• Texas running back Jonathon Brooks performs well in 2023: Just one year as a starter was all it took for Brooks to produce some of the better numbers in this year’s class.
• Bucky Irving owns some of the best production metrics in this class: He’ll have to overcome size and athletic testing concerns, but Irving should pique the interest of fantasy managers, especially if he earns Day Two draft capital.
• Draft and trade for yourself: Try PFF's Mock Draft Simulator — trade picks and players and mock for your favorite NFL team.
Estimated reading time: 6 minutes
Click here for more draft tools:
2024 Mock Draft Simulator | 2024 Big Board | 2024 Draft Guide
2024 Player Profiles | 2024 Mock Drafts | NCAA Premium Stats
With the NFL draft right around the corner, the fantasy community is often significantly invested in the incoming rookie running back class, and there is a lot to sort out with this year’s incoming running back prospects.
There has been plenty of talk about the 2024 rookie running back class not being one of the better classes in recent years, and the data backs that up. Since 2018, there has been at least one running back to crack the 90th percentile in the production model referenced in this article, and 2024’s class just barely makes the cut. There has also been just one season (2022) in that span where a running back was not taken in the first round and that appears to be the case this year as well.
- Overall percentile rank is based off a model which includes a player’s career rushing numbers and grades – both overall and situationally, missed tackles forced, yards after contact, explosiveness, some receiving metrics and more.
- This model includes all running back prospects over the past seven years (since 2018).
- Strengths are considered production datapoints where a particular running back scored the highest in comparison to the prospect pool dating back to 2019.
- Weaknesses are the areas where a particular running back scored below the 50th percentile in that particular production category compared to the prospect pool since 2019.
- This article will be a spotlight on the top-five running backs on the PFF big board, with a look at some of the other standouts at the position using the same model coming soon.
Jonathon Brooks, Texas
- No. 1 ranked running back on the PFF big board
- 84th percentile production profile among college running back prospects since 2018
Brooks was starved for opportunity behind both Bijan Robinson and Roschon Johnson at Texas, but when given the opportunity in 2023, he delivered one of the more impressive seasons among FBS running backs. Brooks delivered a 91.9 PFF rushing grade that ranked among the 90th percentile of prospects since 2018, delivering over 1,100 rushing yards, 10 rushing touchdowns and just one fumble.
A large part of Brooks’ high-end rushing grade came from delivering additional yardage on top of what his team provided for him, including a 95th percentile missed tackles forced per attempt (0.34) and 87th percentile yards after contact per attempt (4.1).
Brooks’ career college analytics strengths:
| Metric | Value | Rank among RB prospects since 2018 |
| Missed tackles forced per attempt | 0.34 | 95th percentile |
| Best single-season rushing grade | 91.9 | 90th percentile |
| Yards after contact per attempt | 4.1 | 87th percentile |
| Yards per route run | 1.50 | 81st percentile |
An interesting area where Brooks ranked lower compared to his peers was when facing heavy boxes — an area where past first-round running backs like Bijan Robinson, Jonathan Taylor, Najee Harris, and Jahmyr Gibbs excelled. Brooks’ struggles compare with Day 2 prospects like D’Andre Swift, Breece Hall, Ronald Jones, Kenneth Walker, and Zach Charbonnet. Among the nine first-round running backs since 2018, only Rashaad Penny and Sony Michel did not earn at least a 74th percentile mark in this category — coming in well below that mark at 37th percentile and 26th percentile, respectively.
Brooks’ production profile places him closer to the end of the second round or early third round as far as expected draft capital.
Brooks’ college analytics weaknesses:
| Metric | Value | Rank among RB prospects since 2018 |
| Rushing grade versus an eight-man box | 75.0 | 50th percentile |
| Explosive run rate | 14.3% | 31st percentile |
Jaylen Wright, Tennessee
- No. 2 ranked running back on the PFF big board
- 80th percentile production profile among college running back prospects since 2018
Wright had one of the better combines this year at the running back position, which included posting a 4.38-second 40-time, so it isn’t a surprise to see one of his greatest strengths be his explosive run rate. Wright posted 35 total runs of 10-plus yards in 2023, which was a top-20 mark among all FBS running backs last season.
Wright has a larger body of work than the previously mentioned Brooks, having handled at least 85 carries in each of his three seasons at Tennessee, totaling nearly 2,300 rushing yards to go along with 18 rushing touchdowns. While Wright’s touchdown total was down from 2022 (10) to 2023 (four), he was able to deliver a career year in PFF rushing grade (91.2), yards after contact per attempt (4.35), and missed tackles forced per attempt (0.32).
Wright’s career college analytics strengths:
| Metric | Value | Rank among RB prospects since 2018 |
| Best single-season rushing grade | 91.2 | 84th percentile |
| Explosive run rate | 19.3% | 85th percentile |
Much like Brooks, Wright could not deliver versus stacked boxes, ending up in the 30th percentile for rushing grade in that situation. Wright’s overall profile puts him just inside of the third round for his expected draft capital.
Wright’s college analytics weaknesses:
| Metric | Value | Rank among RB prospects since 2018 |
| Rushing grade versus an 8-man box | 70.9 | 30th percentile |
| Yards per route run | 0.66 | 15th percentile |
Blake Corum, Michigan
- No. 3 ranked running back on the PFF big board
- 85th percentile production profile among college running back prospects since 2018
Corum posted elite rushing grades during his collegiate career, delivering the best single-season PFF rushing grade (96.2) among prospects since 2018, though doing so in 2022 as opposed to his final college year. As a three-year starter at Michigan, Corum’s lowest PFF rushing grade came this past season (83.1) and didn’t quite reach the heights he did in 2022 across the board for his rushing metrics.
