tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-91048587240224915042024-03-19T05:31:46.595-04:00Occam's KangarooJust a little place to express my deranged thoughts about the NFL (and the NFL Draft in particular), or whatever else pops into my pretty little head.Sidney Mussburgerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03104367326238874951noreply@blogger.comBlogger136125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9104858724022491504.post-70191773102543353022016-04-30T10:53:00.001-04:002016-04-30T10:53:18.740-04:00Year 3: Still Ranting Like A LoonIt turns out that today is the 3rd anniversary of our blooooog, which means that we have been publicly stating our idiotic views for much longer than anyone should have allowed. We would like to thank our friends and family for their inattentiveness, without which our madness would have been stopped long ago.<br />
<br />
So far, this year's draft has been fairly entertaining, with plenty of stories that are probably worth commenting on. The Rams traded away much of their future to acquire a quarterback that we like, <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2016/04/jared-goff-making-chicken-salad.html" target="_blank"><b>Jared Goff</b></a>, despite having a questionable offensive line and no wide receivers. How could that possibly turn into a disaster? The Cowboys selected running back <b>Ezekiel Elliott</b> with the 4th overall pick, in an obvious attempt to challenge anyone's belief that running backs are overrated commodities. The Browns, a seemingly perpetual joke of an organization, appear to be...umm...making intelligent decisions and behaving responsibly. <br /><br />
Still, we wanted to briefly turn our attention to the Ravens' selection of offensive tackle <b>Ronnie Stanley</b>, and the way this relates to the player he might be replacing, <b>Eugene Monroe</b>. There's just something about this situation that strikes us as a bit peculiar.<br />
<br />
We've talked about Eugene Monroe a couple of times in the past. When the Ravens initially traded for him, <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2013/10/ravens-trade-for-eugene-monroe.html" target="_blank">we expressed our doubts</a>. When the Ravens decided to sign him to a somewhat costly extension a few months later, <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-price-for-left-tackle.html" target="_blank">we expressed even more doubts</a>. We also suggested that <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2014/01/not-quite-free-agents.html" target="_blank"><b>Jared Veldheer</b> would have been a more desirable target for the team</a>, which seems to have turned out to be true, and found it particularly amusing that Veldheer ended up signing a slightly less costly contract than the one given to Monroe. For the most part, we felt that Monroe was probably a mediocrity, who was mainly coasting along on the goodwill that teams bestow on former 1st round picks, regardless of their actual performance. As always, our reasons for betting against Monroe were somewhat half-assed and perhaps foolish sounding.<br />
<br />
Now, as we approached the 2016 NFL Draft, speculation mounted that the Ravens might be interested in drafting a left tackle, to replace the disappointing and often injured Eugene Monroe. Okey-dokey, that sounded like a swell idea, even if we suspected that the team wouldn't acknowledge the possible mistakes that might have led them to this point.<br />
<br />
Different people will have different views on how to appraise offensive tackles. Most folks seem to lean towards the more subjective approach of film study. That's fine, though it doesn't really appeal to either Reilly or myself. We prefer to make somewhat blind guesses, based on a player's measurable physical traits, as well as whatever concrete data can be taken be taken from the games they played in. We've discussed why we feel that this blind approach is<a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-lbtmy-line.html" target="_blank"> likely to produce results that are just as good as the more traditional methods</a>, and possibly superior to them. Of course, luck is still a factor in all of this. We've also talked about how certain athletic traits might matter more at different positions along the offensive line. <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2013/06/athleticism-and-offensive-line-part-2.html" target="_blank">We've also compared the measurable traits of some highly drafted "busts" to some late round "successes"</a>. This led us to the bonkers and highly irresponsible conclusion that successful athletes actually tend to have measurable athletic ability that is better than a tree stump. It's crazy, I know!<br />
<br />
These half-baked thoughts were the main reason for our doubts about Monroe, and they are also the reason why we find the Ravens' 1st round pick in 2016 a bit suspicious. Essentially, Ronnie Stanley appears to be virtually the same player as the one he is attempting to replace.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 578px;"><colgroup><col style="mso-width-alt: 3108; mso-width-source: userset; width: 64pt;" width="85"></col>
