2017 Running Back Report

[Dynasty DeLorean]

Darkness,
Regarding note #2: did Bell meet your criteria as run when you ran them for his class or was he a narrow miss?
Thanks.

Ah, sorry that seems to be an error on last years report. What happened is last year I was reviewing all the players. Like I said in my notes this year, Bell fell into the "stud" group based on the model I created, however he was unlike any other player in the "stud" group (typically not a good sign). I threw him into the "narrow miss" group until I could figure out what to do with him (didn't plan on leaving him there, just put him there so I'd remember to look at him again). I was planning on doing more analysis and then decide where to place him but I must have forgot to revisit it before I posted last years report. So to answer your question, he's not a narrow miss but he's also unique to the studs list. In previous years I was using Access for some reason, but I switched to Excel this year and it seems to have simplified things.

[CharlieKelly]

Thanks for the write up, I just managed to snag Foreman at the 28th pick in my 16 team league and I'm super hyped about it!

[vixen]

thanks for the thought and dedication to this project...i am new to it..
i know that waldman does a report and then a post draft report...
do things change for you depending on draft capital...
for example, NO traded a 2nd round pick to move up to get kamara...

i am OTC at 1.10 and Howard and Kamara are there...i was going to take Kamara (i own AP and admit that is part of the reason)...but i could take howard and then draft Foreman with pick 2.2 (if he is there)

[onetwothree]

do things change for you depending on draft capital...
for example, NO traded a 2nd round pick to move up to get kamara...

Don't recall where I read it but track record for teams trading up wasn't that great. It can be something to factor in when you're weighing your options for equally rated guys but don't reach for a guy just because his team spent more for him.

[Dynasty DeLorean]

thanks for the thought and dedication to this project...i am new to it..
i know that waldman does a report and then a post draft report...
do things change for you depending on draft capital...
for example, NO traded a 2nd round pick to move up to get kamara...

i am OTC at 1.10 and Howard and Kamara are there...i was going to take Kamara (i own AP and admit that is part of the reason)...but i could take howard and then draft Foreman with pick 2.2 (if he is there)

Sorry for the late response. Draft capital does play a role but trading draft picks does not.

If I were picking at those two spots, I personally would take Howard (or John Ross is available) with the 1.10 and then Foreman with the 2.02.

Thanks for the write up, I just managed to snag Foreman at the 28th pick in my 16 team league and I'm super hyped about it!

Nice, that's stealing. It's really bizarre he's falling so far. Must be his lack of receiving, but assuming he's not a bust he should grow into that eventually. For example, Derrick Henry did not look great in the receiving game in college (nearly identical target share as Foreman) but looked pretty capable once he got to the NFL.

[ninotoreS]

This report presents itself as comprehensive and predictive, but is it? On either count? Or am I misunderstanding the actual premise behind it?

Consider, for example, CJ Spiller, David Wilson, and Jahvid Best. Compared to Jamaal Charles, who you've placed in tier 1, Spiller had a higher SPARQ score, much higher daft position, same BMI, same 40 time, and broke out similarly as a true freshman. Jahvid Best ran a 4.35 forty, was a 1st round pick, had a 1500 yard season in college, averaged 7.3 ypc there, and had the same BMI as Charles. David Wilson was a 1st round pick with a 85th percentile SPARQ with good BMI and a 1700 yard season in college. They surely would have qualified for your tier 1 criteria, sans the multiple thousand-yard pro season requirement, as Fournette and Foreman have.

And they're just a few of the cases-in-point I could list. There's maybe two dozen other unmentioned RBs selected in the 1st and 2nd rounds since 2001 (the oldest season for a player -- LT -- mentioned in your report) that check the metrics and college production boxes, most of whom didn't manage NFL stardom, or only had one or two thousand yard seasons (typically their first one or two seasons in the league), or others that had one or two truly amazing seasons and then were derailed (e.g. Larry Johnson).

If actual pro success being on record is essential to the tier placement in your report, apparently adjusted every year on hindsight, then doesn't this whole thing become less of a prognosticating exercise than just a cherry-picked summary of history? Shouldn't a report citing a 'proprietary' predictive model for legitimizing its tier placement include all the misses that would've fulfilled your forecasting criteria, had those players better succeeded as pros?

And why are retired players like Jackson, Tomlinson, and Foster listed in the first place, but not others? And if you're gonna mention guys like that in the report, then you should also have guys like Clinton Portis (six thousand-yard rushing seasons), Willis McGahee (four thousand-yard rushing seasons), and Brian Westbrook (five thousand-yard rushing/receiving seasons) mentioned somewhere. I guess they need to be in your 'outliers' list or something since Portis and McGahee didn't participate in their Combines, and Westbrook's workout -- like McCoy's -- was unremarkable.