Corum’s strong overall rushing grade translates to facing stacked boxes as well, making him the first running back ranked within the top five on the PFF big board to perform well in those situations.
Corum’s career college analytics strengths :
| Metric | Value | Rank among RB prospects since 2018 |
| Rushing grade | 96.7 | 98th percentile |
| Best single-season rushing grade | 96.2 | 100th percentile |
| Rushing grade versus an 8-man box | 84.0 | 88th percentile |
Corum also scored 27 rushing touchdowns in 2023, which led the entire FBS, and 58 total rushing touchdowns for his career. However, it’s worth noting that 22 of those 27 touchdowns in 2023, and 42 of his 58 career rushing touchdowns came in goal-to-go situations, which is a significant credit to his team for providing that many opportunities to get into those high-percentile scoring situations.
With that context, it shines more light on why his explosive run rate ranked among the bottom five in this year’s class and 12th percentile since 2018. His 4.53-second 40-time also adds to that picture of not having great long speed, but with his strong rushing grades, he can be expected to still be a net positive as a runner on a play-to-play basis, just perhaps without the true game-breaking potential.
Corum’s college analytics weaknesses:
| Metric | Value | Rank among RB prospects since 2018 |
| Explosive run rate | 12.4% | 12th percentile |
| Missed tackles forced per attempt | 0.23 | 45th percentile |
| Yards after contact per attempt | 3.0 | 18th percentile |
Bucky Irving, Oregon
- No. 4 ranked running back on the PFF big board
- 90th percentile production profile among college running back prospects since 2018
Irving is the top performer using this production model for the 2024 class, delivering one of the best missed tackles forced per attempt rate in the PFF era (2014). Among running backs with at least 300 career carries, Irving ranks fourth behind names like Bijan Robinson and Javonte Williams as well as one more name from this class who will be covered next. Irving did an excellent job at creating yards above expectations, despite being one of the smaller running backs in this year’s class.
As one of those sub-200-pound running backs, Irving’s rushing grade against stacked boxes becomes all the more impressive, with the second-best mark among the Power-5 running backs in this class. Every other running back in the top five in this year’s class has at least 20 pounds on him as well, which speaks to his ability to fight through contact and make defenders miss at an elite rate.
Irving’s career college analytics strengths:
| Metric | Value | Rank among RB prospects since 2018 |
| Missed tackles forced per attempt | 0.36 | 96th percentile |
| Rushing grade | 95.3 | 93rd percentile |
| Rushing grade versus an 8-man box | 85.2 | 91st percentile |
| Best single-season rushing grade | 93.4 | 94th percentile |
| Explosive run rate | 18.5% | 82nd percentile |
There aren’t any key data points worthy of making a table for when it comes to Irving’s production profile as one of the lone prospects to score well across the board, which helped land him at the 90th percentile of all running prospects since 2018. With that being said, His athletic profile and testing at the combine was undoubtedly a concern, including running just a 4.56-second 40-yard dash at under 200 pounds.
This is a concern with only a small handful of backs with the same numbers emerging as fantasy-relevant — and that should be considered a stretch of a term, out of 16 sub-200-pound running backs to run 4.50 seconds or worse, only four players, including Jeff Wilson, Salvon Ahmed and Myles Gaskin, deliveried double-digit fantasy points per game in a season, and all on smaller sample sizes.
The one other back to fit that criteria since 2018 is Kyren Williams, who was the fantasy RB2 last year in points per game, and obviously the most optimistic of outcomes. Williams was also drafted in the fifth round and ranked among the 27th percentile of running back prospects overall since 2018, making him a massive outlier to have the success that he’s had. Irving’s better production profile helps his case, but like all running backs, landing spot and draft capital will make a significant difference in his opportunity to produce at the NFL level.
Trey Benson, Florida State
- No. 5 ranked running back on the PFF big board
- 82nd percentile production profile among college running back prospects since 2018
The fifth-ranked running back on the PFF big board comes in with some impressive rushing metrics coming out of college, including the best missed tackles forced per attempt rate (0.39) among running backs with at least 300 carries since PFF started grading college (2014). Benson performed very well at the combine, which included a 4.39-second 40-time at an ideal 216-pounds for the NFL.
Benson is currently tracking just outside of the top 100, according to the PFF Mock Draft Simulator, but his testing numbers and overall production profile are comparable to backs going in the second-to-third round.
Benson’s career college analytics strengths:
| Metric | Value | Rank among RB prospects since 2018 |
| Missed tackles forced per attempt | 0.39 | 98th percentile |
| Rushing grade versus an 8-man box | 84.8 | 90th percentile |
| Best single-season rushing grade | 91.4 | 86th percentile |
Benson, much like Irving, didn’t have any significant downfalls in his key college data, with surprisingly, explosive run rate being the one area where he earned a relatively lower mark compared to the rest of his data. He only ranked in the 72nd percentile for that category, which shouldn’t even be highlighted as a weakness at this point, especially considering he ran a 4.39-second 40-yard dash at the combine.
© 2024 PFF - all rights reserved.