<col style="width: 48pt;" width="64"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 1938; mso-width-source: userset; width: 40pt;" width="53"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 2011; mso-width-source: userset; width: 41pt;" width="55"></col>
<col span="2" style="width: 48pt;" width="64"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 2816; mso-width-source: userset; width: 58pt;" width="77"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 2304; mso-width-source: userset; width: 47pt;" width="63"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 1938; mso-width-source: userset; width: 40pt;" width="53"></col>
</colgroup><tbody>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 64pt;" width="85"><b>Player</b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b>Height</b></td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" width="53"><b> Weight</b></td>
<td style="width: 41pt;" width="55"><b> Arm</b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b> 40 yard</b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b> 10 yard</b></td>
<td style="width: 58pt;" width="77"><b> Kangaroo</b></td>
<td style="width: 47pt;" width="63"><b> Agility</b></td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" width="53"><b> Expl.</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">R. Stanley</td>
<td>6'5.5"</td>
<td align="right">312 </td>
<td align="right">35.625 </td>
<td align="right">5.20</td>
<td align="right">1.79</td>
<td align="right">-0.067*</td>
<td align="right">-0.823 </td>
<td align="right">-0.047*</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">E. Monroe</td>
<td>6'5.25</td>
<td align="right">309 </td>
<td> 33.875 </td>
<td align="right">5.18</td>
<td align="right">1.75</td>
<td align="right">0.340</td>
<td align="right">-0.253 </td>
<td align="right">0.798</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
When you compare them side by side, it paints a peculiar picture. Their general physical dimensions are hardly any different, though Stanley does potentially have a better reach due to his longer arms. Their 40 times, as well as their 10 yard splits fall into a very similar range, with Monroe perhaps having a slight edge. Still, these results interest us less than the final three scores we have listed above. According to their <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-kangaroo-score.html" target="_blank">Kangaroo Scores</a>, both players had little more than average lower body power (though Stanley's could only be calculated off of his vertical jump), but Monroe still posted the better result of the two. If we removed weight as a factor in their individual jumps, Monroe produced a significantly better explosiveness result than what we see with Stanley (where we again have to base things solely off of Stanley's vertical jump). When it came to agility, Monroe seems to crush Stanley, but if we used Stanley's pro day results, his Agility Score would jump to <b>-0.185</b>, which is effectively just about the same level of mediocrity that we see with Monroe. In the end, the differences between both of these players is most likely extremely minor. They both appear to be incredibly average athletes.<br />
<br />
We certainly wouldn't want to say that an average athlete can't succeed, because that isn't true. There are tons of very average athletes in the NFL, some of whom are doing quite well. We just think these more pedestrian athletes are significantly less likely to become exceptional players, which is what you should be aiming for with the sixth overall pick. Our data just suggests that more exceptional athletes tend to have a better chance of paying off.<br />
<br />
So, watching the Ravens invest so much in someone to replace Monroe, who was the 8th overall selection just a few years ago, despite appearing to be a virtual clone of Monroe, strikes us as a bit bizarre. Maybe things will turn out better this time, though we see no objective reason to believe that this will be the case. All we can say is that the Ravens appear to be making decisions the exact same way that they did when they felt that Monroe was a desirable player to acquire, and when they proceeded to pay too much to extend his contract. We would have hoped that they would have reconsidered their approach to these sorts of decisions, but that doesn't appear to be the case.<br />
<br />
If there's one significant factor in the Raven's favor, it's that we feel the
actual performance of offensive linemen is scrutinized much less than it
probably should be, and that high draft picks are given a lot of
leeway. After all, that's how the Raven's convinced themselves to acquire Monroe in the first place, despite his less than impressive resume. So, regardless of his qualifications, Stanley will become a starter. When he becomes a starter, people will assume that he earned this opportunity. If he struggles people will be inclined to make more excuses than they would for a 5th round pick. When he does well, people will start to have visions of Canton. When/if Stanley is released in 4-5 years, people will have largely forgotten that there was ever any controversy about having made this pick in the first place. Lather, rinse, repeat as necessary.<br />
