of BMIs (roughly 29.5-33.5).

- There are very few RBs outside this range who have achieved sustained success in the modern NFL. Therefore...

- We should probably be wary of RB prospects who don't fall within this range. And...

- When given a choice between a RB prospect with a poor BMI and a RB prospect with an ideal BMI, we should probably favor the RB prospect with the ideal BMI assuming that he has a similar draft pedigree (i.e. favor Mendenhall over Johnson and Rice over Charles).

This year offers a great test of the importance of BMI since there were several ideal guys drafted in the first few rounds and several undersized guys drafted in the same general range. We could split them up into two groups leaving out some of the tweeners:

Ideal BMI

Jonathan Stewart - First Round

Rashard Mendenhall - First Round

Ray Rice - Second Round

Tashard Choice - Fourth Round

Low BMI

Darren McFadden - First Round

Chris Johnson - First Round

Matt Forte - Second Round

Jamaal Charles - Third Round

Anything can happen, but my prediction is that the four backs in the first group will cumulatively outperform the four backs in the second group over the next 6-8 years. Feel free to bookmark this post and bump it in the future. It will be interesting to look back on this.

This is all very cool stuff. If it weren't for me really wanting to read more CJ3 hype I would have ignored this statistical stuff. Don't get me wrong, I know its important but I don't get into that stuff... usually. Because of all the debate going on in this thread I was forced to wade through it and I must say I like the theory behind it. At least in trying to rate the probabilities for the success of a prototypical NFL RB.

All that being said, I do not believe the Titans are planning on using him in the prototypical way. Instead of creating a system into which they would insert a prototypical (high BMI) ball-carrier, I think they will design plays specially for him to create advantages. Because the system will be built with him in mind, he will be successful in it. Did you see the game last night? Right after he ripped off that 66 yarder, the cameras went to the sideline: The Titan coaches were giving secret slaps and smirkin' like they've been expecting this... I feel he won't be taking the pounding that a high BMI would be so helpful with, and therefore will be successful even though the statistics say he's too skinny.

I think the guy is superfast. May sound crazy, but it looks like his 4.24 translates as even faster on the playing surface. Its beautiful to watch him run by people. I watched all the YouTube stuff, he looked like a cheetah amongst house cats in college... but after seeing him split the Rams defense like they were in slow-motion last night? I'm on the wagon.

Chris Johnson is for real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All that being said, I do not believe the Titans are planning on using him in the prototypical way. Instead of creating a system into which they would insert a prototypical (high BMI) ball-carrier, I think they will design plays specially for him to create advantages. Because the system will be built with him in mind, he will be successful in it. Did you see the game last night? Right after he ripped off that 66 yarder, the cameras went to the sideline: The Titan coaches were giving secret slaps and smirkin' like they've been expecting this... I feel he won't be taking the pounding that a high BMI would be so helpful with, and therefore will be successful even though the statistics say he's too skinny.

I agree completely with this. He could be a really nice player right away in PPR.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

EBF, I liked both your posts (that I have read so far) regarding Johnson and your concern of his BMI. I also recognize the difference is legs strength of a guy like MJD and Reggie Bush. Do you have the BMI's of all these guys and Westbrook along with Bradshaw of the Giants. Bradshaw appears to be a guy in similar stature.

Thanks

This is something I've posted a few times this offseason:

I just compiled a quick list of BMI scores for the top 30 RBs in my PPR league. I got all of my heights and weights from NFL.com and used a BMI calculator from the following link: http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/.

