This article is part of a series in which I evaluate 2022 rookie running backs solely on their ability to run the ball. The first installments can be found here. If you happened to already catch those and don’t need a refresher on my methodology, feel free to skip to the player-focused analysis below the picture of Cincinnati’s Jerome Ford a couple paragraphs down.
Outside the ability of whoever happens to be running the ball, there is a whole mess of variables that factor into the effectiveness of a given rushing attack: scheme, play-calling tendencies, opponent strength and scheme, weather, offensive line play, surrounding skill-position talent, etc. And given this entanglement, separating the contributions of the ball carrier from the offensive environment in which he operates is not a straightforward task. My approach to doing that is centered around measuring the degree to which a running back is over- or under-performing the per-carry output of the other running backs on his team.
Starting from the premise that good runners do more with what they are given than do bad runners, it stands to reason that, provided players are operating under generally the same conditions (like, for example, playing on the same team), better backs should produce more per carry than lesser backs. Using this logic, we can establish a baseline for comparing efficiency between players on the same team; for each running back, we can compare his performance (X) to the collective performance of every other running back on the team (Y). If X > Y (essentially, if dude is doing more with his carries than his teammates are with theirs), we can probably conclude that the player in question is a good player, at least to some relative degree.
Assuming that this is a sound method of evaluating running backs relative to their teammates, we can then extend our comparisons to players from other teams (we’re really just creating a baseline for efficiency comparisons similar to how Dominator Rating and other market share-based metrics create baselines for volume-based comparisons).
The key metrics I use to evaluate running back performance vs. that of their teammates are called Yards Per Carry+, Chunk Rate+, and a metric I developed recently called Box-Adjusted Efficiency Rating, or BAE. I also like to use a metric called Breakaway Conversion Rate, but that is not a teammate-relative measure and we’ll therefore look into it separately.
The metrics are pretty straightforward: YPC+ is the degree to which a player over- or under-performs his teammates in yards per carry, and Chunk Rate+ is the degree to which a player over- or under-performs his teammates in rate of “chunk” runs (which I classify as runs of 10 yards or more). At a basic level, I want my running back prospects to find a way to produce more per carry than the other backs on the team, and part of that puzzle is navigating the line of scrimmage and extending runs into the secondary at a higher rate than his backfield mates. YPC+ and Chunk Rate+ measure the degree to which a player does both of these things.
BAE also does those things, but it improves upon Yards Per Carry+ by using a weighted average of a player’s per carry efficiency on carries vs. various amounts of defenders in the box (using data from Sports Info Solutions), relative to the per carry efficiency of other running backs on his team vs. the same box counts. The resulting percentage indicates to what degree a runner over- or under-performed his teammates on his total rushing attempts, relative to how often he faced each box count. BAE is a more comprehensive metric than is YPC+, and I will defer to it accordingly, but YPC+ and Chunk Rate+ will still be used given that the sample of data I have for those metrics goes back a decade-plus (while I’m only able to generate BAE Ratings going back to the 2018 college football season).
THE METRICS
Jerome Ford started his career at Alabama, realized after two years that he wasn’t going to get the playing time in Tuscaloosa that he needed to show his talents, and then transferred to Cincinnati where he posted a light 1,300 yards and 19 touchdowns on the ground after taking over lead-back duties in 2021. His production exploded once he was free from competing with a depth chart full of 5-star recruits, and so did his team-relative efficiency.
As an underclassman at Bama, Ford carried the ball 31 times and lagged behind other Tide runners by 0.68 yards per carry, while on 288 carries as a Bearcat, he outdid other Cincinnati backs by 0.62. His efficiency at those two stops together give him a career YPC+ of 0.50, a mark in the 50th-percentile among backs drafted since 2007. He was more impressive at creating big plays, as he ripped off 10-yard gains at a 2.32-percent greater rate than his teammates over his career (65th-percentile) and turned those chunks into breakaways of at least 20 yards at a 90th-percentile clip of 40.3-percent. The film grinders tell me that Ford is a blazer, and the numbers certainly suggest that that explosiveness translates to the field.
Ford’s per carry efficiency numbers when accounting for defenders in the box are a bit weird, honestly. He posted the team-relative efficiency marks listed above while facing 0.14 fewer defenders in the box than his teammates did (10th-percentile), which is the lightest team-relative box count among any back in this class that weighs at least 200-pounds. His per carry output against those boxes was good for a 114.9-percent BAE Rating, a 47th-percentile mark. A closer look, however, reveals that Ford actually lagged behind his teammates against 5, 6, and 8-man boxes, and only outdid his backfield mates on runs against 7 and 9-man boxes that represent just 27-percent of his career carries. I’m not sure if that’s simply a curiosity or more a cause for concern, but either way, Ford’s box-adjusted efficiency relative to his teammates (who averaged 3.14 stars as high school recruits, a number in the 46th percentile) is average, at best.
RUSHING EFFICIENCY SCORE AND COMPS
According to my infallible running back model’s Rushing Efficiency Score, a composite that accounts for all the non-BAE metrics discussed above in addition to overall team quality, rushing volume, offensive line play, and opponent strength, Jerome Ford earns a 56.4 out of 100. According to a prototype composite rating that is centered around the box count-adjusted numbers, Ford scores a 55.9. Given that consistency, I’m fairly confident in Ford’s being a decent-but-not-great prospect as a pure runner.
The running back model also generates comps, and at nearly 5-11, 209-pounds, and an assumed 4.40 in the forty yard dash (maybe I’m being generous, but fuck it), the most similar players in the “pure runner” category (which accounts for all the non-BAE metrics touched on above, in addition to physical measurable) are the following:
The common thread in this wild list is relatively slimly-built backs who were dynamic in the open field as collegiate runners. Ford doesn’t have the receiving chops of Christian McCaffrey or Michael Carter or Travis Etienne, but stylistically, he does look a bit like Ronald Jones or Chuba Hubbard as an explosive runner with a wiry frame.
LAST WORD
I think both Chuba Hubbard and Ronald Jones were better prospects than Jerome Ford is, and even they kind of fit in the “tweener” sub-category of running backs who are a hair undersized (or at least tall relative to their weight) and don’t possess excellent receiving chops. It’s tough for guys like that to latch on as something more than a committee member in the NFL, and that’s where I would anticipate Ford landing if he were to hit the high end of his range of outcomes. He’s a fine talent, but I’m not particularly excited about the prospect of landing him in even the second round of rookie drafts.