<br />
Ravens fans often say "In Oz we trust", and we don't think it would be wise for us to argue with people that have such blind faith and loyalty. While we certainly wish Ronnie Stanley and the Ravens the best, because none of this will affect us one way or another, we do think it would be somewhat funny if the outcome of this decision making process turned out to be somewhat predictable.<br />
<br />
Sidney Mussburgerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03104367326238874951noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9104858724022491504.post-53487401613394291582016-04-27T11:01:00.000-04:002016-04-30T09:43:36.824-04:00The 2016 Little Big BoardWe've constantly found ourselves running behind schedule, when it came to our attempts to pick apart this year's draft prospects. Reilly and I also found ourselves struggling to find the time to put together our prospect shopping list, <b>The Little Big Board</b>, for our annual bout of idiocy, <b>The</b> <b>Ozzie Newsome Challenge</b>. This all should have been wrapped up about a week ago, but we've been feeling a bit sluggish lately.<br />
<br />
In our last two editions of the Little Big Board, <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-2015-little-big-board.html" target="_blank">we wound up with 56 prospect</a>s that we would have been willing to pursue for our fictional team. This year, we struggled to come up with 50. Even then, we probably included quite a few players that we normally wouldn't really be very happy with. The list probably would have been closer to 40, if we didn't toss in some "filler", to give us some more options. We're probably going to have to spend the next 24 hours reevaluating this list, to see if we can improve it, but for now, it is what it is.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>1st Round</b><br />
Jared Goff, QB, Cal<br />
Vernon Hargreaves<b> </b>MMXVI, CB, Florida<br />
Jalen Ramsey, CB/S, Florida St. <br />
<span class="postbody">DeForest Buckner, DE/DT, Oregon</span><br />
Sheldon Rankins<span class="postbody">, NT/DT, Louisville </span><br />
<span class="postbody">Laremy Tunsil, OT, Mississippi <b>?</b> </span><br />
Joey Bosa, DE/OLB, Ohio State<br />
<br />
<b>2nd Round</b><br />
Jason Spriggs<b>, </b>OT, Indiana<br />
Shaq Lawson, DE, Clemson <br />
Emmanuel Ogbah, DE, Oklahoma St<br />
Kevin Byard, SS/FS, Middle Tennessee State * <br />
Cody Whitehair, G, Kansas State<br />
Kamalei Correa, OLB, Boise St.<br />
<br />
<b>3rd Round</b><br />
Sean Davis, CB/S, Maryland <br />
Connor McGovern, G, Missouri *<br />
Germain Ifedi, OT, Texas A&M <br />
Bronson Kaufusi<span class="postbody">, DE/DT, BYU</span><br />
Vernon Butler<span class="postbody">, NT, Louisiana Tech</span><br />
<span class="postbody">James Bradberry, CB, Samford</span><br />
<span class="postbody">Darius Jackson, RB, Eastern Michigan *</span><br />
Jonathan Bullard<span class="postbody">, DE/DT, Florida</span><br />
<br />
<b>4th Round</b><br />
Tyrone Holmes, OLB, Montana *<br />
Jordan Lucas FS/SS, Penn State<br />
Joe Thuney<b>,</b> G/C, North Carolina State<br />
Kalan Reed, CB, Southern Mississippi <br />
Xavien Howard CB, Baylor<br />
Daniel Lasco, RB, California<br />
Jatavis Brown, OLB, Akron<br />
Nick Kwiatkoski OLB, West Virginia <br />
Ben Braunecker, TE, Harvard<br />
<br />
<b>5th Round</b><br />
Joe Haeg, T, North Dakota State<br />
Brandon Shell, T, South Carolina<br />
KeiVarae Russell, CB, Notre Dame<br />
Jordan Jenkins, DE/OLB, Georgia<br />
Javon Hargrave<span class="postbody">, DT, South Carolina State</span><br />
Miles Killebrew SS, Southern Utah<br />
Brandon Chubb, ILB, Wake Forest<br />
<br />
<b>6th Round</b><br />
Michael Pierce<span class="postbody">, NT, Samford *</span><br />
<span class="postbody">Chris Moore, WR, Cincinnati </span><br />
<span class="postbody">Kavon Frazier SS, Central Michigan </span><br />
<span class="postbody">Ian Wells CB, Ohio </span><br />
Cyrus Jones, CB, Alabama <br />
Eric Murray, CB, Minnesota<br />
Isaac Seumalo, C, Oregon State<br />
Jason Fanaika, DE, Utah<br />
<br />
<b>7th Round</b><br />
Justin Zimmer, DT, Ferris State<br />
Jake Brendel, C, UCLA<br />
Micah Awe, ILB, Texas Tech <br />
Mike Jordan, CB, Missouri Western State<br />
Joe Schobert, OLB, Wisconsin<br />
<br />
<br />
Yeah, we're not too happy with how this list turned out. Part of the problem is, we just don't think this year's pool of prospects is particularly exceptional. Still, some positions might present better options than others.<br />
<br />