The results:

Brian Westbrook - 29.1

LaDainian Tomlinson - 31.7

Clinton Portis - 31.1

Joseph Addai - 29.8

Adrian Peterson - 28.6

Jamal Lewis - 34.2

Frank Gore - 32.9

Marion Barber - 30.0

Willis McGahee - 31.5

Earnest Graham - 33.2

Reggie Bush - 27.5

Maurice Drew - 32.6

Edgerrin James - 29.8

Kenny Watson - 29.6

Steven Jackson - 29.7

Marshawn Lynch - 30.0

Ryan Grant - 29.6

LenDale White - 31.0

Chester Taylor - 29.7

Willie Parker - 30.0

Brandon Jacobs - 32.1

Thomas Jones - 30.8

Ronnie Brown - 31.5

Justin Fargas - 29.0

Adrian Peterson II - 30.1

Fred Taylor - 30.1

Kevin Jones - 30.9

Warrick Dunn - 27.6

DeShaun Foster - 30.1

DeAngelo Williams - 32.0

High: Jamal Lewis 34.2

Low: Reggie Bush 27.5

Average: 30.5

27 out of 30 RBs were between 28.6 and 33.2. That means 90% of the top 30 RBs in 2007 had a BMI between 28.6 and 33.2.

Note that the above numbers were compiled using NFL.com's listed heights and weights, which are not completely accurate. A lot of people claim that Brian Westbrook and Chris Johnson have similar builds because Westbrook is listed at 5'10" 203 and Johnson is listed at 5'11" and 200. If these numbers were accurate then Westbrook would have a 29.1 BMI and Johnson would have a 27.9 BMI. But those numbers aren't accurate. Brian Westbrook isn't 5'10". At the combine he was 5'8.3" and 200 pounds. That's good for a BMI of 30.1, which is barely below the league average for a top 30 back. Westbrook isn't small. He's just short. Johnson was 5'11" and 197 pounds, which is good for a BMI of 27.5. That's lower than everyone on my list except Reggie Bush. And guess what? Reggie Bush's actual combine size was 5'10.7" and 201 pounds for a BMI of 28.3. So Chris Johnson is actually smaller than any of these top 30 RBs. Unless he bulks up considerably, he is probably a RBBC type for life.

As for Ahmad Bradshaw, he was 5'9.4" and 198 pounds at the combine. That's good for a BMI of 28.9, which is a little lower than you like to see.

For reference, here's this year's top rookies using actual heights and weights:

Jonathan Stewart - 33.5

Rashard Mendenhall - 32.2

Tashard Choice - 30.5

Ray Rice - 30.3

Ryan Torain - 29.9

Felix Jones - 29.6

Steve Slaton - 29.0

Kevin Smith - 28.5

Matt Forte - 28.4

Jamaal Charles - 27.9

Darren McFadden - 27.7

Chris Johnson - 27.5

This certainly changes my view of Johnson, this does make Johnson appear more of a RBBC, or chance of pace back.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, CJ was 197 at the combine, where I'm sure he was a little light to run a fast time. He could easily play at 205 and be within your "magic range." BMI makes sense, but it's mostly common sense. I'd bet there's a stronger correlation with lower body strength, or Power Clean, Deadlift, Squat, and Leg Press numbers than BMI alone.

The other thing is that BMI only matters if you have skills. BMI in itself doesn't tell you anything. I'm 6'2.5'' and 245 lbs. with a BMI of 31, but I don't think I'd be a very good NFL RB. Vision, instincts, hands, balance, quickness, toughness, burst, etc. are all very important for a RB.

A lot of people misunderstand what I'm saying about BMI. I've never said that every person with an ideal BMI is going to be a great NFL running back. That's a ridiculous argument that I would never make. My basic argument about BMI is as follows:

- Most of the elite RBs in the NFL fall within a narrow range of BMIs (roughly 29.5-33.5).

- There are very few RBs outside this range who have achieved sustained success in the modern NFL. Therefore...

- We should probably be wary of RB prospects who don't fall within this range. And...

- When given a choice between a RB prospect with a poor BMI and a RB prospect with an ideal BMI, we should probably favor the RB prospect with the ideal BMI assuming that he has a similar draft pedigree (i.e. favor Mendenhall over Johnson and Rice over Charles).

