Final Rookie RB Ranking

[TheBelgian]

Thanks for the post.

[honcho55]

Cheers Michael, hope you’re right. Just traded up a couple spots to take sanders at 6 in a SF for a team that absolutely needed RB.

FWIW, my RB rankings for this year vs last (without hindsight of how 2018 rooks performed):

Barkley

Guice

Penny/Chubb/Michel
Sanders
Jacobs

Montgomery

kerryon

Rojo

[ArrylT]

Bumped.

[ericanadian]

I think sanders has a lot further to go on the depth chart with Howard there before he can get a large enough workload.

Howard has 1 year left on his contract. Howard is a power runner on a zone blocking team. Sanders is a zoner runner.

Sanders > Howard soon enough.

Timothy McVey? Yikes!

Yeah I thought that too.

Howard dominated in the outside zone offense and fell apart when they went away from it. I get that he’s a big dude, but not sure he’d be effective in a power scheme anymore than he was in an inside zone scheme.

[Cult of Dionysus]

Had some time on my hands, so thought I'd read through your 1st report and 3rd report.

As an overall statement, I really appreciate your approach. It is clear that you are conducting your analysis of these players based upon tape and production, and also layer in draft capital and scheme as well. And the presentation is pretty straight-forward. My only gripe about the presentation is the different formats between report 1 ("must haves", "should haves", etc.) and report 3 (dynasty rankings). I think it would be more interesting if you'd present all three reports in the format of report 3, where you place rbs in clear, objective tiers (RBs 1-6, RBs 7-12, etc).

As for specific player analysis, the one's that jumped out at me (as between report 1 and report 3):

MILES SANDERS: You were high on him in your 1st report, before most of us gave him any credence. You said he was the best RB prospect, and that carried through to your 3rd report, where you have him above Jacobs. Think he is your biggest hit in these reports.

ELIJAH HOLYFIELD: Wow, this dude fell a lot. You had him as the 2nd most impressive RB in your 1st report. And he doesn't even make the rankings in the 3rd report. You noted that he is "worth a mid-to-late 1st, given the right location" in your 1st report, and that he could "can succeed in any scheme he's draft into." I actually think that Carolina was a good landing spot for him. Panthers are a smash-mouth, run-first type of team. With only CMC as an established runner, with a very different style. Holyfield isn't huge, but he runs with a lot of heart and wiggle. Think he could be a great complimentary back to CMC. So I struggle to see why he fell so hard, so fast, so far.

DAVID MONTGOMERY: Another guy whose position changed dramatically between the 1st report and the 3rd report. I won't go into great detail, but you panned him pretty hard, saying that he can't create space and that "you have no idea why others like him." Yet in your 3rd report, you have him ranked as the 3rd best RB and a projected high-end RB2. I would have an easier time to accept his move if you'd explain why you went from "he's just so bad" to a high-end RB2 projection. BTW, the notion that he is a straight-ahead runner who can't create space is just wrong. Take a look at 0:40 in this video (makes a lb/safety miss) or 1:12 (similar move against another lb/safety). https://www.chicagobears.com/video/davi ... highlights

MYLES GASKIN: You seemed to like this guy a lot in report 1, saying "this is the kind of guy you can draft in the 2nd or 3rd round and get yourself a starter almost immediately given the right system." You did note in your 1st report that following a second look, that you did cool on him somewhat. Yet in your 3rd report you had him down in the "Dart Throw" category, despite saying that you "loved his landing spot." While I don't know anything about Gaskin, I struggle to understand how a guy you tended to like, and who you think went to a great landing spot, ended up getting the rug pulled underneath from him.

It's my impression that your 3rd report is heavily influenced by the NFL Draft and landing spots. There's nothing wrong about that. The reality is that landing spot is a huge factor for most NFL running backs, more so than for any other position. And to be fair, even though Darrell Henderson went to a great situation with meaningful draft capital, you haven't changed your tune on him at all.

So just wanted to throw that out there. Please do take this as discussion points, not as a form of criticism. I hope you keep doing these reports in 2020 and beyond!

[usps33]

I am hoping that he is wrong on Darrell Henderson, calling him fool’s gold really gave me pause on drafting Henderson, but I needed to handcuff Gurley just in case, used the 1.09 pick.

[MEuRaH]

I always do these things in 3 increments. I've never posted the first two before. The combine has a great influence if someone tests poorly, and the draft also has a big influence is someone gets drafted sooner or later, or to a bad spot.

