2019 Running Back Report

General talk about Dynasty Leagues.
User avatar
Dynasty DeLorean
Degenerate
Degenerate
Posts: 8855
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 8:45 am

Re: 2019 Running Back Report

Postby Dynasty DeLorean » Tue May 28, 2019 12:57 pm

rubber_duck wrote: Tue May 28, 2019 12:33 pm Thanks for posting this DD. In reviewing this year's class of RBs, I've gotten very similar results to yours.

This seems like the absolutely perfect year for a fantasy team to sell off the 1.01 or 1.02 rookie pick if they have them.
Yeah, I totally agree for the RBs. I do love me some Harry though.


kamihamster wrote: Tue May 28, 2019 12:50 pm Are you using statistical software to do this, or you just using a spreadsheet?
Excel. It's not complicated at all.

User avatar
rubber_duck
Pro Bowler
Pro Bowler
Posts: 1126
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 11:02 am

Re: 2019 Running Back Report

Postby rubber_duck » Tue May 28, 2019 1:21 pm

Dynasty DeLorean wrote: Tue May 28, 2019 12:57 pm
rubber_duck wrote: Tue May 28, 2019 12:33 pm Thanks for posting this DD. In reviewing this year's class of RBs, I've gotten very similar results to yours.

This seems like the absolutely perfect year for a fantasy team to sell off the 1.01 or 1.02 rookie pick if they have them.
Yeah, I totally agree for the RBs. I do love me some Harry though.
Not me. Not touching Harry for the price he's going at, as I don't have any confidence in his long term NFL success. Although, I can see him posting a really strong rookie season. Something like Michael Clayton did, great rookie season and then .... :problem:

User avatar
kamihamster
Captain
Captain
Posts: 887
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 10:28 am

Re: 2019 Running Back Report

Postby kamihamster » Tue May 28, 2019 1:26 pm

Dynasty DeLorean wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 6:23 pm
kamihamster wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 6:03 pm So what were the change(s) you made that made your model better?
I raised the requirement for one criteria which made another criteria irrelevant. I was pretty psyched. Been puzzling over that problem for nearly 5 years now.
kamihamster wrote: Tue May 28, 2019 12:50 pm Are you using statistical software to do this, or you just using a spreadsheet?
Excel. It's not complicated at all.
[/quote]

Might not be complicated, but not very efficient either. You've already got all the data in excel, might as well try doing some statistical analysis to weed out more of those multicorrelating variables and further refine your model.
NTL (est 2016): (8-0)
12-team, PPR, 1QB,2RB,3WR,1TE,1FLX
QB: A.Rodgers, D.Jones
RB: A.Kamara, K.Johnson, K.Drake, Da.Henderson, C.Anderson, K.Ballage, T.Montgomery, J.Wilson, D.Ogunbowale, Dw.Washington, J.Kelly, P.Perkins, A.Blue
WR: O.Beckham, D.Hopkins, C.Kupp, D.Chark, R.Foster, A.Wilson, J.Reynolds, S.Morgan, B.Pringle, O.Johnson, D.Williams, D.Willis
TE: J.Cook, M.Andrews, A.Shaheen, B.Jarwin
2020 Picks: 3, 4
2021 Picks: 1, 2, 3, 4
2022 Picks: 1, 2, 3, 4

Home League (est 2014): 2018 Champ (6-2)
12-team, NPPR-6ptTD, 1QB,2RB,3WR,1TE,2FLX,1K,1DST,4IDP
QB: P.Mahomes, J.Goff
RB: D.Cook, A.Kamara, J.Mixon, M.Breida, S.Michel, F.Gore, D.Guice, K.Ballage, D.Ogunbowale, R.Bonnafon, J.Scarlett, W.Gallman, J.Kelly, J.Wilson
WR: D.Adams, J.Smith-Schuster, T.Boyd, A.Robinson, L.Fitzgerald, Jo.Brown, M.Valdes-Scantiling, K.Harmon, Z.Pascal
TE: E.Engram, A.Hooper
DST: NOS
K: W.Lutz
2020 Picks: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
2021 Picks: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

User avatar
dynastyninja
Hall of Fame
Hall of Fame
Posts: 4170
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 6:17 pm