The interior defensive line prospects look pretty good, in general. There are probably some pretty good defensive backs out there. The offensive linemen, as a group, seem to at least have a number of solid possibilities. All things considered, a team can probably find some decent options at these positions, without too much difficulty.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, we really don't like this year's group of wide receivers. The outside pass rushers seem to have some reasonably reliable options, but almost nobody we have a great passion for. The linebackers seem a bit ho-hum. The running backs look like a steaming pile of mediocrities, whose futures will be more determined by their offensive lines, than their individual greatness. It's all a bit frustrating.<br />
<br />
With so many of the flashier positions appearing to be a bit weak, we're leaning towards the idea that this might be a good draft for teams to take a very cautious approach. They might want players to fill certain positions, but the talent might not be as plentiful in some of the more prestigious areas. This feels like a year where some prospects will have to emerge as great players, despite not fitting a lot of the normal criteria that makes success relatively predictable. We might have to count on a few anomalies to bolster this year's class. That's fine, and is a normal part of the process, but this year it might matter a bit more for some positions.<br />
<br />
In general, we're strongly leaning towards the idea that this year might
be a fairly ideal time to trade current draft picks for future ones.
The premium that most teams charge for such trades is almost always a
huge benefit for the team with less immediate concerns, but we also suspect that next year's pool of talent will
probably also be a bit better. It would almost have to be.<br />
<br />
I currently suspect that Team Kangaroo is probably going to load up on defensive backs this year, as there are a number of them that we like a fair bit, even if we think players in the secondary tend to be unstable and overpaid commodities. We just feel that there are potentially some nice options out there, who could provide reasonably good value to us. Plus, it is an area that we have neglected in the past few years, to some degree. Maybe we can fill some of these holes in our fictional roster, while picking up a few other interesting odds and ends.<br />
<br />
We'd also like to figure out a few more names to add to our list of considerations for the 2nd round. Based upon the rumors of who is likely to be selected in that range, we weren't excited about many of the prospects. If we can't find someone whom we are comfortable with selecting in that range, it could present us with some problems.<br />
<br />
One of the more peculiar situations we might be faced with, is the <b>Joey Bosa</b> question. Since Team Kangaroo will be making its first pick at #6, there is probably a reasonable chance that he will still be available, assuming that we don't trade down. For reasons that might seem a bit peculiar, the possibility of selecting him, or leaving him for someone else, causes us a bit of discomfort. This has possibly led us to over-analyze him a bit, as he probably scares us a bit more than a lot of the other options we might be faced with.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2016/03/kangaroo-court-2016-des-3-4-olbs.html" target="_blank">We've already discussed him a fair bit</a>, and picked over his peculiar athletic traits, but he still strikes us as a very odd duck. Let's ignore some of the rumors about his personality and off the field behavior, which are largely lacking concrete evidence, though they make him sound like a bit of a nut. Let's also skip past some of the peculiar issues and concerns about his statistical production, which remind us a bit of the dreaded <b>Vernon Gholston</b>. Our biggest worry is in figuring out the more objective issues of how he might be able to succeed, based on his interesting but somewhat strange athletic traits.<br />
<br />
While his combine results suggest that he has rather exceptional agility, and moderately respectable lower body power, the overall picture is a bit weird. While his agility results would suggest that he could thrive when given a bit more space to maneuver around an opposing offensive tackle, as a 3-4 OLB, his numbers didn't suggest that his speed or explosiveness were ideal for this role. His measurable traits suggested that he might not have the sort of exceptional burst to consistently threaten the outside edge on an offensive tackle, where his agility would then become a huge advantage. When we ignore his unweighted explosiveness, and just look at raw lower body power, his results suggested that he was probably a tad bit above average for a 4-3 defensive end, but perhaps not as overwhelmingly gifted as a lot of the players we normally see as the top players at this position. Athletically, he is quite respectable, but really does seem to fit the term "tweener" that is sometimes thrown around. He really strikes us as someone who might belong somewhere between the 4-3 defensive end position, and the 3-4 OLB position, and the number of historical players who are directly comparable to him are a bit strange.<br />
<br />
