re: Why is Derrick Henry 1st team AA RB

quote:

---

Okay, buddy. We do have a way, and its called on field production and looking at each player perform with our eye balls. I am not the one that used something as intangible as NFL scout evaluations to come to a final determination of who is better.

---

Production is a horrible measurement of talent. If you don't recognize that than you are just a blatant homer.


Eye-test is obviously flawed, but its what NFL scouts use. Think of all the things that you would use to measure the talent of a RB and how do the 2 RBs stack up? I would put Henry is 3rd at the highest behind Fournette and Dalvin Cook.

Straight line Speed: Fournette>>>Henry

Acceleration: Fournette>>>>>>>>>>Henry

Lateral Quickness: Fournette>>>>>>>>>>Henry

Size: Henry>>>Fournette

Power/Strength: Henry>>Fournette

Vision: Henry>>Fournette

Receiving: Fournette>>>Henry

Elusiveness: Fournette>>>>>> Henry

Athleticism: Fournette>>>>Henry

quote:

---

Production is a horrible measurement of talent. If you don't recognize that than you are just a blatant homer.


Eye-test is obviously flawed, but its what NFL scouts use.

---

quote:

---

field production and looking at each player perform with our eye balls

---

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, huh?

quote:

---

I guess thats why he's going to New York and most of those guys didnt.......

---

Because most of them didn't play for Alabama? Ingram won it rushing for a meager ~1600 yards.. and his ypc was like 6.1 compared to Henrys 5.86.

Every single RB I listed is/was a better RB than Henry is. I admit I forget sometimes that the heisman is not a positional award.

I'll give you the fact that the term "athleticism" is one of the most broad terms used in sports. Everyone has a different opinion of what an "athletic" person is.

quote:

---

Did you not realize that I broke up your two methods into different paragraphs on purpose? I said production is just a horrible measure then I said that eye-ball test (while also flawed) is the only real way to determine the value of an individual player in a team sport.

So I agreed with your second method, then just used it to show you why most people will tell you that Fournette is better than Henry.

---

Eyeball tests aren't just flawed. They're frequently outright wrong because eyeballs will tell the observer what the observer wants to see.

That said, I firmly believe Fournette is the best back right now. If running against mediocre competition guaranteed yards, CFB would be filled with 2000+ yard rushers. Fournette has an excellent combination of situational awareness and athleticism and if I had to put down money (say, somebody was holding a gun to my head) I'd bet Fournette has a better pro career. But the lengths people will go in order to diminish what Henry has done is as clear an argument as one could find for why eyeball tests, especially amongst fans, are nearly worthless. They care too much about their own interests and part of that is trying to diminish the accomplishments of players/teams who compare too favorably to their own.

2 more games and 68 more carries

quote:

---

Vision: Henry>>Fournette

---

5.8 yards a carry vs 6.4 yards carry

great vision

quote:

---

They're frequently outright wrong because eyeballs will tell the observer what the observer wants to see.

---

Definitely. But is there a better way? If you are good enough at identifying talent then its significantly better than any other measurement of talent. Certainly more so than production.

quote:

---

Eyeball tests aren't just flawed. They're frequently outright wrong because eyeballs will tell the observer what the observer wants to see.

---

Most of these scouts aren't trying to see anything besides how good a player is.

With running backs in the NFL is it going to be 50% how physically talented they are 50% how good their oline.

quote:

---

Definitely. But is there a better way? If you are good enough at identifying talent then its significantly better than any other measurement of talent. Certainly more so than production.

---

Production obviously isn't perfect either. You have to identify the system, the opportunities, the competition, the quality of surrounding talent (especially the line here), etc. This problem is most evident in assessing QBs and RBs, so I grant it's a real concern with this particular issue. But it's not a non-issue until you establish the aforementioned points. The point I'd make is you have to do the exact same things with the eyeball system. That's actually why, imho, it's a lot harder to evaluate recruits applying for college than it is to evaluate college players entering the draft. The quality of all aspects of the game can be wildly variable.

I do have a problem with the extreme importance placed on the combine system (as referenced obliquely earlier in this thread) as well. There's no question LF is a top-notch athlete. He's fast enough to elude defenses or outrun them on an open field, but strong enough to truck linebackers. But NFL rosters are filled -- and quickly not filled -- with superb athletes who couldn't hack it as NFL players. There's so much more to be a good player, and production, eyeball tests, and physical measurables are all highly important in assessing a player.

(And even that gets more complicated if you're deciding who to draft first. What do you do when two players are on run-heavy teams? In this particular case, it's not much help since we're comparing two RBs in run-heavy systems this year.)