[CK_]

Dang after reading through alll this from a guy that just wants to help out his fellow DLFers. I realized how cancerous some of you guys are. If you don't like it then you don't like it. Don't need to berate the guy if you don't agree. I don't see why he needs to show his model. I think people are misreading 80% as well. He stated clearly he skips over people based completely on "value". So it isn't actually 80% he decided to pick and choose where the consensus rankings decide to label a player for rookie drafts and beyond. Reminds me of all the backlash PFF gets.

JUST A HEADS UP PFF IS THE MODEL THE NFL SCOUTS USE. Period. Scouts I have worked with on teams in the NFL include teams in the NFC East, NFC South, AFC South, and NFC West. The reason why I bring that up is because Scouts get bleep wrong all the time. To err is human people. Quit pretending like the NFL is all knowing and that they are perfect with their predictions on a player in the first round compared to the 3rd round. Can't bash on this person, PFF, rotoviz, etc without bashing on the NFL as well. DD has a solid sound model here that he put work into, respect it but at the end of the day don't bash on your fellow DLFer just because you don't agree with what he says.

[Crwdstunna]

Dang after reading through alll this from a guy that just wants to help out his fellow DLFers. I realized how cancerous some of you guys are. If you don't like it then you don't like it. Don't need to berate the guy if you don't agree. I don't see why he needs to show his model. I think people are misreading 80% as well. He stated clearly he skips over people based completely on "value". So it isn't actually 80% he decided to pick and choose where the consensus rankings decide to label a player for rookie drafts and beyond. Reminds me of all the backlash PFF gets.

JUST A HEADS UP PFF IS THE MODEL THE NFL SCOUTS USE. Period. Scouts I have worked with on teams in the NFL include teams in the NFC East, NFC South, AFC South, and NFC West. The reason why I bring that up is because Scouts get bleep wrong all the time. To err is human people. Quit pretending like the NFL is all knowing and that they are perfect with their predictions on a player in the first round compared to the 3rd round. Can't bash on this person, PFF, rotoviz, etc without bashing on the NFL as well. DD has a solid sound model here that he put work into, respect it but at the end of the day don't bash on your fellow DLFer just because you don't agree with what he says.

Bravo

[ninotoreS]

Dang after reading through alll this from a guy that just wants to help out his fellow DLFers. I realized how cancerous some of you guys are. If you don't like it then you don't like it. Don't need to berate the guy if you don't agree. I don't see why he needs to show his model. I think people are misreading 80% as well. He stated clearly he skips over people based completely on "value". So it isn't actually 80% he decided to pick and choose where the consensus rankings decide to label a player for rookie drafts and beyond. Reminds me of all the backlash PFF gets.

JUST A HEADS UP PFF IS THE MODEL THE NFL SCOUTS USE. Period. Scouts I have worked with on teams in the NFL include teams in the NFC East, NFC South, AFC South, and NFC West. The reason why I bring that up is because Scouts get bleep wrong all the time. To err is human people. Quit pretending like the NFL is all knowing and that they are perfect with their predictions on a player in the first round compared to the 3rd round. Can't bash on this person, PFF, rotoviz, etc without bashing on the NFL as well. DD has a solid sound model here that he put work into, respect it but at the end of the day don't bash on your fellow DLFer just because you don't agree with what he says.

I hope you're not replying to me bud, because my post above yours has intelligent observations and makes constructive points. Scrutiny ≠ 'berating'.

[CK_]

Dang after reading through alll this from a guy that just wants to help out his fellow DLFers. I realized how cancerous some of you guys are. If you don't like it then you don't like it. Don't need to berate the guy if you don't agree. I don't see why he needs to show his model. I think people are misreading 80% as well. He stated clearly he skips over people based completely on "value". So it isn't actually 80% he decided to pick and choose where the consensus rankings decide to label a player for rookie drafts and beyond. Reminds me of all the backlash PFF gets.

JUST A HEADS UP PFF IS THE MODEL THE NFL SCOUTS USE. Period. Scouts I have worked with on teams in the NFL include teams in the NFC East, NFC South, AFC South, and NFC West. The reason why I bring that up is because Scouts get bleep wrong all the time. To err is human people. Quit pretending like the NFL is all knowing and that they are perfect with their predictions on a player in the first round compared to the 3rd round. Can't bash on this person, PFF, rotoviz, etc without bashing on the NFL as well. DD has a solid sound model here that he put work into, respect it but at the end of the day don't bash on your fellow DLFer just because you don't agree with what he says.

I hope you're not replying to me bud, because my post above yours has intelligent observations and makes constructive points. Scrutiny ≠ 'berating'.