So, we are left with a player who might not have an ideal position fit, who rumors suggest might be a bit a bit of an oddball off the field (you can explore that subject on your own), and whose statistical production was a tad below what we normally associate with top level pass rushers, even in his best college season. Risk, risk, risk. Yet he is almost certainly going to be a top 10 pick, and is probably one of the better options at his position, at least for this year.<br />
<br />
While we wouldn't be surprised in the least if he turns out to be a very good player, we probably wouldn't want to bet on him becoming a truly great one. Still, we feel like he probably has a reasonable shot at becoming one of the better pass rushers to come out of this (potentially) relatively weak class. Maybe we should take him, and not feel so concerned about the variety of issues that seem to orbit him. We're really not sure. In the end, we just feel like he might be a bit more of a coin flip than we really like. If we're going to pick someone in the top 10, we would prefer to feel more confident that he is likely to be a home run. With Bosa, we just worry that his ceiling might not be quite high enough to merit such a selection.<br />
<br />
Oh well, I guess that is enough rambling for now. We'll continue to mull things over during the next 24 hours, before all of the madness begins, and reconsider some of our idiotic views. If anyone wants to throw in their two cents, they are more than welcome to do so. <br />
<br />
<br />Sidney Mussburgerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03104367326238874951noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9104858724022491504.post-6937768160407270542016-04-20T15:39:00.001-04:002016-09-29T11:38:46.003-04:00Kangaroo Court: The 2016 LinebackersIn general, examining the different linebacker prospects tends to be one of our favorite position groups to play around with. We dump the data for the players into our computer, do a little sifting, and then sit down to watch some of the games for the players that have emerged through our different filters. So, while we've been running a bit behind schedule this year, we've finally gotten around to looking at this year's prospects, <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2015/03/kangaroo-court-2015-linebackers.html" target="_blank">just like we did last year.</a><br />
<br />
One of the things we always enjoy about this group of players is the actual video portion of the examination. Seeing whether the players demonstrate the behavior that their measurable athletic traits and statistical production would suggest, is entertaining to us. There's just something peculiar about linebackers, that always leaves some added room for subjective judgments. Perhaps more than any other position, we sometimes feel as if you can see the decisions that are running through their minds when they play, at least compared to other positions where someone might be more clearly matched up in one-on-one situations that require less thought. Seeing that added intangible spark of aggressiveness and quick decision making, often ends up being a final subjective ingredient in how we feel about a lot of these players. So, the possibility that our judgment is out of whack, is something we have to consider. <br />
<br />
To some extent, we wondered if this potential flaw in our reasoning ability might be more of an issue this year. We had a hard time feeling particularly excited about any of this year's linebackers, which made us wonder if we were missing something. Maybe Reilly and I were a bit distracted and hard to please this year, because of issues elsewhere in our lives. Or, maybe this year's crop of linebackers was a bit mediocre. We're really not sure. Either way, we just didn't seem to find ourselves having as much fun with the linebackers this year.<br />
<br />
Since the athletic traits of players in this category are measured
against all defensive prospects who are under 275#, this skews their
results when it comes to the <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-kangaroo-score.html" target="_blank">Kangaroo Score</a>,
because they don't have the same mass as some of the larger outside
pass rushers in this weight class. Since the goal is to see how many
standard deviations away from an average result that a player is, we
have to make some mental adjustments here. For these (generally)
lighter prospects, a Kangaroo Score of <b>-0.800</b>, would be the
approximate point at which we would find the 'average' player in this
group. Among these lighter prospects, you typically start to see Pro
Bowl and All Pro players reaching a score of <b>-0.400</b>, or better.
Just like the Kangaroo Score, the Agility Score (which comes from the
short shuttle and 3-cone drill), will also be given in the form of how
many standard deviations away from the average result that a player
is. While the Kangaroo Scores for these players tend to suffer by
comparison to heavier players, these lighter prospects generally make up
for this by having an advantage when it comes to how nimble they are.