Re: 2019 Running Back Report

Postby dynastyninja » Tue May 28, 2019 1:44 pm

kamihamster wrote: Tue May 28, 2019 1:26 pm Might not be complicated, but not very efficient either. You've already got all the data in excel, might as well try doing some statistical analysis to weed out more of those multicorrelating variables and further refine your model.
Mr. Big Word over here

User avatar
Cult of Dionysus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2787
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 2:02 am

Re: 2019 Running Back Report

Postby Cult of Dionysus » Tue May 28, 2019 6:45 pm

My guess is DD's sheet weighs three elements: (1) multi-year production (with a conference or defensive strength modifiers), (2) physical metrics, and (3) magic pixie dust, the first two weighed fairly equally. Hence why neither Jacobs nor Sanders (both of whom did good at the Combine, but have little prouction) rank poorly, and why Montgomery (who had a ton of solid production, but is slow) also ranked poorly.

Most of the guys on his Tier 1 list had a combination of both, with a select few also having the third element.

User avatar
Dynasty DeLorean
Degenerate
Degenerate
Posts: 8855
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 8:45 am

Re: 2019 Running Back Report

Postby Dynasty DeLorean » Tue May 28, 2019 7:02 pm

Cult of Dionysus wrote: Tue May 28, 2019 6:45 pm My guess is DD's sheet weighs three elements: (1) multi-year production (with a conference or defensive strength modifiers), (2) physical metrics, and (3) magic pixie dust, the first two weighed fairly equally. Hence why neither Jacobs nor Sanders (both of whom did good at the Combine, but have little prouction) rank poorly, and why Montgomery (who had a ton of solid production, but is slow) also ranked poorly.

Most of the guys on his Tier 1 list had a combination of both, with a select few also having the third element.
I appreciate that you’re at least trying to give it an honest go. You have the right idea with the first two things. There are two more, one of which should be fairly obvious and one which is not. Want to take a guess at the 3rd one?

User avatar
petebusey
Practice Squad
Practice Squad
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 12:26 pm
Location: Indiana

Re: 2019 Running Back Report

Postby petebusey » Tue May 28, 2019 7:11 pm

Cult of Dionysus wrote: Tue May 28, 2019 6:45 pm My guess is DD's sheet weighs three elements: (1) multi-year production (with a conference or defensive strength modifiers), (2) physical metrics, and (3) magic pixie dust, the first two weighed fairly equally. Hence why neither Jacobs nor Sanders (both of whom did good at the Combine, but have little prouction) rank poorly, and why Montgomery (who had a ton of solid production, but is slow) also ranked poorly.

Most of the guys on his Tier 1 list had a combination of both, with a select few also having the third element.
Image
I'm too ashamed of any of my teams to post.

Ray Finkle
Pro Bowler
Pro Bowler
Posts: 1294
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2014 8:05 am

Re: 2019 Running Back Report

Postby Ray Finkle » Tue May 28, 2019 7:18 pm

dynastyninja wrote: Tue May 28, 2019 1:44 pm
kamihamster wrote: Tue May 28, 2019 1:26 pm Might not be complicated, but not very efficient either. You've already got all the data in excel, might as well try doing some statistical analysis to weed out more of those multicorrelating variables and further refine your model.
Mr. Big Word over here
weed?

User avatar
Cult of Dionysus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2787
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 2:02 am

Re: 2019 Running Back Report

Postby Cult of Dionysus » Tue May 28, 2019 8:24 pm

Dynasty DeLorean wrote: Tue May 28, 2019 7:02 pm
Cult of Dionysus wrote: Tue May 28, 2019 6:45 pm My guess is DD's sheet weighs three elements: (1) multi-year production (with a conference or defensive strength modifiers), (2) physical metrics, and (3) magic pixie dust, the first two weighed fairly equally. Hence why neither Jacobs nor Sanders (both of whom did good at the Combine, but have little prouction) rank poorly, and why Montgomery (who had a ton of solid production, but is slow) also ranked poorly.

Most of the guys on his Tier 1 list had a combination of both, with a select few also having the third element.
I appreciate that you’re at least trying to give it an honest go. You have the right idea with the first two things. There are two more, one of which should be fairly obvious and one which is not. Want to take a guess at the 3rd one?
The obvious one is of course Draft Capital and the less obvious one is, and this is purely a guess, some kind of advance metric like breakout age (bad example, since that's a WR metric), something or a collection of things that PFF puts together.

:dance:

User avatar
Dynasty DeLorean
Degenerate
Degenerate
Posts: 8855
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 8:45 am

Re: 2019 Running Back Report

Postby Dynasty DeLorean » Tue May 28, 2019 10:41 pm

Cult of Dionysus wrote: Tue May 28, 2019 8:24 pm
Dynasty DeLorean wrote: Tue May 28, 2019 7:02 pm
Cult of Dionysus wrote: Tue May 28, 2019 6:45 pm My guess is DD's sheet weighs three elements: (1) multi-year production (with a conference or defensive strength modifiers), (2) physical metrics, and (3) magic pixie dust, the first two weighed fairly equally. Hence why neither Jacobs nor Sanders (both of whom did good at the Combine, but have little prouction) rank poorly, and why Montgomery (who had a ton of solid production, but is slow) also ranked poorly.

Most of the guys on his Tier 1 list had a combination of both, with a select few also having the third element.
I appreciate that you’re at least trying to give it an honest go. You have the right idea with the first two things. There are two more, one of which should be fairly obvious and one which is not. Want to take a guess at the 3rd one?
The obvious one is of course Draft Capital and the less obvious one is, and this is purely a guess, some kind of advance metric like breakout age (bad example, since that's a WR metric), something or a collection of things that PFF puts together.

:dance:

Image

sconnie21
Role Player
Role Player
Posts: 359
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 9:48 am

Re: 2019 Running Back Report

Postby sconnie21 » Tue May 28, 2019 10:56 pm

Problem is there are so many good wrs. Even in a ppr league, a top five rb ....better yet top three.....is needed to be the difference maker and you the title
12 team dynasty ppr (qb rb wr wr we/te te fx fx df) ...... 27 man rosters and switch to superflex in 25

Qb Anthony Richardson, Derek Carr, Bryce Young, Trey Lance, Herndon Hooker, Malik Willis
Rb - Ken Walker, pollard, Stevenson, Aaron Jones, Dillon,
Wr - D Smith, Higgins, Nacua, Dell, Jeudy, JSN, Addison, Jameson Williams, Dotson , Copeland,
Te - pitts, Njoku, Kraft
D - packers,

2024 2.6 3.1 3.2 3.3 4.3
2025 7 firsts and 7 seconds 2 thirds
2026 6 firsts and 6 seconds

Ice
Legend
Legend
Posts: 6589
Joined: Tue May 22, 2018 6:17 pm

Re: 2019 Running Back Report

Postby Ice » Wed May 29, 2019 5:24 am

petebusey wrote: Tue May 28, 2019 7:11 pm
Cult of Dionysus wrote: Tue May 28, 2019 6:45 pm My guess is DD's sheet weighs three elements: (1) multi-year production (with a conference or defensive strength modifiers), (2) physical metrics, and (3) magic pixie dust, the first two weighed fairly equally. Hence why neither Jacobs nor Sanders (both of whom did good at the Combine, but have little prouction) rank poorly, and why Montgomery (who had a ton of solid production, but is slow) also ranked poorly.

Most of the guys on his Tier 1 list had a combination of both, with a select few also having the third element.
Image
:D Magic Pixi-Dust

Pretty much; I have read this thread a couple of times now and just do not see a clear purpose for this information.

Looks more like Voodoo Economics with an OP that is more interested in keeping his formula secret.

The reality is a Player like Jacobs as an example that came from a power team with loads of NFL talent resulting in timeshare won't look as good as a player like Zeke or Barkley. This doesn't mean he won't be a star or a bust at the next level. His talent is what pushed him into a 1st round RB not some arbitrary formula. Sanders went in the 2nd because he can play. Obviously, Barkley was a rare talent and Sanders wasn't that but he could be a star in this league in a year or two.

Obviously, talent year over year changes by position but in the end we should see on average 2-3 rookie RB's have solid NFL careers given the life expectancy of RB's in the NFL. Those few will translates into solid fantasy production.
The Clock is Running and there are no Timeouts

Lord_Varys
Role Player
Role Player
Posts: 489
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2019 6:19 am

Re: 2019 Running Back Report

Postby Lord_Varys » Wed May 29, 2019 5:36 am

DeLorean, I love this. Thanks for the work.

