New line of thinking...

[Cult of Dionysus]

Should top speed be a new metric to evaluate RBs and WRs?

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/news/ja ... 02ngbmk50t

[Tsunami]

If he had only been able to run 18 mph would he have gotten caught from behind? Probably not, it is rare that top speed ever matters in the NFL. It didn't help him hit the hole in the first place. If he had outrun a CB and made a long catch in stride then I could see your point, but in this case it's just trivial. All he had to do was run the same speed as Sean Davis to score there.

[maxhyde]

Should top speed be a new metric to evaluate RBs and WRs?

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/news/ja ... 02ngbmk50t

I always lean towards faster RB's...I think I read something somewhere a long time ago that led me to believe faster RB's always seem to get chances to play. Of course there is a long list of fast guys that can't play so its important that it is only weighted a bit more heavily and not the only thing you consider

[skip]

I'm not a measurables guy and I'm about as "anti-combine" as they come because the majority of the numbers it yields do not give an indication of future success. That said, there is one and only one stat that has shown to be a minor predictor of success in the NFL. 40 times for RBs (and only RBs). Please note I am stressing the word MINOR predictor. Overall there is no measurable that is going to tell you much of anything.

[dm1129]

Top speed combined with weight. If a RB 225+ lbs runs over 22mph, it is significant. Fournette has been unbelievable this season while opposing defenses have been focused on stopping him. He is the best RB to enter the league in quite a long time, and is largely going unnoticed.

[saw061600]

Combine does matter, analytics show it. Top speed not on the list. 40 time (sub 4.5), height 5'10"+ (although I think it's more how weight usually correlates with that height but not measured), burst (long jump 120" I think was number) 3 cone (forget the speed) in that order have been shown to correlate to success in NFL. Correlation does not equal causation so if you have Fournette (success in college, great tape, early NFL pick) compared to Tyler Ervin (scores better using analytics) you take Fournette because the numbers don't cause success but rather RBs that have succeeded more commonly share measures when analyzed.

WR...Kevin Cole and others have shown college performance is the best indicator, comps to current players and other metrics take a back seat. Same as RBs for the opportunity (draft capital) should always be considered.

[kamihamster]

Top speed combined with weight. If a RB 225+ lbs runs over 22mph, it is significant. Fournette has been unbelievable this season while opposing defenses have been focused on stopping him. He is the best RB to enter the league in quite a long time, and is largely going unnoticed.

This. If you're big and strong enough to break through the line and get into the secondary, you then have the speed to not get caught from behind from the secondary.

[clarion contrarion]

I think top speed is important but the size speed combo is very important and the real thing for me is and I noticed most recently with fast willie parker that name was always a misnomer to me as yeah he was fast but what made him most dangerous was how quick he was to top speed . If a guy gets to top end quicker than everyone else then in a rare shockingly rare instance of agreement with tsunami then he only need be as fast as the guys chasing him as he already built a lead.

[Dynasty DeLorean]

what made him most dangerous was how quick he was to top speed . If a guy gets to top end quicker than everyone else then in a rare shockingly rare instance of agreement with tsunami then he only need be as fast as the guys chasing him as he already built a lead.

I always thought it was strange how Amari Cooper had such a fast 40 time but his 10-yard and 20-yard splits were actually very slow. Antonio Brown has a much slower 40 time but way better burst off the line.

[Goirish374]

Combine does matter, analytics show it.

Nope.

This line of reasoning is absolutely riddled with selection bias.

It may well be true. As of now, however, we cannot prove it is true.

[skip]

Combine does matter, analytics show it. Top speed not on the list. 40 time (sub 4.5), height 5'10"+ (although I think it's more how weight usually correlates with that height but not measured), burst (long jump 120" I think was number) 3 cone (forget the speed) in that order have been shown to correlate to success in NFL.

I don't know where you are getting your information but none of that is confirmed by any unbiased data that I've ever been able to find. I've searched all over the place for information related to the combine as a predictor of success and as I stated the only stat that has been documented as a predictor of success is the 40 time for RBs. If you can provide some links, that would be helpful. FWIW, only one study I ever found even mentioned the 40 data. All of the rest said there is no correlation from any of the data.

[Slackalacker]

Top speed is only useful if:

A: you're able to make the move to get into the open field
B: your acceleration is also very very quick

The top speed of a guy catching bubble screens or running the ball is pretty useless if he can't get to the second level.

[saw061600]

Combine does matter, analytics show it. Top speed not on the list. 40 time (sub 4.5), height 5'10"+ (although I think it's more how weight usually correlates with that height but not measured), burst (long jump 120" I think was number) 3 cone (forget the speed) in that order have been shown to correlate to success in NFL.

I don't know where you are getting your information but none of that is confirmed by any unbiased data that I've ever been able to find. I've searched all over the place for information related to the combine as a predictor of success and as I stated the only stat that has been documented as a predictor of success is the 40 time for RBs. If you can provide some links, that would be helpful. FWIW, only one study I ever found even mentioned the 40 data. All of the rest said there is no correlation from any of the data.

Here you go. And again, to be clear, correlation does not equal causation. We can look at who was successful and see how they did on combine measures, but we can't say (and anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand analytics) that just because a RB hits the numbers that quantify potential for success, they will automatically then succeed.
http://rotoviz.com/2016/02/which-measur ... vid=4cwUNh

[saw061600]

Combine does matter, analytics show it.

Nope.

This line of reasoning is absolutely riddled with selection bias.

It may well be true. As of now, however, we cannot prove it is true.

That's not the definition of bias. Bias is influenced by our experience, which is often expressed by stating something is wrong because we haven't yet had experience to challenge our bias. Numbers, on the other hand, ignore bias and only seek correlation. Correlation doesn't "prove" anything; no human behavior/performance research is ever proven...there are always outliers and exceptions, it's a standard of research. However, we can absolutely use numbers to predict the likelihood of occurrence.

[saw061600]

He increased the model this year, adding weight adjusted 40 times to predictive model. Again, it's only predicting the likelihood of success. For me, it's a nice start but there are many, many, many variables like round of draft, health, opportunity that obviously impact.
http://rotoviz.com/2017/03/the-2017-run ... vid=2KOesC