So, we prefer to see Agility Scores that are at least <b>1.000</b> standard deviation above average. Normally, I would expect a player with a higher Kangaroo Score to
be more of a hitter, and more productive on blitzes, while a player
with a high Agility Score will probably be better in coverage. Still,
nothing is set in stone, and individuals do vary in how they perform.<br />
<br />
<b>This
list will continue to be modified and updated, as new data and
prospects come to my attention. The list won't include every player.
but instead, just the ones that I find interesting for one reason or
another. Last Updated: </b>N/A<b><br /></b><br />
<br />
<b>Myles Jack</b> OLB, UCLA<br />
40 Time: <b>?</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>0.679</b> Agility Score: <b>?</b> <br />
There are some serious limitations as to what we can say about Jack, because our data on him is very limited. We can comfortably say that he has significantly better lower body power and explosiveness than you typically see in an outside linebacker, but we have nothing to weigh his agility or speed. While most people seem to feel that his coverage ability is fairly exceptional, and this might minimize concerns over his missing agility results, this would just be speculation on our part. To some extent, we thought the data pointed to Jack being most effective in coverage when his team's pass rush was operating effectively. This isn't intended to be an attack on Jack, but instead is something that can be fairly typical for most linebackers. While Jack might indeed be above average in coverage, we just thought that he sometimes might have benefited from his surrounding talent, at least a bit more than is sometimes acknowledged. We also tend to find the idea of drafting a pure coverage linebacker in the top 5 picks to be a peculiar proposition. When it came to his production as a run defender, his results seemed much closer to average, though he might have been improving in this area prior to his injury. While his lower body power and explosiveness (his non-weight adjusted result would be about <b>1.493</b> standard deviations above average), would suggest that he could be effective as a pass rusher, his statistical history shows little production in this area, and somewhat humdrum production behind the line of scrimmage. Some of this is might be due to how his team utilized him, and the lack of opportunities he had to rush the QB, but it is still difficult to confirm that he is exceptional in this area. Then we have the issue of his knee injury. Some people seem to think this won't be a lingering issue. Others appear to be much more concerned about how he will recover from it. While we have no interest in raining on the Myles Jack parade, and can understand how some people might be fascinated by him, the combination of a potentially limited skill set, along with injury concerns, would make us very nervous about selecting him as highly as he is expected to be taken. We'd let someone else make that pick.<br />
<br />
<b>Darron Lee</b> OLB, Ohio State<br />
40 Time: <b>4.47</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>0.018</b> Agility Score: <b>0.649</b> <br />
Darron Lee is a somewhat frustrating prospect. The computer loves his physical potential, as his results suggest that he has excellent speed, lower body power and explosiveness, as well as somewhat respectable agility. The problem is that his statistical production seemed to be a tad bit below average for someone at his position, outside of his high number of tackles for a loss. It's also difficult to look at his results without considering the enormous benefit he might have received by being a part of a rather loaded Ohio State roster. In the handful of games we saw him play, he also didn't manage to make much of an impression on us. It's not that we felt he was bad. He just didn't strike us as being clearly exceptional. While I suppose we might give him some consideration if he fell to the 2nd round, simply because of his physical potential, we wouldn't be willing to select him in the 1st, where people seem to project that he will be taken.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Reggie Ragland</b> ILB, Alabama<br />
40 Time: <b>4.72</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>-0.739</b> Agility Score: <b>0.400</b> <br />
What are you feelings about <b>C.J. Mosley</b>? Seriously, I need to know this before we proceed much farther. You see, Reilly and I sort of placed our bets on <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2014/06/cj-mosley-are-your-fingers-crossed.html" target="_blank">Mosley becoming a fairly mediocre linebacker</a>, a couple of years ago. It seems quite likely that many people would say that we were wrong about this, though we're still not sure about that. Regardless, we suspected that Mosley would get plenty of opportunities, be reasonably productive, and receive some acclaim, though we felt this would mainly be due to his 1st round status, and the confirmation biases associated with that honor. We're still sort of leaning in that direction, as Mosley stills strikes us as a fairly average middle linebacker, though perhaps a tad better