2021 Rookie Tiers

[Dynasty DeLorean]

“Twisting myself in knots” aka actually doing some research and using sound logic and data. This is a joke right?

“Unwilling to investigate” says the person clinging to an opinion they did zero investigating on, lmao.

[Jigga94]

Here. I’ll do it.

As you can see on this chart, there is a correlation, but that trend line is strongly influenced by the terrible outcomes of RBs with speed scores under 92. Remove them, and there’s basically no trend.

Like I said earlier, we know low speed scores are really bad prognostic indicators, but we can’t really say that there’s a meaningful difference between 114 and 118. This is demonstrated by the data we have.

The problem with speed score is that it’s way more predictive for rushing success than it is for overall fantasy/NFL success, likely because it doesn’t correlate at all with success in the receiving game. It’s still a useful tool, and if everything is truly equal I’ll take the guy with the better score, but it’s most useful as a cutoff.

Nice chart. Looks like under 92 (around 30th percentile) and lower are worth steering clear from or at least be cautious about

Slower than 4.6 and under 200 lbs would fit that criteria. However someone at 225 could run 4.7 and be at 92 score and I don't think we've ever had some one run over 4.7 and be relevant at RB?? Edit: Blount looks like the only example I can find recently

Of course, I don't think 40 times or speed scores matter too much for RB either but it's an interesting discussion.
JT 121, CEH 92.5

[OhCruelestRanter]

Here. I’ll do it.

As you can see on this chart, there is a correlation, but that trend line is strongly influenced by the terrible outcomes of RBs with speed scores under 92. Remove them, and there’s basically no trend.

Like I said earlier, we know low speed scores are really bad prognostic indicators, but we can’t really say that there’s a meaningful difference between 114 and 118. This is demonstrated by the data we have.

The problem with speed score is that it’s way more predictive for rushing success than it is for overall fantasy/NFL success, likely because it doesn’t correlate at all with success in the receiving game. It’s still a useful tool, and if everything is truly equal I’ll take the guy with the better score, but it’s most useful as a cutoff.

Nice chart. Looks like under 92 (around 30th percentile) and lower are worth steering clear from or at least be cautious about

Slower than 4.6 and under 200 lbs would fit that criteria. However someone at 225 could run 4.7 and be at 92 score and I don't think we've ever had some one run over 4.7 and be relevant at RB?? Edit: Blount looks like the only example I can find recently

Of course, I don't think 40 times or speed scores matter too much for RB either but it's an interesting discussion.
JT 121, CEH 92.5

Yeah- like anything of these formulaic scores, it’s likely to fall apart at the extremes. I doubt a 300 lb guy who ran a 4.9 could play RB, even if that would be a speed score above 104.

If you’re curious, the highest speed score by a RB was Keith Marshall’s 126.9. Vernon Davis’ score would be 136.8. Montez Sweat would be 137.5.

[Dynasty DeLorean]

Is there any way to filter by draft capital. For example, use only players that went top 3 rounds or something.

edit: never mind, thought you had done it yourself

[cantguardjake]

I usually read the Football Outsiders speed score analysis each year (link for those interested https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat- ... score-2020).

They mention 2 lines, being the “Arian Foster line” and “Ahmad Bradshaw line” whereby Foster is the only player with a speed score under 100 to average 1000 yards rushing over his first 5 seasons. Whilst that’s a pretty arbitrary number they include a table showing speed scores correlation to average yards rushing in a running backs first 5 seasons, which is pretty interesting.

Like the above chart there looks to be a pretty clear cut off at around 90, which is close to the “Ahmad Bradshaw line” whereby he is the only player with a speed score below 87.7 to manage 1000 yards rushing in their first 5 seasons combined.

As pointed out above, what these tables don’t do is account for passing yardage and a backs involvement in the passing game, which is obviously a big part of the modern game. Based on the above tables it shows that, for example, Clyde and James Robinson statistically are unlikely to average 1000 yards rushing over their first 5 seasons - but they both showed the ability to be impactful in the passing game which bodes well for their future success.

I think where the tables are most useful is highlighting how someone with a sub 100 speed score and no involvement in the passing game is an easy sell if they produce early in the rushing game - players like Alfred Morris, for example.

[Pullo Vision]

Here. I’ll do it.

As you can see on this chart, there is a correlation, but that trend line is strongly influenced by the terrible outcomes of RBs with speed scores under 92. Remove them, and there’s basically no trend.

Like I said earlier, we know low speed scores are really bad prognostic indicators, but we can’t really say that there’s a meaningful difference between 114 and 118. This is demonstrated by the data we have.