No, not yours. That thought never crossed my mind because everyone is entitled to an opinion especially one that has a train of logical thought. My post was directed to the ones that chose to berate instead of discuss. It was sickening reading through some of what was said. Not sure the reason for the "Scrutiny ≠ 'berating'", I just assume you thought it was directed at you in some way? I would look at yourself if you thought that.

I have noticed since joining that DLFers are a tight bunch that do not appreciate trains of thought that are outside their somewhat stubborn mind sights. I worked 14 hours a day for almost 3 years to give the public information that for years only NFL teams were allowed to look at, just to get bashed by the mass public that brings up stats they took 10 minutes to look up that ignore how and why those stats came to be in the first place. I feel if someone is willing to put in the work you should be willing to give them the time of day. And hey if you don't like it, then go make your own formula or create your own algorithim that debunks the current ones out there. Because picking apart someone for something gets no one no where fast. Never good to hide behind the percentages and numbers because they only tell part of the story.

[Dynasty DeLorean]

This report presents itself as comprehensive and predictive, but is it? On either count? Or am I misunderstanding the actual premise behind it?

Consider, for example, CJ Spiller, David Wilson, and Jahvid Best. Compared to Jamaal Charles, who you've placed in tier 1, Spiller had a higher SPARQ score, much higher daft position, same BMI, same 40 time, and broke out similarly as a true freshman. Jahvid Best ran a 4.35 forty, was a 1st round pick, had a 1500 yard season in college, averaged 7.3 ypc there, and had the same BMI as Charles. David Wilson was a 1st round pick with a 85th percentile SPARQ with good BMI and a 1700 yard season in college. They surely would have qualified for your tier 1 criteria, sans the multiple thousand-yard pro season requirement, as Fournette and Foreman have.

And they're just a few of the cases-in-point I could list. There's maybe two dozen other unmentioned RBs selected in the 1st and 2nd rounds since 2001 (the oldest season for a player -- LT -- mentioned in your report) that check the metrics and college production boxes, most of whom didn't manage NFL stardom, or only had one or two thousand yard seasons (typically their first one or two seasons in the league), or others that had one or two truly amazing seasons and then were derailed (e.g. Larry Johnson).

If actual pro success being on record is essential to the tier placement in your report, apparently adjusted every year on hindsight, then doesn't this whole thing become less of a prognosticating exercise than just a cherry-picked summary of history? Shouldn't a report citing a 'proprietary' predictive model for legitimizing its tier placement include all the misses that would've fulfilled your forecasting criteria, had those players better succeeded as pros?

And why are retired players like Jackson, Tomlinson, and Foster listed in the first place, but not others? And if you're gonna mention guys like that in the report, then you should also have guys like Clinton Portis (six thousand-yard rushing seasons), Willis McGahee (four thousand-yard rushing seasons), and Brian Westbrook (five thousand-yard rushing/receiving seasons) mentioned somewhere. I guess they need to be in your 'outliers' list or something since Portis and McGahee didn't participate in their Combines, and Westbrook's workout -- like McCoy's -- was unremarkable.

1) Speculating "they surely would have qualified" when you don't even know what the requirements are is quite an odd thing to say.
2) Some players (mostly the ones that have been out of the league for several years) I simply don't have the numbers for. If you want to go find all the stats and calculate each metric for any player not listed, go right ahead and send that over to me. It would be much appreciated.
3) I've already explained in detail why I make certain changes and what effect those changes have. Your allegations of "adjusting on hindsight" and "cherry-picking" are wildly misleading.

Most of your "questions" have already been answered previously in this thread. I think it'd be a stretch to call your comments "constructive" and "intelligent" within that context.

I have noticed since joining that DLFers are a tight bunch that do not appreciate trains of thought that are outside their somewhat stubborn mind sights. I worked 14 hours a day for almost 3 years to give the public information that for years only NFL teams were allowed to look at, just to get bashed by the mass public that brings up stats they took 10 minutes to look up that ignore how and why those stats came to be in the first place. I feel if someone is willing to put in the work you should be willing to give them the time of day. And hey if you don't like it, then go make your own formula or create your own algorithim that debunks the current ones out there. Because picking apart someone for something gets no one no where fast. Never good to hide behind the percentages and numbers because they only tell part of the story.

The unfortunate thing is I originally posted this 2-3 years ago for it to be some sort of community project that we could all work on together. A few people ruined that though.

[Cult of Dionysus]

This report presents itself as comprehensive and predictive, but is it? On either count? Or am I misunderstanding the actual premise behind it?

Consider, for example, CJ Spiller, David Wilson, and Jahvid Best. Compared to Jamaal Charles, who you've placed in tier 1, Spiller had a higher SPARQ score, much higher daft position, same BMI, same 40 time, and broke out similarly as a true freshman. Jahvid Best ran a 4.35 forty, was a 1st round pick, had a 1500 yard season in college, averaged 7.3 ypc there, and had the same BMI as Charles. David Wilson was a 1st round pick with a 85th percentile SPARQ with good BMI and a 1700 yard season in college. They surely would have qualified for your tier 1 criteria, sans the multiple thousand-yard pro season requirement, as Fournette and Foreman have.