ELIJAH HOLYFIELD: Wow, this dude fell a lot. You had him as the 2nd most impressive RB in your 1st report. And he doesn't even make the rankings in the 3rd report. You noted that he is "worth a mid-to-late 1st, given the right location" in your 1st report, and that he could "can succeed in any scheme he's draft into." I actually think that Carolina was a good landing spot for him. Panthers are a smash-mouth, run-first type of team. With only CMC as an established runner, with a very different style. Holyfield isn't huge, but he runs with a lot of heart and wiggle. Think he could be a great complimentary back to CMC. So I struggle to see why he fell so hard, so fast, so far.

His combine was bad. That was all I needed. His best shot at being worth any value at all is as a short-yardage back on a running team. I also think Carolina will be a great landing spot, but he's not going to take CMCs touches, he's going to take Cam's touches. His feet are too good to completely dismiss, but he's going to be 100% TD dependent.

DAVID MONTGOMERY: Another guy whose position changed dramatically between the 1st report and the 3rd report. I won't go into great detail, but you panned him pretty hard, saying that he can't create space and that "you have no idea why others like him." Yet in your 3rd report, you have him ranked as the 3rd best RB and a projected high-end RB2. I would have an easier time to accept his move if you'd explain why you went from "he's just so bad" to a high-end RB2 projection. BTW, the notion that he is a straight-ahead runner who can't create space is just wrong. Take a look at 0:40 in this video (makes a lb/safety miss) or 1:12 (similar move against another lb/safety). https://www.chicagobears.com/video/davi ... highlights

I don't think I really switched anything here. I was low on him before and I stayed low. He doesn't create space aka make room at the LOS. Being able to avoid LBs or Safeties isn't creating space, it's using the space that's already there. David Montgomery is basically Jordan Howard 2.0. To say I have him as the 3rd best overlooks the fact that this is a poor draft class. In most draft classes, he'd be a low-end 1 or a high end 2. Desperate owners are taking him too soon.

MYLES GASKIN: You seemed to like this guy a lot in report 1, saying "this is the kind of guy you can draft in the 2nd or 3rd round and get yourself a starter almost immediately given the right system." You did note in your 1st report that following a second look, that you did cool on him somewhat. Yet in your 3rd report you had him down in the "Dart Throw" category, despite saying that you "loved his landing spot." While I don't know anything about Gaskin, I struggle to understand how a guy you tended to like, and who you think went to a great landing spot, ended up getting the rug pulled underneath from him.

Landing spot makes a big difference. He wasn't taken until the 7th, so that's an obvious red flag. I knocked him down my board but not off it.

It's my impression that your 3rd report is heavily influenced by the NFL Draft and landing spots. There's nothing wrong about that. The reality is that landing spot is a huge factor for most NFL running backs, more so than for any other position. And to be fair, even though Darrell Henderson went to a great situation with meaningful draft capital, you haven't changed your tune on him at all.

I don't believe in his talent enough, even in a good landing spot, to justify ranking him anywhere. He was THE number one guy that I was most-excited to review. I remember getting beer and popcorn as I sat down with a big smile ready to analyze him and write a glaring report. I came away so disappointed after I realized that most of his success was due to great coaching and blocking. He doesn't run around people, he runs through them. You can get away with that at the college level, but not at the NFL level. Nobody with his size and running style combined has ever had success in the NFL.

He also only ever carried the ball in one hand (left). That's what RoJo did. His interviews are terrible. I don't believe he's coachable. This is a wasted pick by the Rams.

[Cult of Dionysus]

Appreciate the feedback!

[mild]

David Montgomery is basically Jordan Howard 2.0.

Love your work on here always Muerah (don't forget ya roots )

I was just keen on a little more explanation on this point - I see one crucial difference between Howard and Montgomery, and that's the catching ability. That's why the Bears were so keen to jump ship on Howard, and get D-Mont into the building - because so much of their offense seems to be stirred by Trubiskey extending plays and dumping short.

I know you're talking strictly athletic profile, but wouldn't you say D-Mont gets a slight bump thanks to his receiving game? As a Cohen/Davis shareholder, I'm officially worried about him eating their carries.

[Cult of Dionysus]

David Montgomery is basically Jordan Howard 2.0.

Love your work on here always Muerah (don't forget ya roots )

I was just keen on a little more explanation on this point - I see one crucial difference between Howard and Montgomery, and that's the catching ability. That's why the Bears were so keen to jump ship on Howard, and get D-Mont into the building - because so much of their offense seems to be stirred by Trubiskey extending plays and dumping short.

I know you're talking strictly athletic profile, but wouldn't you say D-Mont gets a slight bump thanks to his receiving game? As a Cohen/Davis shareholder, I'm officially worried about him eating their carries.