This year offers a great test of the importance of BMI since there were several ideal guys drafted in the first few rounds and several undersized guys drafted in the same general range. We could split them up into two groups leaving out some of the tweeners:

Ideal BMI

Jonathan Stewart - First Round

Rashard Mendenhall - First Round

Ray Rice - Second Round

Tashard Choice - Fourth Round

Low BMI

Darren McFadden - First Round

Chris Johnson - First Round

Matt Forte - Second Round

Jamaal Charles - Third Round

Anything can happen, but my prediction is that the four backs in the first group will cumulatively outperform the four backs in the second group over the next 6-8 years. Feel free to bookmark this post and bump it in the future. It will be interesting to look back on this.

This is all very cool stuff. If it weren't for me really wanting to read more CJ3 hype I would have ignored this statistical stuff. Don't get me wrong, I know its important but I don't get into that stuff... usually. Because of all the debate going on in this thread I was forced to wade through it and I must say I like the theory behind it. At least in trying to rate the probabilities for the success of a prototypical NFL RB.

All that being said, I do not believe the Titans are planning on using him in the prototypical way. Instead of creating a system into which they would insert a prototypical (high BMI) ball-carrier, I think they will design plays specially for him to create advantages. Because the system will be built with him in mind, he will be successful in it. Did you see the game last night? Right after he ripped off that 66 yarder, the cameras went to the sideline: The Titan coaches were giving secret slaps and smirkin' like they've been expecting this... I feel he won't be taking the pounding that a high BMI would be so helpful with, and therefore will be successful even though the statistics say he's too skinny.

I think the guy is superfast. May sound crazy, but it looks like his 4.24 translates as even faster on the playing surface. Its beautiful to watch him run by people. I watched all the YouTube stuff, he looked like a cheetah amongst house cats in college... but after seeing him split the Rams defense like they were in slow-motion last night? I'm on the wagon.

Chris Johnson is for real.

Exactly. I mentioned earlier he won't have to be LT because they won't use him like LT. Johnson does things LT can't do (with all due respect). CJ might be one the most unique RBs to come out in a long time. For FF purposes (especially PPR), he's as close to a lock as you can get, IMO. Again, this is only my opinion. We'll see.

BTW, I noticed the sheet-eating grins on the Titans coaches, as well, LOL. You can't help but think they have big things planned for their prized rookie.

Edited by Football Jones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/p...ning-backs.aspx

As the NFL draft grows increasingly complicated, one of the most basic measures of player selection may be running the show again.

The 40-yard dash — the standard test of player speed — has fallen out of favour with many of today's coaches who are quick to emphasize that a fast player does not always make a good player.

"The 40 and those times have never been that big of a deal," Indianapolis Colts coach Tony Dungy told The New York Times last week. "Whether this guy's a tenth of a second faster than that guy, that's never really been that huge to me."

But Dungy might consider it huge, now that a 10-year examination of NFL statistics has proven the 40-yard-dash has a stronger correlation to success in the NFL than any drill utilized by teams.

Bill Barnwell of the Web site FootballOutsiders.com has come up with an equation that has the results of the 40 packing even more punch. The formula multiplies a running back's weight by 200 and divides that number by their 40-yard dash time raised to the fourth power. The resulting number is, on average, around 100 for running backs. The bigger and faster a player is, the higher the number.

Over the past 10 years, only two running backs with a score under 100 have been drafted in the first round (Trung Canidate and William Green) and both proved to be busts. Conversely, New York's Brandon Jacobs, a fourth-round pick in 2005, had the highest score over that period of time and helped the Giants win last year's Super Bowl.

In this year's NFL Draft, Dungy put his theory to the test. In the sixth round, he selected Michigan's Michael Hart, who shocked observers at the NFL Combine with his slow 40 time.

Three players (Darren McFadden, Chris Johnson and Jonathan Stewart) who scored better than 116 were taken in the first round. Dallas may have reached by taking McFadden's Arkansas teammate, Felix Jones, 22nd overall. His scored of 100.19 was the lowest of any running back taken in the first three rounds. Miami, on the other hand, might have found a bargain in the sixth round with Toledo's Jalen Parmele, who rated 111.21.

