Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
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.
RB Kareem Hunt, CLE (7 Viewers)
- Thread starter Biabreakable
- Start date
zoonation
Footballguy
So? You play the hand you're dealt.
Unless you're Andy Reid. Then you trade your hand in for a better one to move up in the draft and grab this guy!
dont overthink this boys. This is all day RB2 production.
Edit: quoted the wrong post. I agree with you
Last edited by a moderator:
Ilov80s
Footballguy
I don't think the Rice-Hunt comp works at all- at least not based on combine metrics. Rice had a really high BMI, ran a 4.42 which is really really fast for a guy with an 89th percentile BMI. Rice shreded the agility drills. Rice's weakness was burst related drills. Rice is 81st percentile SPARQ. He's basically the opposite of Hunt. Hunt is average BMI. His strength is burst and his weaknesses are speed and agility.
Bronco Billy
Footballguy
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Not to take away from your detailed well thought out post, but the sentence I highlighted is kind of silly in 2017.
abkut 3-5 years ago, NFL teams got wise to drafting 1st round RBs. It's a position that sustains a ton of injuries and NFL teams are less willing to invest in them as compared to elite DL, QB and other rare positions.
If Ladanian Tomlinson case out in 2018, he may well be a 2nd or 3rd round pick.
You simply can't diminish Hunt based on his perceived value in the NFL draft because no RB is a 1st rounder anymore.
that KC traded up for him seems to indicate they're very high on him.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
EBF
Footballguy
True to a point, but not to the degree you're suggesting. LT as a 2nd-3rd round pick is honestly pretty laughable. Top 5 pick in his class. Insane college production. Insane combine numbers. Passes the eyeball test with flying colors. HoF talent. Versatile. Better prospect than Zeke or Fournette. He goes top 10 in any era.
As for Hunt, there's no shame in being a 3rd round pick or the 6th RB taken in your draft. Plenty of good backs have come from that range.
I don't want to come across as a hater, but some of the pro-Hunt brigade in here seems a bit over the top. He is a good talent, but he's not a first round back. Right guy in the right situation can still produce (like Ajayi and Howard), but he's not some flawless diamond. As I said before, I don't see him as an especially agile back. Early in the play he has good footwork and redirection, but his ability to cut at full speed is not comparable to Rice or other elite lateral backs like Mixon, McCaffrey, Abdullah, Peterson, McCoy, Lynch, Forte, etc.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bronco Billy
Footballguy
Ilov80s said:
Well yeah, if he's being chased and tackled by cones maybe. Watch his highlight tapes and tell me he's not agile. The kid is a joy to watch run.
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
Top 13 or bottom 13??Ilov80s said:
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Just making a point - extreme example. Would LT2 be top 5? 1st round even?EBF said:
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Of course they like Hunt he is a good player.Hot Sauce Guy said:
Jamal Charles was a 3rd round pick as well.
While part of what you are saying is true, that NFL teams have started to use lower draft capital on the RB position than they have in years past. Teams still are using 1st round picks on the RB position however for the past 3 years they have in fact, with the criteria that the player be special enough to justify doing so, otherwise they take players from other positions. Which also has happened several times recently. Two years in a row there were no 1st round picks used at RB. Which had not happened in decades prior to this. LeVeon Bell was one of these 2nd round picks on RB. Bell was the second RB selected that year.
There have been some bad RB selected in the first round, but there is a difference in the estimation of the players talent compared to the entire player pool available to them in the NFL draft. So the RB does need to have something special about them, for a team to invest a 1st round pick in them.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
I would assume bottom because he had a very slow shuttle time and 3 cone with also a slower 40 time.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Fournette and Elliot were both top 5 backs in the last two drafts, respectively.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Oh I know - I've been drinking all day (working the hot sauce booth at a BBQ festival) and went way too far with my example - point was that "3rd round pick" isn't as much of an insult as it may have been at one point.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
It's not and wasn't intended to be.
I do think this draft class is very good. Likely comparable to the 2008 draft class.
Rice was the 7th RB selected (2nd round) and Charles was the 9th RB selected from this draft class that had 5 first round picks at RB.
SameSongNDance
Footballguy
When people talk about percentile the higher the better with 99 being the highest.
Speaking of which, Hunt tested as a 19th percentile SPARQ athlete. Matt Asiata, for instance, scored in the 20th percentile. It's not the end all be all but it has to be somewhat worrisome. The only other starters I can find with worse SPARQ scores are Rob Kelley and Jeremy Hill whose SPARQ scores mirror that of a mailbox.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
So here we are nullifying a whole lot of positive things including a very successful college career because of measurements at one moment of time.
Hunt must be especially skillful to be as good as he is despite low metrics.
Hunt must be especially skillful to be as good as he is despite low metrics.
Bronco Billy
Footballguy
Here are the SPARQies again. Would someone please provide some documentation that there is even a remotely positive correlation between SPARQ scores and NFL success?
