But being the first back with 2,500 combined yards receiving and rushing. That says enough by itself.

But, as you pointed out, their system is broken for a handful of reasons:

1. It’s completely subjective. Their grading system is vague. They appear to assign a value to a player for each individual play ranging from 2.0 (very good) to -2.0 (very bad), with 0.5 increments in between. That’s difficult to begin with, but becomes impossible when you’re dealing with a player as explosive as CJ, which leads to the next point.

2. The range isn’t wide enough. It leaves inconsistencies. CJ’s first game versus Houston (16/197/2 TDs) has a lower rating than, week 13 versus Indy (27,121,0 TDs). Without going back and looking at the tape, I’ve got a good guess that just means that CJ had fewer plays for a loss against Indy.

Let’s consider that a “bad” play is a loss of 8 yards. That would give CJ a result of -1.5 for that play. Now, also consider that a 91 yard rushing touchdown against Houston is a “very good” play, and awards him 2 points for that play. Well, if we’re being fair in this process, these values should have balance. IE. 3 plays with a value of “2” should equal in “goodness” to the “badness” associated with 4 plays worth “-1.5”. or 8 plays worth “-1”. Yet every sports fan will happily trade three 97 yard touchdowns for even eight 8 yard rushing losses (if they’re valued at -1).

The system probably works great when comparing bruising backs. But, the large gains aren’t given enough value for a “boom or bust” back like CJ to be represented well in this sort of a system.

Looks like they are trying to carve into the niche of FO to me.

Site reader Stephanie Stradley of Fan House has an interview with Sam Monson from the site. Read it here and draw your own conclusions.

When Monson was explaining their system and used the WR’s drops as an example he must be thinking about Nate.