It’s now been almost two months since I published this article outlining a new methodology for formulating my dynasty running back rankings, and I have directed much of my intervening efforts toward the development of a similar system for use with my devy rankings. That development process is now complete, and this article will serve as an introductory explainer for the new rankings methodology it resulted in.

As with my dynasty rankings, the devy rankings process will incorporate a point-based rating system structured around two different classifications for each player (which was first inspired by this thread from Adam Harstad). The first of those applies to both the dynasty and devy rankings and involves rating players’ sustainable professional ceilings. Basically, I’m looking to answer the following question: “What sort of real-life role and standing in the NFL could this player’s ability be expected to justifiably maintain for multiple seasons during his rookie contract, assuming he receives the requisite opportunity?”

I qualified and clarified that question in detail in October’s dynasty rankings article, but I want to quickly hit the broad strokes again here. Because running back production is so fundamentally tied to the environment in which players operate, and because we have no way of knowing in what professional environments current college players will eventually operate, it doesn’t make much sense to classify those players based on how good I think they will be in fantasy football. It makes more sense to classify them based on how good I think their in-a-vacuum abilities could allow them to be in the NFL, with all situational factors being equal and relative to other professional backs. That also means ignoring considerations about expected draft capital or brand value.

Answering the aforementioned question will involve categorizing players on the following numerical scale:

For reference, here is a sampling of where I rate current NFL players on this scale:

Unlike with the dynasty rankings, these classifications are very much subject to change on an individual basis. When we entered the season, guys like Raheim Sanders and Nick Singleton would probably have been classified as 5s or 6s on the above scale, but given their struggles in 2023, it’s now difficult to justify rating them as anything above 4s. Conversely, someone like Jonathon Brooks could jump from the 1-2 range into 3+ territory with an unexpectedly strong season. We’ll go over where I rate a bunch of different players on this scale a little later.

The second classification scale is where the devy rankings process takes a sharp diversion from the path laid by the dynasty rankings process. Given that the players on your NFL dynasty rosters are necessarily lineup-contributing assets, it makes sense to care about the kind of fantasy production they can offer you in the short-term future and independent of their inherent abilities. College players are not lineup-contributing assets (at least in a traditional devy format), so there is no short-term fantasy production to care about as a supplement to the attention we’re paying to their inherent skill-sets. What instead fills that void is projected draft capital, which I’ve classified on the following scale:

Rating players on this scale is different in a few key ways from rating players on the sustainable ceiling scale. First, the amount of players who can reasonably be placed in a particular category is necessarily constrained by several factors, the most directly relevant of which being the round distribution and size of a typical running back draft class. Given that we’ve seen an average of 5.7 and a maximum of 7 running backs selected prior to day three in a single draft over the last three years, it wouldn’t make sense to classify 40 college runners as projected picks in the third round or higher.

This scale is also different from the sustainable ceiling scale in that players’ positioning on it is only tangentially related to their actual ability to play running back. This rating is based on my subjective impression of how much the NFL will value players, while the other is based on my subjective impression of how good those players are.

Here is a sampling of players who I determined fall into each of the above categories:

By generating a weighted average between these two ratings for each player, I can produce an overall “score” that I’ve found provides a pretty good and intuitive baseline for arranging their respective dynasty values. From there, I’ll add slight modifiers based on age (to account for the varying levels of certainty we can feel in regard to our evaluations of players who could be anywhere between 17 and 23 years old), injury, and any particularly compelling intuition I might feel. Now formulated via this process, find the revamped version of the devy rankings (which now join the dynasty rankings as the best of their kind on the entire planet) right here.

Now let’s talk about where players fall for me in the sustainable ceiling classes. I’m currently projecting zero current college backs to be first-round picks, and part of that is due to a relative lack of high-end talent at the position across the collegiate landscape. As a result of that dearth, I currently rate zero current college backs as either a 7 or 6 on the sustainable ceiling class scale. There are, however, thirteen of those runners who I rate as 5s, indicating a sustainable ceiling as a “good starter” for multiple seasons in the league. Let’s talk about them.

Allen is below the level of the very best two-down prospects from recent years (guys like Nick Chubb and Jonathan Taylor), but I would place him near the top of the quality prospects who make up the second and third tiers in that archetype (players like D’Onta Foreman, Damien Harris, Rashaad Penny, AJ Dillon, and Ronald Jones). He’s big and young and athletic and has never been anything but effective on the ground in one of the best conferences in college football. If he’s a nimbler version of AJ Dillon (which I think is possible), he’s a good starter in the league.

I’ve written a decent amount about Baxter recently (see 1, 2), and as a five-star freshman, he’s one of a few guys in this group who has the potential to jump into the 6 range. A strong season-ending stretch as the Longhorns’ starter would probably be enough.

This one comes with the big if-he-looks-the-same-next-season caveat, but I think you could argue that Brooks was the best running back in college football prior to getting hurt this year.

I love Corum’s game, but I also think he’s one of the fringier players in this group. He’s been good in this post-injury season, but not quite as good as he was in 2022, and much of his evaluation going into the upcoming draft will depend on his health. I don’t like to rely on athletic testing or draft capital to tell me how I should feel about players, but insofar as those things are a proxy for medicals checking out, they’ll be particularly revealing in Corum’s case.

I’m excited to watch Gordon’s film this offseason. He’s been dominant in 2023 and has the efficiency numbers to back-up his volume stats, and tape will help me decide if he’s more Melvin Gordon or Chuba Hubbard.

The same applies for Hampton, for whom tape will help me decide if he’s more Joe Mixon or Royce Freeman.

I wrote a bit about Haynes in this article. Just 21 carries on the year means I don’t have strong personal opinions on his ability, but he’s another five-star guy who the campus2canton.com team liked and who has been good in his limited opportunities as a freshman. No reason yet to move off any priors.

Henderson has been fantastic this season, and the “fast rb go brrr” axiom means his explosiveness all but guarantees him a fantasy-relevant role at the next level. Travis Etienne-type upside doesn’t seem out of the question.

Judkins probably entered the season as a 6 in this category, but he’s been kinda bad this year and isn’t immune to falling into 4-or-below territory if it turns out that his poor performance hasn’t been the result of injuries.

Lloyd is a bit of a wild card considering I haven’t studied his tape yet, but his style of play and data profile just scream “D’Andre Swift” to me, for better and worse.

Neal has been objectively very good in both of the last two years and has NFL size, but I can’t shake the Jerome Ford vibes I get from him. Maybe that’s not even a bad thing given how admirably Ford has filled in for Nick Chubb this season, but I think the Neal crowd has higher hopes than that for him. Film study should help me work through those concerns, but I rated Neal’s sustainable ceiling as a 5 rather than a 4 anyway, largely because fast rb go brrr.

The logic here is very similar to the logic that applied with Justice Haynes. Robinson was a four-star recruit who has been excellent in limited opportunity as a freshman. He’s at a bit more risk of dropping down to the 4 range, though, given that he weighs 240 pounds and has missed multiple games due to injury this season.

Beyond those thirteen players, there are 41 current college backs who I view as having speculative ceilings as legitimate NFL contributors. The fourteen of those guys who I believe have the potential to be functional starters at the next level are the following:

And the 27 who I view as low-end starters or committee-level contributors are: