What Scouts look for in a RB

Discussion in 'Detroit Lions Blitz' started by Liongeezer, May 9, 2017.

  1. Liongeezer Ornery Old Fart

  2. Rusty Hilger VP, Wrist Cutter's Club

    Wow, this is some really good stuff, Geezer.

    You should read it. You might learn something.

    Vision, Ball Security, strength, acceleration ... these are all areas where our backs excel.
    • Zach Zenner: Ticks all boxes. Average long speed, but quickness is off the chains.
    • Ameer Abdullah: Kills it in every category. Some small questions about ball security.
    • Theo Riddick: Like AA, his quickness is off-the-chains. Probably below average strength.
    • D Washington: Falls short in the "vision" department, but kills it in the other categories.
    I feel very good about our stable of running backs based on these criteria.

  3. Blaming Barry Well-Known Member

    Interesting that it seems most of the backs he specifically mentions are on the smaller side.
  4. Rusty Hilger VP, Wrist Cutter's Club


    Yea. Frank Gore, 5'9", Ray Rice, 5'8"

    Barry Sanders, 5'8" 200 lbs.

    Interesting, to note: Sanders' and Rice's careers were mostly injury-free. And Gore missed significant time only once in 2002, but was otherwise a "carry-the-load" type back for years, like Sanders.
  5. Liongeezer Ornery Old Fart

    Careful
    Rice - 195 lbs.
    Sanders - 200 lbs
    Jamal Charles 201 lbs
    Abdullah - 205 lbs
    Gore - 217 lbs, Gore is not a small back
    Maurice Jones-Drew was only 5' 7", but weighed 215 lbs. He is not considered a small back either.
  6. Liongeezer Ornery Old Fart

    Thanks

    Uh huh

    His criteria is close to what I prescribe to. Acceleration, quickness/elusiveness is in the same category. In my book acceleration and long speed should be separate.

    Production - Averaged 3.8 yards/carry. Vision is inconsistent, does not run with the strength his size dictates few broken tackles, agility is excellent, but needs to use it to make defenders miss. Average long speed that allows defenders to catch him. My rating according to past performance - slightly below average rusher.

    Production - Averaged 4.3 yards/carry. Agree with your assessment except I wish he had better long speed and durability. Defenders catch him and has not been healthy. My rating according to past performance - NFL Caliber rusher when healthy

    Production - Averaged 3.5 yards/carry. Vision poor to average, average quickness, and poor long speed. My rating according to past performance - poor to below average rusher.

    Production - Averaged 2.9 yards/carry. Agree with your assessment. My rating according to past performance - poor rusher.
    Unless we see improvement from the other RBs, we have only one NFL Caliber RB on the roster. If he gets hurt again, we will most likely be a one-dimensional, one and done wild card team.
  7. Rusty Hilger VP, Wrist Cutter's Club

    This metric seems to suggest he is doing fine in terms of making people miss. Thirteenth in the NFL suggests he's well above average.


    [IMG]


    So the common theme we're seeing here is that each of our RBs in the stable checks off most of the criteria for being good backs. Yet, each of them fails in the same category, Production.

    You'd think it would be hard for that to be a coincidence. So you ask yourself what do they all have in common? They all rush behind one of, if not the, worst run-blocking offensive lines in the NFL. The one that ranks dead last in yards before first contact metric (pro football focus), and bottom of the list in "stuff percentage" (football outsiders). Two sources coming to the same conclusion -- that defenders are getting their hands on our backs way too early.

    The data isn't pointing at the RB's lack of skill. The second-worst OLine in that "yards-before-contact" metric is the Rams. So in order to conclude "lack of skill," I would have to entertain the idea that Todd Gurley lacks skill. Or that he had skill in 2015 but didn't in 2016. And I'm not prepared to go there yet. Doesn't feel right.

    I see lots of non-productive RBs on teams who have bad run-blocking -- and very few on teams with good run blocking. That seems to be the variable with the strongest correlation, and is the simplest answer.
  8. Liongeezer Ornery Old Fart

    I really don't like your chart. Whoever created that chart has insane accuracy down to the hundredths of a yards. That is not possible to 0.36 inches. These people are eyeballing off tv monitors, where contact was initiated, and where the ball is spotted. I would think accuracy to 0.5 yard would be the best that could be reported and that may be questionable.

    Therefore it would be difficult to ensure reliable analysis from questionable accuracy. Rusty I can't agree with your above statements.
  9. Rusty Hilger VP, Wrist Cutter's Club


    It's pretty easy to wind up with numbers like that when you're calculating averages.

    Easy example: 3 runs.

    Run 1: estimate: 2.5 yds after contact
    Run 2: Same deal. estimate: 2.5 yds after contact

    Run 3: It was 4th and inches, he broke a tackle just as he barely made the first-down marker.
    best estimate: 0.3 yds after contact.

    Add the numbers up and divide by 3 to get your average yards after contact, and you get:
    1.766666 yards after contact.

    Seems pretty straight-forward to me. And I'm not even a mathematician.

    It's pretty clear that you don't favor a scientific, reality-based approach when you evaluate players. You're an emotionally-driven person. A "feelings" guy. Feelings obviously matter to you.
  10. Huntermsu Mr. Negativity

    The fact Rusty had to make that last post has further shaken my faith in humanity... Well done Geezer.
  11. Liongeezer Ornery Old Fart

    The problem, trying to estimate where contact was initiated, gross errors could be as much as a yard. Where the ball was spotted, could be as much as 1 foot in error depending upon camera angle.
    There is also the definition of contact. What constitutes contact? I think it would be subjective between individuals.

    An example: The NFL has never reported a RBs game as 99.73 yards this game. The accuracy is +/- 1 yard. Therefore, it is actually wrong to report that a RB gains 3.6 yards/carry because the original accuracy was reported as +/- 1 yard. However, the error is accepted and becomes smaller with the greater quantity of carries and yards.

    When you report accuracy greater than the ability to measure, that is fallacy. Your above example shows how ignorant you are.
  12. Rusty Hilger VP, Wrist Cutter's Club


    The above example shows that I passed basic math in grade school. And that I have functioning life skills.

    Yours shows that you have no business having dialogue with functioning humans. Thanks for playing Geezer.
  13. Rusty Hilger VP, Wrist Cutter's Club


    Sorry, try again. According to "Geezer Math" it's impossible to gauge yardage as minute as 0.2 yards, you have to round up to the nearest whole number now, which is 4.0. Same as DeMarco Murray. On second thought, throw out yards per carry altogether. No way the NFL can measure that accurately. It's a scam and conspiracy by the league. :D

    And since it's a mathematical impossibility to determine whether any player actually gained the necessary yardage to cross the goal line on any given touchdown with mathematical certainty ... I've decided that the entire game is invalid and the Lions are Superbowl champions. Party at my place.
  14. Liongeezer Ornery Old Fart

    As in functioning humans = walk, talk, fuck it or eat it or piss on it. Is living a dog's life good for you? LOL
  15. Liongeezer Ornery Old Fart

    What part of this don't you understand? I know this blows your grade school math mind, but that is how life works.
  16. Rusty Hilger VP, Wrist Cutter's Club



    You don't get LIFE, Geezer, so you can't comment on it. You fail, and you make the world a dumber place to live in. Go run and play.
  17. Huntermsu Mr. Negativity

    This is truly surreal...
  18. TheDane Well-Known Member

  19. Rusty Hilger VP, Wrist Cutter's Club

    Did someone say cereal?



    [IMG]
  20. Felix True Fan

    Im not a big Rusty fan, but jeezuz Geezer, youre making him look like a fucking Prometheus Society member
  21. Liongeezer Ornery Old Fart

    You guys really don't understand? Oh my! Okay. Lets do this to get all the troglodytes up to speed.

    We will do yards first.

    A Running Back gains 50 yards in every game of the season with a reported accuracy of +/- 1 yard/game. IOW 2.0 percent error. End of Season = 800 yards with a cumulative inaccuracy of 16 yards.

    Running Back #2 gains 100 yards in every game of the season with a reported accuracy of +/- 1 yard/game. IOW 1.0 percent error. End of Season = 1600 yards total with a cumulative inaccuracy of 16 yards.

    Barry Sanders 1997 season gains 2053 yards or 128.3 yards/game with a reported accuracy of +/- 1 yard/game. IOW 0.78 percent error. End of Season = 2053 yards with a cumulative inaccuracy of 16 yards.

    As you can see percent error goes down with increased yardage/game.

    Now we will do the carries

    This is far simpler and nothing more than dividing carries/game into the reported accuracy of +/- 1 yard/game

    Therefore as the number of carries increase, percent error per carry decreases.

    Comprende! Now wasn't that easy?
  22. goldenlions International Playboy

    When you divide 120 by 34 what number do you get?
    Huntermsu likes this.
  23. Rusty Hilger VP, Wrist Cutter's Club

    Not trying to defend Geezer here necessarily. :D

    But there is kind of a point in this. Mainly, that it is pretty alarming how very little difference there is between one RB and another. And a lot of times, the margin for error can be a greater factor than the actual difference between said backs.

    Passionate debates rage on over differences in 40-yard dash times of hundredths of seconds. And average yards per carry of 0.2 yards. Look at DeMarco Murray, whom most would consider "really good." Yet the average yards-per-carry separating him and Theo Riddick is practically nothing. It's 0.2 yards. Less than the size of my dick separates these guys on any given play.

    Then you consider the impact of the offensive line. All you need to significantly improve our running game is give each back the length of my cock of extra running room and suddenly you're looking at a formidable running game.

    The yards separating the better QBs and WRs in the league is enormous by comparison. When you complain about the Lions not drafting a RB, you're basically saying "boo-hoo! We should have drafted the guy who could have increased our average offensive play by Rusty's dick size."
  24. Liongeezer Ornery Old Fart

    NO. You really are a bonehead. This is so sad only.
  25. Huntermsu Mr. Negativity


    I thought we were suppose to round to the nearest whole number? Don't you know anything about math...

Share This Page