The problem with speed score is that it’s way more predictive for rushing success than it is for overall fantasy/NFL success, likely because it doesn’t correlate at all with success in the receiving game. It’s still a useful tool, and if everything is truly equal I’ll take the guy with the better score, but it’s most useful as a cutoff.

Interesting graph. Some questions-
The X axis says combine speed score. Does that mean players with only pro day numbers are eliminated?
The Y axis is unclear- NFL AVG/G measures what?
The legend indicates the line refers to a number. What is it? Seconds, ie 40 time? Years, ie career length? Something else?

[Bronco Billy]

Here. I’ll do it.

As you can see on this chart, there is a correlation, but that trend line is strongly influenced by the terrible outcomes of RBs with speed scores under 92. Remove them, and there’s basically no trend.

Like I said earlier, we know low speed scores are really bad prognostic indicators, but we can’t really say that there’s a meaningful difference between 114 and 118. This is demonstrated by the data we have.

The problem with speed score is that it’s way more predictive for rushing success than it is for overall fantasy/NFL success, likely because it doesn’t correlate at all with success in the receiving game. It’s still a useful tool, and if everything is truly equal I’ll take the guy with the better score, but it’s most useful as a cutoff.

That is really well done. Great job

[Dynasty DeLorean]

I usually read the Football Outsiders speed score analysis each year (link for those interested https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat- ... score-2020).

They mention 2 lines, being the “Arian Foster line” and “Ahmad Bradshaw line” whereby Foster is the only player with a speed score under 100 to average 1000 yards rushing over his first 5 seasons. Whilst that’s a pretty arbitrary number they include a table showing speed scores correlation to average yards rushing in a running backs first 5 seasons, which is pretty interesting.

Like the above chart there looks to be a pretty clear cut off at around 90, which is close to the “Ahmad Bradshaw line” whereby he is the only player with a speed score below 87.7 to manage 1000 yards rushing in their first 5 seasons combined.

As pointed out above, what these tables don’t do is account for passing yardage and a backs involvement in the passing game, which is obviously a big part of the modern game. Based on the above tables it shows that, for example, Clyde and James Robinson statistically are unlikely to average 1000 yards rushing over their first 5 seasons - but they both showed the ability to be impactful in the passing game which bodes well for their future success.

I think where the tables are most useful is highlighting how someone with a sub 100 speed score and no involvement in the passing game is an easy sell if they produce early in the rushing game - players like Alfred Morris, for example.

Thanks for posting. Appears to confirm what I’ve been saying.

I have Bradshaws speed score as 92.4 by the way. Combine times and weights are often listed incorrectly. There is no single resource with all accurate information. I did my best to verify all the info for my own database.

edit: I have a 4.55 listed for Bradshaw and they have a 4.61. I'll have to check this.

ESPN Article from 2008 has it listed as 4.55 https://www.espn.com/nfl/news/story?id=3337822

The thing is, not all 40 times are created equal. Brandon Jacobs' 4.56 40 is incredible when you consider his 267-pound frame. On the other hand, Ahmad Bradshaw's 4.55 40 was disappointing for a player who weighed in nearly 70 pounds lighter. Adjusting 40 times for weight helps translate a raw metric into something that's more indicative of a player's NFL potential.

The combineresults page has 4.61 but they don't always have accurate info. https://nflcombineresults.com/playerpage.php?i=7613

*shrug*

Arian Foster was injured and therefor his was a pro day time in which he may not have even been fully healthy. So just FYI to everyone reading that both speed scores for foster and Bradshaw listed in the article are potentially misleading.

[OhCruelestRanter]

Here. I’ll do it.

As you can see on this chart, there is a correlation, but that trend line is strongly influenced by the terrible outcomes of RBs with speed scores under 92. Remove them, and there’s basically no trend.

Like I said earlier, we know low speed scores are really bad prognostic indicators, but we can’t really say that there’s a meaningful difference between 114 and 118. This is demonstrated by the data we have.

The problem with speed score is that it’s way more predictive for rushing success than it is for overall fantasy/NFL success, likely because it doesn’t correlate at all with success in the receiving game. It’s still a useful tool, and if everything is truly equal I’ll take the guy with the better score, but it’s most useful as a cutoff.

Interesting graph. Some questions-
The X axis says combine speed score. Does that mean players with only pro day numbers are eliminated?
The Y axis is unclear- NFL AVG/G measures what?
The legend indicates the line refers to a number. What is it? Seconds, ie 40 time? Years, ie career length? Something else?

Great questions. It’s not my data or graph, so I’m not sure if proday time were eliminated or adjusted.

