Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RB Adjusted 40 Numbers

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • RB Adjusted 40 Numbers

    Alright, here's how things work.

    The formula for the adjusted 40 score is (Weight * 200)/(40 Time^4). The multipliers are as such in the formula to ensure both accuracy as well as simplicity -- the scores that result revolve around a 100-point scale. The average adjusted 40 score of all running backs is 98.5; for all drafted running backs, it's 102.4; for all running backs selected in the first round, it's 112.1. Consider adjusted 40 score to be a sort of speed score -- a higher number is better.
    http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3337822

    Using the numbers Scott posted, here are the resullts.

    • Cedric Peerman 110.2

    • Andre Brown 110.2

    • Ian Johnson 107.2

    • Javarris Williams 106.9

    • Chris Wells 105.9

    • Kory Sheets 104.2

    • Rashad Jennings 103.2

    • Donald Brown 101.5

    • Chris Ogbonnaya 98.3

    • James Davis 98.2

    • Mike Goodson 98.0

    • Marlon Lucky 97.3

    • Javon Ringer 95.7

    • Glen Coffee 95.0

    • Knowshon Moreno 94.4

    • Anthony Kimble 93.2

    • Bernard Scott 92.5

    • Shonn Greene 91.5

    • Tyrell Sutton 90.2

    • Jeremiah Johnson 87.8

    • Branden Ore 87.0

    • Gartrell Johnson 86.0

    • Kahlil Brown 83.3

    • Arian Foster NA

    • P.J. Hill NA

    • LeSean McCoy NA



    To help put this in perspective, here are a few guys from the NFL:

    Chris Johnson- 123.8

    Brandon Jacobs- 123.5

    Adrian Peterson-121.2

    Steven Jackson- 117.8

    Ryan Grant- 117.4

    Jonathon Stewart- 116.8

    MJD- 112.1

    Matt Forte- 111.2

    Remember, these are just numbers folks, take what you will from them.

  • #2
    I am a big fan of this stat, get an idea of the player's blend of size and speed


    Follow me on Twitter! http://twitter.com/#!/aMo_Captain

    Comment


    • #3
      Interesting article. I really wouldn't have guessed 40 times were so significant for a RB with vision and balance etc seeming so much more vital on an actual NFL field.

      Oh and hell yeah on Chris Johnson's score :)

      ....

      But a big frown on Chris Henry, who I'm sure must have had a crazy score ar 4.40, and 230lb.

      Comment


      • #4
        Good thread. Shows how crappy this RB class really is. Wells is the only runner I can get a little excited about, but I think he'll be too much of an injury risk to be a bonafide starter in the NFL.

        Thanks to BK for the sig

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by OzTitan View Post
          Interesting article. I really wouldn't have guessed 40 times were so significant for a RB with vision and balance etc seeming so much more vital on an actual NFL field.

          Oh and hell yeah on Chris Johnson's score :)

          ....

          But a big frown on Chris Henry, who I'm sure must have had a crazy score ar 4.40, and 230lb.
          Hahaha ouch 122.7 dang. Don't you hate it when you get stuck with the the ones that go against the data?

          Originally posted by umphrey View Post
          Good thread. Shows how crappy this RB class really is. Wells is the only runner I can get a little excited about, but I think he'll be too much of an injury risk to be a bonafide starter in the NFL.
          Ya, as of right now at least no one is a 1st round RB number wise.

          Comment


          • #6
            from the madd futher mucker

            From the standpoint of pure physics, weight adjusted numbers make sense in theory as a predictor of how well a RB should be able to "move a pile". This measure would be great for goal line and short yardage situations except it ignores completely three other components: pad level, leg 'churn' and desire (or 'nose for the endzone')

            Taken in the abstract, this is about as useless as any other measure that is taken in the abstract. Which means by itself it is really pretty irrelevant.
            Last edited by Twinkle Toes; 02-23-2009, 12:22 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Cicero View Post
              Ya, as of right now at least no one is a 1st round RB number wise.
              Tape > combine numbers

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by AkiliSmith View Post
                Tape > combine numbers
                Like I said.

                Originally posted by Cicero View Post
                Remember, these are just numbers folks, take what you will from them.
                I would still bet that someone is going in round 1.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I really like Andre Brown and Cedric Peerman.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I would still bet that Moreno is going in round 1.

                    Andre Brown and Peerman helped themselves today, but both are late 3rd to 4th rounders IMO.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Texas Homer View Post
                      I really like Andre Brown and Cedric Peerman.
                      Peerman has small hands

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Hmm... it's interesting the degree to which this bucks the conventional wisdom about this draft. The conventional wisdom is that this draft is very deep at RB, but the numbers suggest that not a single RB is "average first round pick" quality and only seven are "average RB drafted at all" quality.

                        I suppose this draft will be a good test of the validity of this statistic. If we actually get a number of successful backs out of this draft, then the adjusted 40 times is bunk. If Ian Johnson turns out to be one of the most successful RBs drafted and the class overall is weak, then there might be something to it. At least good theories are testable.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by PossibleCabbage View Post
                          Hmm... it's interesting the degree to which this bucks the conventional wisdom about this draft. The conventional wisdom is that this draft is very deep at RB, but the numbers suggest that not a single RB is "average first round pick" quality and only seven are "average RB drafted at all" quality.

                          I suppose this draft will be a good test of the validity of this statistic. If we actually get a number of successful backs out of this draft, then the adjusted 40 times is bunk. If Ian Johnson turns out to be one of the most successful RBs drafted and the class overall is weak, then there might be something to it. At least good theories are testable.
                          After everyone's pro day I will make another thread with the pro day numbers and then average the two.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            From the madd futher mucker

                            I don't know where the conventional wisdom came from. Many (including myself) concluded early that the strength of this draft in the offensive skill positions was at WR and TE, and that the RB and QB class was relatively weak.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Oh, Devin Moore is a 100.0 if anyone was wondering.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X

                              Debug Information