And they're just a few of the cases-in-point I could list. There's maybe two dozen other unmentioned RBs selected in the 1st and 2nd rounds since 2001 (the oldest season for a player -- LT -- mentioned in your report) that check the metrics and college production boxes, most of whom didn't manage NFL stardom, or only had one or two thousand yard seasons (typically their first one or two seasons in the league), or others that had one or two truly amazing seasons and then were derailed (e.g. Larry Johnson).

If actual pro success being on record is essential to the tier placement in your report, apparently adjusted every year on hindsight, then doesn't this whole thing become less of a prognosticating exercise than just a cherry-picked summary of history? Shouldn't a report citing a 'proprietary' predictive model for legitimizing its tier placement include all the misses that would've fulfilled your forecasting criteria, had those players better succeeded as pros?

And why are retired players like Jackson, Tomlinson, and Foster listed in the first place, but not others? And if you're gonna mention guys like that in the report, then you should also have guys like Clinton Portis (six thousand-yard rushing seasons), Willis McGahee (four thousand-yard rushing seasons), and Brian Westbrook (five thousand-yard rushing/receiving seasons) mentioned somewhere. I guess they need to be in your 'outliers' list or something since Portis and McGahee didn't participate in their Combines, and Westbrook's workout -- like McCoy's -- was unremarkable.

1) Speculating "they surely would have qualified" when you don't even know what the requirements are is quite an odd thing to say.
2) Some players (mostly the ones that have been out of the league for several years) I simply don't have the numbers for. If you want to go find all the stats and calculate each metric for any player not listed, go right ahead and send that over to me. It would be much appreciated.
3) I've already explained in detail why I make certain changes and what effect those changes have. Your allegations of "adjusting on hindsight" and "cherry-picking" are wildly misleading.

Most of your "questions" have already been answered previously in this thread. I think it'd be a stretch to call your comments "constructive" and "intelligent" within that context.

I have noticed since joining that DLFers are a tight bunch that do not appreciate trains of thought that are outside their somewhat stubborn mind sights. I worked 14 hours a day for almost 3 years to give the public information that for years only NFL teams were allowed to look at, just to get bashed by the mass public that brings up stats they took 10 minutes to look up that ignore how and why those stats came to be in the first place. I feel if someone is willing to put in the work you should be willing to give them the time of day. And hey if you don't like it, then go make your own formula or create your own algorithim that debunks the current ones out there. Because picking apart someone for something gets no one no where fast. Never good to hide behind the percentages and numbers because they only tell part of the story.

The unfortunate thing is I originally posted this 2-3 years ago for it to be some sort of community project that we could all work on together. A few people ruined that though.

I found ninotoreS' comments/questions to be totally fair and logical. I guess if you think you have a "proprietary formula", you want to be close-lipped about all its intricacies. So I understand why you hold things relatively close to your chest. But it also opens you up to a great deal of skepticism...

On a personal level, I drafted D'onta Foreman in the late 1st in both my dynasty leagues. So you better be right or I'll be pissed!

[Dynasty DeLorean]

I guess if you think you have a "proprietary formula", you want to be close-lipped about all its intricacies. So I understand why you hold things relatively close to your chest. But it also opens you up to a great deal of skepticism...

I don't care about skepticism. For the umpteenth time, what I have a problem with is when people make incorrect statements born from incorrect assumptions which in turn confuses the reader. Ninotore's comments are rife with such assumptions and statements. It's not intelligent, constructive, logical or fair. For example, he doesn't ask IF David Wilson qualified. He makes a statement "they [including David Wilson] surely would have qualified." If he had simply asked, I would have told him that David Wilson had not qualified, and upon further inquiry I'd have likely told him why. Unfortunately being able to engage in coherent adult conversations is not everyone's strong suit.

[Valhalla]

... Unfortunately being able to engage in coherent adult conversations is not everyone's strong suit.

I had decided to sit this thread out as it has lost its worth and is spiraling downwards...but I've just gotta say, DD, this statement is pretty contradictory in itself. It isn't really a mature "strong suit" to insult another person's intelligence when you don't like their argument.

A simple "Believe what you want to believe. I did check Wilson and he did not qualify," would have been a much better way to engage the conversation. People asked you for this report and you provided, and you never obligated yourself to provide the process to anyone. I'm fine with you just leaving it out there and letting people take it or leave it for what it is, but the insults you throw at those asking questions turns me off to be honest.

[jnappy]

Thanks for sharing all of your hard work with us! The results are interesting, and I will be considering Foreman more seriously than I had before.