Did someone get the 4th factor right? We have 1) College Production 2) Athletic Testing Results 3) Draft Capital and 4) Breakout Age... but as far as I can tell, we don't know about the 4th... Are you willing to tell us?

My guess: PFF's Elusiveness Rating. Or maybe something like Yards Before Contact minus Yards Blocked... Essentially a way to quantify the RB's vision. So you have 5 yards before contact, and 4.5 yards blocked for you, tells me that you're not getting much more than what's blocked until you're touched. But 7 yards before contact minus 4.5 blocked, means you're getting way more than what's blocked before you're touched.

Only reason I guess that is because I saw Trent Richardson in Tier 4, and I know he checked every other box with flying colors (Speed score was 90th percentile. Loads of college production. Draft capital about as good as it gets)... The only thing I can think of is that he had notoriously bad vision, and therefore probably had a really poor score in terms of getting more than what's blocked before he's touched. He could still have good contact balance after he's touched, and be a decent player, but what you do to avoid contact is just as important.

User avatar
rubber_duck
Pro Bowler
Pro Bowler
Posts: 1126
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 11:02 am

Re: 2019 Running Back Report

Postby rubber_duck » Wed May 29, 2019 8:09 am

Lord_Varys wrote: Wed May 29, 2019 5:36 am DeLorean, I love this. Thanks for the work.

Did someone get the 4th factor right? We have 1) College Production 2) Athletic Testing Results 3) Draft Capital and 4) Breakout Age... but as far as I can tell, we don't know about the 4th... Are you willing to tell us?

My guess: PFF's Elusiveness Rating. Or maybe something like Yards Before Contact minus Yards Blocked... Essentially a way to quantify the RB's vision. So you have 5 yards before contact, and 4.5 yards blocked for you, tells me that you're not getting much more than what's blocked until you're touched. But 7 yards before contact minus 4.5 blocked, means you're getting way more than what's blocked before you're touched.

Only reason I guess that is because I saw Trent Richardson in Tier 4, and I know he checked every other box with flying colors (Speed score was 90th percentile. Loads of college production. Draft capital about as good as it gets)... The only thing I can think of is that he had notoriously bad vision, and therefore probably had a really poor score in terms of getting more than what's blocked before he's touched. He could still have good contact balance after he's touched, and be a decent player, but what you do to avoid contact is just as important.
I don't know exactly what DD is using and won't try guessing at it. But you mentioned Trent Richardson as someone that didn't make his list and I'm going to jump on this opportunity ...

Players like Richardson can teach us so much about rookie evaluation if we are willing to look closely. If you were playing dynasty when he entered the league and you had him near the top of your list (like so many of us did), then an autopsy should be done on the evaluation to determine the cause of death.

It is one thing to draft a player in the mid-2nd or take a 4th round flier and miss. But to get a goose-egg on a 1.01 pick or 1.03 ... there should be critical review done to the process to avoid the same mistake going forward. The magic pixie dust that DD is using may have come from some such review in the past.

Lord_Varys
Role Player
Role Player
Posts: 489
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2019 6:19 am

Re: 2019 Running Back Report

Postby Lord_Varys » Wed May 29, 2019 8:19 am

rubber_duck wrote: Wed May 29, 2019 8:09 am I don't know exactly what DD is using and won't try guessing at it. But you mentioned Trent Richardson as someone that didn't make his list and I'm going to jump on this opportunity ...

Players like Richardson can teach us so much about rookie evaluation if we are willing to look closely. If you were playing dynasty when he entered the league and you had him near the top of your list (like so many of us did), then an autopsy should be done on the evaluation to determine the cause of death.

It is one thing to draft a player in the mid-2nd or take a 4th round flier and miss. But to get a goose-egg on a 1.01 pick or 1.03 ... there should be critical review done to the process to avoid the same mistake going forward. The magic pixie dust that DD is using may have come from some such review in the past.
Well, Richardson made the list, just as a Tier 4 guy. Which again is stunningly low, and accurate ... or perhaps even too generous!

What *was* the lesson from Richardson, anyways? I didn't pay close enough attention to college scouting or even the NFL at that time.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Amazon [Bot] and 37 guests