Here's highlight tape of Jordan Howard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otzk5QUSjAY

Here's highlight tape of David Montgomery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUJY4BkDLvY

I don't understand how anyone can view these two videos and see ANY comparison between these two players AS RUNNERS. One is a straight-ahead, no-wiggle warhorse who looks slower than his 4.59 Pro Day 40. The other, while also strong and capable of running through tackles, looks much faster than his 4.63 Combine 40, is elusive, and has some great cutting ability (see my earlier examples, where he exhibits ankle-breaking stuff). Styles are just so different. Just because they are both solid-built RBs who ran 4.6 40s from mid-west schools and were drafted by Chicago doesn't mean they should be painted with the same broad brush AS RUNNERS.

The thing is David Montgomery can run just like Jordan Howard. He has the size and strength, and often does just cleave through a hole. So I could understand how some people look at that and just compare him to Howard. However, unlike Howard, who has that one trick, which he does extremely well, David Montgomery can change it up and cut/elude extremely well. One of the guys on PFF said he has some of the best eluding skills, not just in this draft, but many others as well, and certainly for a guy weighing over 220lbs.

[MEuRaH]

Here's highlight tape of Jordan Howard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otzk5QUSjAY

Here's highlight tape of David Montgomery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUJY4BkDLvY

I don't understand how anyone can view these two videos and see ANY comparison between these two players AS RUNNERS.

I said it before but I'll say it again: If I'm wrong about anybody in this draft, it'll be David Montgomery. He looks like a zone runner in a man offense. But maybe that's because he can't run in a zone system, and that's why Iowa used him the way they did? I dunno.

Monty ran almost exclusively out of the pistol formation with man blocking schemes. If nothing was there, he'd bounce it outside. That's literally his entire game. You pulled a highlight video. You know what you won't see in there? No pulling guards through a gap, no off-tackle, no trap plays, hardly any lead/blast, no zone, no counters, no pitches, no slants, no veers, no sweeps.

Monty has better wiggle and can make tacklers miss in the open field. He's not creating space though, and his lack of experience in a pro-style offense worries me to no end. It makes me wonder if he's incapable of anything else besides what looks like dive plays... which is where Jordan Howard also excelled. Hence why I compare the two the way I do.

Again, he's the one guy I still have question marks about. He could be a Kareem Hunt clone with his wiggle and vision. Or he could be a quicker Jordan Howard with better hands. I truly don't know. But I do wonder why he's only used one way in Iowa when nearly every other RB I've ever scouted has a plethora of experience in a variety of running plays.

[Cult of Dionysus]

Monty ran almost exclusively out of the pistol formation with man blocking schemes. If nothing was there, he'd bounce it outside. That's literally his entire game. You pulled a highlight video. You know what you won't see in there? No pulling guards through a gap, no off-tackle, no trap plays, hardly any lead/blast, no zone, no counters, no pitches, no slants, no veers, no sweeps.

Monty has better wiggle and can make tacklers miss in the open field. He's not creating space though, and his lack of experience in a pro-style offense worries me to no end. It makes me wonder if he's incapable of anything else besides what looks like dive plays... which is where Jordan Howard also excelled. Hence why I compare the two the way I do.

As I've never played football or studied it in any meaningful fashion (beyond fantasy purposes), could you please explain the two italicized snippets above?

How challenging is it to go from a vanilla scheme like Monty played in to a scheme like the Bears have? I mean, if you know what the play is, can't a runner just do it? Especially something easy like a pitch or a sweep? Isn't the RB position the easiest to play from an NFL perspective, more so than o-line and QBs... So wouldn't it be fair to say that he can add to his game fairly easily, certainly easier than most other positions on the field?

How does a runner create space? Isn't that a component of elusiveness and cutting? Or are you thinking more in terms of changes in speed and angles?

Again, appreciate all the feedback from you MeuRah.

[MEuRaH]

Monty ran almost exclusively out of the pistol formation with man blocking schemes. If nothing was there, he'd bounce it outside. That's literally his entire game. You pulled a highlight video. You know what you won't see in there? No pulling guards through a gap, no off-tackle, no trap plays, hardly any lead/blast, no zone, no counters, no pitches, no slants, no veers, no sweeps.

Monty has better wiggle and can make tacklers miss in the open field. He's not creating space though, and his lack of experience in a pro-style offense worries me to no end. It makes me wonder if he's incapable of anything else besides what looks like dive plays... which is where Jordan Howard also excelled. Hence why I compare the two the way I do.

As I've never played football or studied it in any meaningful fashion (beyond fantasy purposes), could you please explain the two italicized snippets above?

How challenging is it to go from a vanilla scheme like Monty played in to a scheme like the Bears have? I mean, if you know what the play is, can't a runner just do it? Especially something easy like a pitch or a sweep? Isn't the RB position the easiest to play from an NFL perspective, more so than o-line and QBs... So wouldn't it be fair to say that he can add to his game fairly easily, certainly easier than most other positions on the field?