Two of the fastest players at the NFL Combine, Anthony Aldridge of the University of Houston and Chad Simpson of Morgan State, went undrafted because of their size.

A look at the numbers from the running backs taken in the first three rounds and some other notable players (the statistics, in most cases, are from official NFL sources):

Name 40 time Wt Rating

Darren McFadden 4.33 210 119.48

Jonathan Stewart 4.48 235 116.68

Felix Jones 4.47 200 100.19

Rashard Mendenhall 4.45 210 107.10

Chris Johnson 4.24 195 120.67

Matt Forte 4.46 222 112.21

Ray Rice 4.44 199 102.41

Kevin Smith 4.43 217 112.69

Jacob Hester 4.60 230 102.74

Jamaal Charles 4.38 200 108.68

Steve Slaton 4.45 197 100.47

Jalen Parmele 4.47 222 111.21

Mike Hart 4.67 195 82.00

Chad Simpson 4.42 200 104.80

According to Football Outsiders, this metric has a .45 correlation with yards, carries, and DPAR. The average 1st round draft pick has a score of 112. The average NFL RB has a score of 100. Chris Johnson is 120.67, highest in this draft class.

Chris Johnson's score is in the top 10 in the last decade. I can't seem to locate the link that has the names that are ahead of him (anybody???), but they are very impressive. Mark me down in the column that thinks speed related to body weight/BMI is more important than just BMI by itself.

Edited by tribecalledjeff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/p...ning-backs.aspx

As the NFL draft grows increasingly complicated, one of the most basic measures of player selection may be running the show again.

The 40-yard dash — the standard test of player speed — has fallen out of favour with many of today's coaches who are quick to emphasize that a fast player does not always make a good player.

"The 40 and those times have never been that big of a deal," Indianapolis Colts coach Tony Dungy told The New York Times last week. "Whether this guy's a tenth of a second faster than that guy, that's never really been that huge to me."

But Dungy might consider it huge, now that a 10-year examination of NFL statistics has proven the 40-yard-dash has a stronger correlation to success in the NFL than any drill utilized by teams.

Bill Barnwell of the Web site FootballOutsiders.com has come up with an equation that has the results of the 40 packing even more punch. The formula multiplies a running back's weight by 200 and divides that number by their 40-yard dash time raised to the fourth power. The resulting number is, on average, around 100 for running backs. The bigger and faster a player is, the higher the number.

Over the past 10 years, only two running backs with a score under 100 have been drafted in the first round (Trung Canidate and William Green) and both proved to be busts. Conversely, New York's Brandon Jacobs, a fourth-round pick in 2005, had the highest score over that period of time and helped the Giants win last year's Super Bowl.

In this year's NFL Draft, Dungy put his theory to the test. In the sixth round, he selected Michigan's Michael Hart, who shocked observers at the NFL Combine with his slow 40 time.

Three players (Darren McFadden, Chris Johnson and Jonathan Stewart) who scored better than 116 were taken in the first round. Dallas may have reached by taking McFadden's Arkansas teammate, Felix Jones, 22nd overall. His scored of 100.19 was the lowest of any running back taken in the first three rounds. Miami, on the other hand, might have found a bargain in the sixth round with Toledo's Jalen Parmele, who rated 111.21.

Two of the fastest players at the NFL Combine, Anthony Aldridge of the University of Houston and Chad Simpson of Morgan State, went undrafted because of their size.