Ilov80s
Footballguy
I'm not nullifying anything or saying SPARQ is everything. We know many players that look really good in college don't do well in the NFL. Stats and game film tell a large part of the story, but so do athletic abilities. Judging a prospect should involve trusting opinions on film, looking at stats and looking at athletic measurables. Hunt has a lot going for him but there is reasonable concern that he's not as athletic as he looked in college. I'm on board with Hunt but stepping in as a rookie into a lead back role is not easy and we've seen many fail or come along slowly.
For redraft I think people are overthinking this. He's an above average Rb talent, hand picked by the head coach of a team that likes to run the ball and frequently checks down to the Rb, playing in a very Rb friendly system that has produced top 5 fantasy rbs many times. His only real competition for touches is now gone. His coach already announced that he's gonna be the guy. You're looking at a 250-300 touch Rb with fresh legs in a great situation.
What other rbs are there in the 3rd rd that give you that kind of upside? If you go Rb in the 3Rd rd and hunt is there don't overthink it. Take him. And enjoy.
Dynasty is a different story. He's not as talented as mixon, mccaffery, fournette, cook, Corey davis, and maybe even john ross, mike willliams, and the 3 big tight ends. He also doesn't have high draft capital that assures him a feature role with his team. It's foolish to draft him over those guys in a dynasty rookie draft. It's short sighted.
What other rbs are there in the 3rd rd that give you that kind of upside? If you go Rb in the 3Rd rd and hunt is there don't overthink it. Take him. And enjoy.
Dynasty is a different story. He's not as talented as mixon, mccaffery, fournette, cook, Corey davis, and maybe even john ross, mike willliams, and the 3 big tight ends. He also doesn't have high draft capital that assures him a feature role with his team. It's foolish to draft him over those guys in a dynasty rookie draft. It's short sighted.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Thats fair.
Leave no stone unturned. Some folks might not be aware of that information and like anything else it is something to consider in the evaluation.
SameSongNDance
Footballguy
I'm not discounting his college career.
I'm sure the correlation isn't absolutely 0. It's just another variable to take into account. Of course there are intangibles that are immeasurable and unaccounted for in SPARQ scores.
Bronco Billy
Footballguy
The question I ask about SPARQ scores and never get answered is should it have any impact? I've done extensive searches about z scores for SPARQ and NFL productivity and have yet to find there there is even the smallest positive correlation. If there isn't a positive correlation then there isn't any support for SPARQ scores having any predictive value in evaluating players' futures. You may as well be discussing eye color if so.
Bronco Billy
Footballguy
It could very well be negative. I don't know. I can't find anything, and I find it hard to believe the way some people throw them around as though they have some great impact that someone doesn't have a study that supports it.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
SameSongNDance
Footballguy
It's not going to be negative. Come on man, it's just common sense that you'd prefer a RB to be more athletic than not. It doesn't have to be the variable weighted most heavily but I think it's part of the equation.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
There doesn't have to be a correlation for athletic testing to be relevant. There could be thresholds for example like we've seen people lay out for BMI and RBs. The idea in my mind is creating a full profile for a player. If we have a player with a great athletic measurables but they aren't very productive, that's a huge red flag. If a player is super productive and looks very fast/quick but then tests poorly, it raises some questions.
Bronco Billy
Footballguy
Of course it could be negative. There are plenty of superb athletes who have shown they aren't successful NFL caliber players. And vice versa, there are plenty of stories of guys who didn't run near a 4.4 40 and were mediocre in the rest of the SPARQ events but were able to have strong NFL careers.
I've found that I've had a lot more success in FF when I worried about drafting football players and didn't even bother considering their combine measurables.
.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ilov80s
Footballguy
I wouldn't describe Hunt as agile. Tarik Cohen is agile. Hunt has a nice cut move at full speed. I'd say he's a classic one cut back, which works in this offense. He doesn't have the top end speed to house that, but it's still interesting. I think his pass catching could be the most impressive part of his game, but he's got to master pass blocking to own that spot.
I find the guy really interesting, not that I think he'll be great, but he's a unique case. I don't like his value where he's going right now, but I'm interested to see how it plays out.
I find the guy really interesting, not that I think he'll be great, but he's a unique case. I don't like his value where he's going right now, but I'm interested to see how it plays out.
Zyphros
Footballguy
I can't speak for football coaches but as a couch myself in a different sport a better athlete is easier to coach because of a couple of things:
1. There is a distinct understanding when something is explained of how the body might work in a specific position and athletes tend to understand and translate that into progress in their form/technique
2. Someone who can make things look effortless while they do it, are the great athletes and that's what helps them succeed even further or at least faster than a poor athlete. Think Randy Moss.
3. A great athlete vs a poor athlete conquers that effortlessness much quicker and in the NFL it seems that would help a lot more since the league average for an NFL player is like 3 years.
SameSongNDance
Footballguy
If you were evaluating two RBs in which there was no discernible difference between them aside from their SPARQ scores, where one was clearly more athletic than the other, which would you assign more value to?