How does a runner create space? Isn't that a component of elusiveness and cutting? Or are you thinking more in terms of changes in speed and angles?

There are dozens of different ways to advance the football via the run game, however each run is basically blocked two different ways: Zone & Man. "Man" means a blocker has a specific player to block (right defensive end, SAM linebacker, etc) where-as "Zone" means a blocker goes to a specific area on the field and blocks whoever is there.

A RB will also be more of a zone or man runner. Once in a system, it's difficult to transition to another type. Monty is a man runner, and the Bears appear to want to utilize more of a zone blocking scheme. This is why Jordan Howard under-whelmed in Chicago, because he too is a man runner and the Bears appear to be trying to transition to zone. All teams use both systems, but most teams run more of one than the other.

Monty ran almost entirely dive plays, which is where the line blocks straight ahead and David Montgomery's only job is to run forward. If there's no hole, bounce outside. That's his entire college experience. That's not very complex and it's going to make for a tough transition to the NFL level given how little he experienced doing anything else. Sweeps, counters, and slants utilize zone blocking. This requires more patience and vision on the runners part, as well as tremendous burst. There are very few quality NFL backs who can run both man and zone to perfection (Zeke is amazing at both).

Sometimes a back can have success simply by fitting a system. Lamar Miller is a one-cut zone runner, for example. He's terrible but fit the blocking system of both Miami & Houston, and therefore appeared to excel. If he was on the Seahawks, for example, Lamar Miller would have been out of the league years ago. One of the reasons that Phillip Lindsay beat Freeman in Denver was because Lindsay is a man runner and Freeman is zone. The Broncos utilize more man blocking schemes in their offense, so Lindsay > Freeman for that reason alone. Chris Carson is a man runner, Penny is zone. Seattle doesn't use zone all that much, Carson wins.

Monty ran entirely man in college, but appears to have the quickness and vision of a zone runner. That's my problem evaluating him. The Bears appeared to want to switch to such an offensive scheme, evidenced by the signing of Cordarelle Patterson. You need a speedy WR to run end-arounds, which helps the offensive line setup blocks, and if that's the case, I 100% understand why they traded Jordan Howard and drafted David Montgomery. It would also help fit the system for what would make Trubisky a successful QB.

The only issue is that Monty is unproven and who knows if he'll actually be able to make the switch. Vision alone he appears to have it, and his 3-cone & 20-yard shuttles are both positive, but a zone runner also needs incredible burst score to be successful. To run laterally with the line and then hit the hole, you need to be able to get to full speed quicker than anybody else on the field. There are three ways to measure burst: Vertical, Broad Jump, & 10 Yard Split. Monty has the WORST vertical of all RBs. His broad jump is below average. His 10-year split is near the bottom. All of this tells me that they are trying to put a round peg into a square hole.

But the other issue is that they didn't have any early picks. They had to settle for whoever fell to them, and Monty was the closest they could get to what they are looking for. If it wasn't Monty, there really was no other RB worthy of selecting for their system.

The other issue is that zone runners need to be able to "create space", which is another way of saying "avoid tacklers at the LOS". Maybe you've heard the expression "he can make a guy miss in a phone booth." That's the exact definition of someone who can create space. Someone who can avoid arm tackles and make defenders miss even when they are right next to the runner. This is different from utilizing space that's already there to avoid tacklers (aka the 2nd level). These guys are hard to find, but are valuable because the blocking schemes for zone blocking are so much easier to run. You get yourself a good zone runner and the offense will open right up to all sorts of possibilities.

If a zone RB gets drafted to a zone scheme, he's a plug-and-play guy. That's the easiest transition from college to the pros. If the system is different, there will be a learning curve, and the success of this transition depends entirely on the player. I don't think Monty can make the switch based on the necessary burst score needed to be successful. I think he'll be a product of any zone system and just be "OK" for his career. If the Bears switch back to more man schemes, I think Monty will have far more success.

My outlook on him depends entirely on what the Bears are going to want to do on offense.

[kadun2]

Im always amazed when teams draft RBs that do not fit their scheme. I guess they think they can change them or maybe it really isn’t that hard for an RB to adjust.

[jenkins.math]

I think the most difficult transitions from a man blocking to zone blocking scheme have to do with the RB's vision, patience, and timing. As long as the RB has that, he should be just fine going from man to zone. That's obviously easier said than done, but if you're a good back, you should already have the vision part. The patience and timing come from repetition in that scheme. That is something that can be taught. Vision is much more

I disagree that you need to be some elite burst athlete to be a good zone scheme RB. If that is what was the largest factor, Tarik Cohen would have dominated on the ground for the Bears last season.