A look at the numbers from the running backs taken in the first three rounds and some other notable players (the statistics, in most cases, are from official NFL sources):

Name 40 time Wt Rating

Darren McFadden 4.33 210 119.48

Jonathan Stewart 4.48 235 116.68

Felix Jones 4.47 200 100.19

Rashard Mendenhall 4.45 210 107.10

Chris Johnson 4.24 195 120.67

Matt Forte 4.46 222 112.21

Ray Rice 4.44 199 102.41

Kevin Smith 4.43 217 112.69

Jacob Hester 4.60 230 102.74

Jamaal Charles 4.38 200 108.68

Steve Slaton 4.45 197 100.47

Jalen Parmele 4.47 222 111.21

Mike Hart 4.67 195 82.00

Chad Simpson 4.42 200 104.80

According to Football Outsiders, this metric has a .45 correlation with yards, carries, and DPAR. The average 1st round draft pick has a score of 112. The average NFL RB has a score of 100. Chris Johnson is 120.67, highest in this draft class.

Chris Johnson's score is in the top 10 in the last decade. I can't seem to locate the link that has the names that are ahead of him (anybody???), but they are very impressive. Mark me down in the column that thinks speed related to body weight/BMI is more important than just BMI by itself.

It's interesting stuff. We'll see if it continues to have predictive power.

Johnson is certainly a unique player, whether or not he ultimately succeeds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/p...ning-backs.aspx

As the NFL draft grows increasingly complicated, one of the most basic measures of player selection may be running the show again.

The 40-yard dash — the standard test of player speed — has fallen out of favour with many of today's coaches who are quick to emphasize that a fast player does not always make a good player.

"The 40 and those times have never been that big of a deal," Indianapolis Colts coach Tony Dungy told The New York Times last week. "Whether this guy's a tenth of a second faster than that guy, that's never really been that huge to me."

But Dungy might consider it huge, now that a 10-year examination of NFL statistics has proven the 40-yard-dash has a stronger correlation to success in the NFL than any drill utilized by teams.

Bill Barnwell of the Web site FootballOutsiders.com has come up with an equation that has the results of the 40 packing even more punch. The formula multiplies a running back's weight by 200 and divides that number by their 40-yard dash time raised to the fourth power. The resulting number is, on average, around 100 for running backs. The bigger and faster a player is, the higher the number.

Over the past 10 years, only two running backs with a score under 100 have been drafted in the first round (Trung Canidate and William Green) and both proved to be busts. Conversely, New York's Brandon Jacobs, a fourth-round pick in 2005, had the highest score over that period of time and helped the Giants win last year's Super Bowl.

In this year's NFL Draft, Dungy put his theory to the test. In the sixth round, he selected Michigan's Michael Hart, who shocked observers at the NFL Combine with his slow 40 time.

Three players (Darren McFadden, Chris Johnson and Jonathan Stewart) who scored better than 116 were taken in the first round. Dallas may have reached by taking McFadden's Arkansas teammate, Felix Jones, 22nd overall. His scored of 100.19 was the lowest of any running back taken in the first three rounds. Miami, on the other hand, might have found a bargain in the sixth round with Toledo's Jalen Parmele, who rated 111.21.

Two of the fastest players at the NFL Combine, Anthony Aldridge of the University of Houston and Chad Simpson of Morgan State, went undrafted because of their size.

A look at the numbers from the running backs taken in the first three rounds and some other notable players (the statistics, in most cases, are from official NFL sources):

Name 40 time Wt Rating

Darren McFadden 4.33 210 119.48

Jonathan Stewart 4.48 235 116.68

Felix Jones 4.47 200 100.19

Rashard Mendenhall 4.45 210 107.10

Chris Johnson 4.24 195 120.67

Matt Forte 4.46 222 112.21

Ray Rice 4.44 199 102.41

Kevin Smith 4.43 217 112.69

Jacob Hester 4.60 230 102.74

Jamaal Charles 4.38 200 108.68

Steve Slaton 4.45 197 100.47

Jalen Parmele 4.47 222 111.21

Mike Hart 4.67 195 82.00

Chad Simpson 4.42 200 104.80

According to Football Outsiders, this metric has a .45 correlation with yards, carries, and DPAR. The average 1st round draft pick has a score of 112. The average NFL RB has a score of 100. Chris Johnson is 120.67, highest in this draft class.