AV/G is a pro-football-reference metric. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... x37a8.html

The line is the R-squared between the Speed Score and AV/G.

[cantguardjake]

I usually read the Football Outsiders speed score analysis each year (link for those interested https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat- ... score-2020).

They mention 2 lines, being the “Arian Foster line” and “Ahmad Bradshaw line” whereby Foster is the only player with a speed score under 100 to average 1000 yards rushing over his first 5 seasons. Whilst that’s a pretty arbitrary number they include a table showing speed scores correlation to average yards rushing in a running backs first 5 seasons, which is pretty interesting.

Like the above chart there looks to be a pretty clear cut off at around 90, which is close to the “Ahmad Bradshaw line” whereby he is the only player with a speed score below 87.7 to manage 1000 yards rushing in their first 5 seasons combined.

As pointed out above, what these tables don’t do is account for passing yardage and a backs involvement in the passing game, which is obviously a big part of the modern game. Based on the above tables it shows that, for example, Clyde and James Robinson statistically are unlikely to average 1000 yards rushing over their first 5 seasons - but they both showed the ability to be impactful in the passing game which bodes well for their future success.

I think where the tables are most useful is highlighting how someone with a sub 100 speed score and no involvement in the passing game is an easy sell if they produce early in the rushing game - players like Alfred Morris, for example.

Thanks for posting. Appears to confirm what I’ve been saying.

I have Bradshaws speed score as 92.4 by the way. Combine times and weights are often listed incorrectly. There is no single resource with all accurate information. I did my best to verify all the info for my own database.

edit: I have a 4.55 listed for Bradshaw and they have a 4.61. I'll have to check this.

ESPN Article from 2008 has it listed as 4.55 https://www.espn.com/nfl/news/story?id=3337822

The thing is, not all 40 times are created equal. Brandon Jacobs' 4.56 40 is incredible when you consider his 267-pound frame. On the other hand, Ahmad Bradshaw's 4.55 40 was disappointing for a player who weighed in nearly 70 pounds lighter. Adjusting 40 times for weight helps translate a raw metric into something that's more indicative of a player's NFL potential.

The combineresults page has 4.61 but they don't always have accurate info. https://nflcombineresults.com/playerpage.php?i=7613

*shrug*

Arian Foster was injured and therefor his was a pro day time in which he may not have even been fully healthy. So just FYI to everyone reading that both speed scores for foster and Bradshaw listed in the article are potentially misleading.

I’ve also found it difficult to get accurate measurements. Claypool is usually listed at 228 on both Wikipedia and nflcombineresults but that was actually his senior bowl weigh in, not the weight he actually tested at.

It would be nice if there was a uniform data base.

[Bronco Billy]

“Twisting myself in knots” aka actually doing some research and using sound logic and data. This is a joke right?

“Unwilling to investigate” says the person clinging to an opinion they did zero investigating on, lmao.

I guess this is how you get a 90% accuracy rating. Revisionist history:

If a poor speed score is an indicator of failure then a high speed score is likely an indicator of success.

Thanks for posting. Appears to confirm what I’ve been saying.

Hope you have a great day today.

[cantguardjake]

“Twisting myself in knots” aka actually doing some research and using sound logic and data. This is a joke right?

“Unwilling to investigate” says the person clinging to an opinion they did zero investigating on, lmao.

I guess this is how you get a 90% accuracy rating. Revisionist history:

If a poor speed score is an indicator of failure then a high speed score is likely an indicator of success.

Thanks for posting. Appears to confirm what I’ve been saying.

Hope you have a great day today.

Did you see the table I posted?

[cantguardjake]

I feel like it’s going to be another lean year like 2019 for your model DD, there is essentially zero productive size / speed freaks this year.

Hopefully Harris turns in a low 4.5 to make it interesting.

[OhCruelestRanter]

I feel like it’s going to be another lean year like 2019 for your model DD, there is essentially zero productive size / speed freaks this year.

Hopefully Harris turns in a low 4.5 to make it interesting.

If Etienne weighs in at like 208 and blazes a 4.40 (after adjusting for the pro-day) then that could also make things interesting.

[Dynasty DeLorean]

I feel like it’s going to be another lean year like 2019 for your model DD, there is essentially zero productive size / speed freaks this year.

Hopefully Harris turns in a low 4.5 to make it interesting.

Yeah, looking similar to 2019 so far. With regards to 40 times, etienne likely needs a high 4.3x or low 4.4x and najee needs a low 4.5x to make things interesting. There are people out there who do think both could happen, so we’ll see. Of course it’s going to be a mess with adjusting for pro day times. No combine really hurts.