than we initially expected. With Ragland, we have another Alabama middle linebacker, who we feel even less confident about. Athletically, he is a slightly worse version of the rather average C.J. Mosley. Ragland's statistical production, is almost indistinguishable from that of Mosley, and we feel a tad below average. When we watched Ragland play, we also saw nothing that got us the least bit excited. We honestly don't see any reason why he should be selected before the 4th or 5th round. People will probably disagree with us about this. Still, we think there are a great number of reasons to worry about whether Ragland can truly become and exceptional linebacker, which is really what you should expect if you are going to select him in the 1st round. So, obviously, based on our past misadventures in betting against highly touted players from Alabama, we recommend selecting him in the 1st round, sending him to a few Pro Bowls, and awaiting his Hall of Fame induction ceremony.<br />
<br />
<b>Leonard Floyd</b> OLB, Georgia<br />
40 Time: <b>4.60</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>0.829</b> Agility Score: <b>0.201</b> <br />
When we talked about <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2016/03/kangaroo-court-2016-des-3-4-olbs.html" target="_blank">this year's group of outside pass rushers</a>, we had rather mixed feelings about Floyd. Athletically, he struck us as a very interesting prospect. He just didn't have the production to back that up. There just seemed to be something missing when he attempted to go after the quarterback We did suggest that he might make a more interesting 3-4 ILB or some sort 4-3 LB, as his athleticism also translated well to that position. Even here, we still might feel a tad cautious about Floyd. While he's clearly very capable physically, it's hard to say that he ever demonstrated dominance in any particular area. He strikes us as someone who could be an interesting 3rd round pick, because of his physical potential, though everyone seems to expect that he will be taken well before that. I'm not really sure what we can say about that. While he's fairly interesting, it feels like someone is going to take more of a gamble than we think is wise.<br />
<br />
<b>Kamalei Correa</b>, OLB, Boise St.<br />
40 Time: <b>4.70</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>-0.567</b> Agility Score: <b>1.166</b> Avg TFL: <b>15</b><br />
Like
Leonard Floyd, we already discussed Correa a little bit, when we
discussed this year's group of outside pass rushers. Unfortunately, we
just didn't think that Correa had the sort of lower body power or
explosiveness, to be an ideal fit in that role. As a linebacker who
plays further off of the line of scrimmage, on the other hand, we think
he has some fairly ideal traits. Compared to this group of players, his
lower body power is fairly respectable. He also appears to have at
least a respectable level of speed and agility for this sort of role.
While we wouldn't say that his production in college was terribly
impressive, outside of the number of tackles for a loss that he
produced, we think some of this could be attributed to these issues of
how he was utilized. When he was allowed to operate in space, which we
think suits his athletic skills, he appeared to be a much better
player. When he was on the line of scrimmage, we thought his lack of power made him look a bit underwhelming. While projecting him to a somewhat different position is a bit
tricky, we think he could arguably end up being worth a 2nd round pick,
if the team that selects him gives him the space to operate. If, on the
other hand, people insist on putting him up on the line of scrimmage,
we suspect he might get buried a bit more than you might like to see.<br />
<br />
<b>Su'a Cravens</b> OLB, Southern California<br />
40 Time: <b>4.66</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>-2.151</b> Agility Score: <b>0.885</b> <br />
Cravens
is sort of a weird prospect. While his speed and agility results are
fairly intriguing, we're really concerned about his Kangaroo Score. His
results there would suggest that he has extremely poor lower body power
and explosiveness. Our main concern here, is that he could simply get
run over by more powerful opponents. Since he only weighs 220 pounds,
we considered the possibility that teams might be planning to transition
him to the strong safety position, where his athletic traits might be a
better match. Unfortunately, when we compared him to players at that position, his speed, relative to
strong safeties, becomes much less impressive, and his agility ceases to be
above average as well. When compared to strong safeties, his lower body
power is also merely average and uninspiring. So, I guess we are going to try to keep him
as a linebacker, where he at least possesses some physical advantages.
While Cravens generally had respectable statistical production in
college, and we felt he was an entertaining player to watch, we just
aren't certain as to how a team should best use him. Sure, he could be
an interesting player to put on the field in obvious passing situations,
but he'd probably get killed if he was lined up in a 3-4 base defense.