Chris Johnson's score is in the top 10 in the last decade. I can't seem to locate the link that has the names that are ahead of him (anybody???), but they are very impressive. Mark me down in the column that thinks speed related to body weight/BMI is more important than just BMI by itself.

Good find.

You cannot get enough stats in FF!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/p...ning-backs.aspx

As the NFL draft grows increasingly complicated, one of the most basic measures of player selection may be running the show again.

The 40-yard dash — the standard test of player speed — has fallen out of favour with many of today's coaches who are quick to emphasize that a fast player does not always make a good player.

"The 40 and those times have never been that big of a deal," Indianapolis Colts coach Tony Dungy told The New York Times last week. "Whether this guy's a tenth of a second faster than that guy, that's never really been that huge to me."

But Dungy might consider it huge, now that a 10-year examination of NFL statistics has proven the 40-yard-dash has a stronger correlation to success in the NFL than any drill utilized by teams.

Bill Barnwell of the Web site FootballOutsiders.com has come up with an equation that has the results of the 40 packing even more punch. The formula multiplies a running back's weight by 200 and divides that number by their 40-yard dash time raised to the fourth power. The resulting number is, on average, around 100 for running backs. The bigger and faster a player is, the higher the number.

Over the past 10 years, only two running backs with a score under 100 have been drafted in the first round (Trung Canidate and William Green) and both proved to be busts. Conversely, New York's Brandon Jacobs, a fourth-round pick in 2005, had the highest score over that period of time and helped the Giants win last year's Super Bowl.

In this year's NFL Draft, Dungy put his theory to the test. In the sixth round, he selected Michigan's Michael Hart, who shocked observers at the NFL Combine with his slow 40 time.

Three players (Darren McFadden, Chris Johnson and Jonathan Stewart) who scored better than 116 were taken in the first round. Dallas may have reached by taking McFadden's Arkansas teammate, Felix Jones, 22nd overall. His scored of 100.19 was the lowest of any running back taken in the first three rounds. Miami, on the other hand, might have found a bargain in the sixth round with Toledo's Jalen Parmele, who rated 111.21.

Two of the fastest players at the NFL Combine, Anthony Aldridge of the University of Houston and Chad Simpson of Morgan State, went undrafted because of their size.

A look at the numbers from the running backs taken in the first three rounds and some other notable players (the statistics, in most cases, are from official NFL sources):

Name 40 time Wt Rating

Darren McFadden 4.33 210 119.48

Jonathan Stewart 4.48 235 116.68

Felix Jones 4.47 200 100.19

Rashard Mendenhall 4.45 210 107.10

Chris Johnson 4.24 195 120.67

Matt Forte 4.46 222 112.21

Ray Rice 4.44 199 102.41

Kevin Smith 4.43 217 112.69

Jacob Hester 4.60 230 102.74

Jamaal Charles 4.38 200 108.68

Steve Slaton 4.45 197 100.47

Jalen Parmele 4.47 222 111.21

Mike Hart 4.67 195 82.00

Chad Simpson 4.42 200 104.80

According to Football Outsiders, this metric has a .45 correlation with yards, carries, and DPAR. The average 1st round draft pick has a score of 112. The average NFL RB has a score of 100. Chris Johnson is 120.67, highest in this draft class.

Chris Johnson's score is in the top 10 in the last decade. I can't seem to locate the link that has the names that are ahead of him (anybody???), but they are very impressive. Mark me down in the column that thinks speed related to body weight/BMI is more important than just BMI by itself.

From a BMI and speed perspective, I would think both McFadden (BMI = 27.7) and C Johnson (27.5) are in the same territory as Robert Smith (27.2). Smith retired in 2000 at age 28. In his final four seasons, he amassed nearly 5k yards on nearly 1k carries.

C Johnson is arguably the fast RB to every play the position. McFadden is not too far behind. Either is Reggie Bush. I guess time will tell if Smith's accomplishments can replicated in today's NFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...