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
It's extremely unlikely that there is a negative correlation but there is a reasonable hypothesis for it. The same reason that for a long time elite athletes at QB weren't (and really, usually still aren't) great passers. Because at lower levels their elite athleticism gives them such an advantage they can just run around until they find someone open, so they never learn how to throw from the pocket at an elite level.
Likewise it's possible that elite athletes at RB are so physically dominant at a lower level that they don't have to worry about developing vision to find holes, setting up defenders, reading defenses, etc.
Unlikely, but at least an unlikely possibility.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
You sure? Here's some quick SPARQX percentiles from Playerprofiler.com
Hunt: 19th Howard: 32nd
DJ: 96th Murray: 85th
Bell: 70th Freeman: 42nd
McCoy: 24th Fournette: didn't do all the tests
Ajayi: 81st Gurley: didn't do all the tests
Miller: 86th Crowell: 62nd
Mixon: 73rd CMc: 27 there needs to be a note here and it's that his score is heavily being weight down by a 0% score in the bench
Cook: 33rd Zeke: didn't do all the tests
Ingram: 13th Ameer: 98th
Lacy: 54th Hyde: didn't do all the tests
Henry: 78th Martin: 98th tested really really well but he benches more than most OL so his bench score inflates this a bit
Montgomery: 64th
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
OK maybe I don't know what I'm looking for here. When I googled SPARQ scores it brought up zSparq. There are a bunch of different SPARQs. zSPARQ is the one that had Dalvin Cook really low and Cook's low score is all anyone was talking about with regards to SPARQ this offseason so I figured that was the right one.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
SPARQ is a Nike created formula for rating an athlete based on their performance in drills that rate their speed, power, agility, reaction and quickness. They don't release their formula so SPARQx is a reverse engineered formula that uses the combine. It's not a perfect 1:1 to the Nike SPARQ but it accomplishes the same thing.
I'm not sure what the zSPARQ is. Is it a zscore? Do you have a link?
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
Sorry, I remembered it wrong. It was pSparq, not z.
This was the site: https://3sigmaathlete.com/rankings/
It was the first one that came up when I googled "sparq scores"
Last edited by a moderator:
Bronco Billy
Footballguy
Just to make my position clear, I am not stating that anyone can be a NFL player. These guys are all great athletes. What I am stating is that there is certainly enough empirical evidence to question whether the difference in running a timed 4.5 40 as opposed to running a timed 4.6 40 is a critical element in determining whether a RB will be successful.
What we have seen is that a player clearly does not have to be in the elite tier of all these great athletes to be successful, and that there are plenty of examples of players being below the 50th percentile in measured non-football events and still having superb careers while many others in the upper 10th percentile have crapped out. To deny that is simply foolish.
I have now asked several times to see any documented positive correlation between the z scores of SPARQ measurements and success at the NFL level and as to date no one has provided a thing to corroborate. There is a lot more to being a successful pro football player than to be one of the fastest guys in tees and shorts to run between 3 cones, and perhaps being .3 seconds slower in doing so just doesn't make that much of an impact in predicting how a player does when the pads are on and the hitting starts.
I know some guys just love timed numbers from events that are not taken under conditions anywhere close to being game conditions as to thinking they can determine whether a player will be good in the NFL, but I'm going to have to disagree that these are such critical elements until someone can prove to me otherwise. It should be easy if there is a positive correlation - there is definitely tons of data available. Stats guys love to do their regressions and in-depth analysis.
.
What we have seen is that a player clearly does not have to be in the elite tier of all these great athletes to be successful, and that there are plenty of examples of players being below the 50th percentile in measured non-football events and still having superb careers while many others in the upper 10th percentile have crapped out. To deny that is simply foolish.
I have now asked several times to see any documented positive correlation between the z scores of SPARQ measurements and success at the NFL level and as to date no one has provided a thing to corroborate. There is a lot more to being a successful pro football player than to be one of the fastest guys in tees and shorts to run between 3 cones, and perhaps being .3 seconds slower in doing so just doesn't make that much of an impact in predicting how a player does when the pads are on and the hitting starts.
I know some guys just love timed numbers from events that are not taken under conditions anywhere close to being game conditions as to thinking they can determine whether a player will be good in the NFL, but I'm going to have to disagree that these are such critical elements until someone can prove to me otherwise. It should be easy if there is a positive correlation - there is definitely tons of data available. Stats guys love to do their regressions and in-depth analysis.
.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Interseptopus
Footballguy
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Where are you getting that? I see him as being 50th percentile on playerprofiler.FWIW Aaron Jones was #2 in this year's RB draft class for SPARQ scores
Statorama
gangster
That's kinda crazy, but the heart wants what the heart wants. FWIW I had a roster crunch and offered either Hunt or Cook to another owner for Baldwin and he took Hunt.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
But that site is talking about pSparq, where Hunt rated pretty average. Not SparqX, where he rated terribly.