Even in a 4-3, where he might have a better chance of surviving, we
suspect he would probably require a somewhat above average defensive
line. He's an interesting player, but as people start to push him up
towards the top of the 2nd round, or even into the 1st, the potentially
narrow window of what defense he should fit in, makes the value of such a
high selection seem a bit questionable.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Joshua Perry</b> OLB, Ohio State<br />
40 Time: <b>4.68</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>0.315</b> Agility Score: <b>-0.218</b> <br />
While we've been fairly busy making fun of all the prospects from Ohio State, we really don't have many serious complaints about Perry. Athletically, he appears to have acceptable speed, as well as above average lower body power and explosiveness. The only minor issue might be his somewhat mediocre agility. Generally speaking, we think players like this fit better as inside linebackers in a 3-4. When it came to Perry's production in college, everything checked out as solidly average, if not exceptional. All of this sort of lines up with what we saw when we watched Perry play. We might not think that he is a terribly rare prospect, but he seems to be fairly solid. We think picking him up somewhere around the 3rd round could be a reasonable decision.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Kentrell Brothers</b> ILB, Missouri<br />
40 Time: <b>4.89</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>-1.572</b> Agility Score: <b>1.149</b> <br />
When we express our pessimism about Brothers' future, based on his numbers, the obvious response would maybe be to point to someone like <b>Vontaze Burfict</b>. That's fair. We admittedly would not have placed very good odds on Burfict surviving in the NFL, and it appears that we were probably wrong about him. Still, we wouldn't feel comfortable making all of our decisions on peculiar examples such as that. While Brothers does appear to have somewhat respectable agility, his other results give us some concerns. His Kangaroo Score point to the likelihood that he has significantly below average lower body power and explosiveness, and his 40 time creates some worry about his effective range. While we wouldn't say that we were struck by any amazing deficiencies when we watched him play, we still have to lean towards the idea that he is probably most effective within a somewhat limited radius of where the ball is being snapped. While his statistical production seems to have been a good bit above average, we had some concerns in this area as well. We generally don't like to make a big fuss about solo tackles versus assisted tackles, but in Brothers' case his results moved a tad outside of our comfort zone. In 2015, his biggest statistical season, <b>51.9%</b> of his tackles were assists, which is a fair bit higher than what we like to see, and can perhaps suggest that some of his overall results might have been inflated. His solo to assist ratio prior to 2015 was a bit more respectable, but his overall results were also much more pedestrian. We also have felt, in recent years, a tad wary of defensive players from Missouri. The school has had a strange ability to produce players with below average athletic traits, with strangely outrageous statistical production. Generally, this has applied more to their pass rushers rather than their linebackers, but it is still a thought that is rattling around in our heads. Right now, people seem to expect that Brothers will be selected somewhere around the 2nd round, but that is well outside of our comfort zone. Maybe Brothers will end up exceeding our expectations, but he just isn't someone we feel we can gamble on with such a high selection.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Nick Vigil</b>, ILB, Utah State<br />
40 Time: <b>4.71</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>-1.146</b> Agility Score: <b>1.954</b><br />
When it comes to his athletic ability, Vigil reminds us of a poor man's <b>Ben Heeney</b>. Because of the way that his results tilt so strongly towards agility, with less evidence of lower body power and explosiveness, we would be somewhat afraid to see him playing inside in a 3-4 defense. We suspect he would do much better in a 4-3, with a fairly stout defensive line to protect him from getting run over. One of the peculiar things about Vigil, is that we would normally expect his excellent agility results to translate into superior ability in coverage, but it didn't seem to be clear that this was the case. While some of his tackle numbers appear to be a bit inflated with more "assists" than we typically prefer, it's hard to argue with the idea that his overall production in the last two years has been fairly impressive. Overall, we suppose it wouldn't be crazy to spend a 3rd or 4th round pick on Vigil.<br />
<br />
<b>Jatavis Brown</b>, OLB, Akron<br />
40 Time: <b>4.44</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>-0.647</b> Agility Score: <b>0.210</b><br />
Despite hearing some quiet rumblings about Brown, we were a bit slow to investigate him. Athletically, he just didn't appear to be particularly interesting, outside of his exceptional 40 time. His agility results were fairly mediocre. His Kangaroo Score suggested he had a fairly common sort of lower body power, though his unweighted results said his explosiveness was a more impressive <b>1.102</b> standard deviations above average. It also doesn't help that he is a whisker under <b>5'11"</b>, and just <b>227</b> pounds. All things considered, he didn't appear to be a particularly shocking athlete. The interesting thing about Brown was his statistical production. For an OLB, his numbers were well above what we normally expect to see at that position, and he managed to steadily produce these results for the past three seasons. It would be tempting to say that his numbers were inflated because he played at a lower level of competition, but even when we made deductions (similar to what we sometimes do with pass rushers), his results were still significantly above average. Based on the few games of his that we were able to see, he also struck us as one of the more entertaining players to watch. While he is probably limited to playing in a 3-4, because of his size, and lower body power, it wouldn't shock us if he turned out to be one of the better linebackers in this class. CBS currently seems to project that he will be a 4th round pick, which sounds fairly reasonable to us.<br />
<br />
<b>Joe Schobert</b>, OLB, Wisconsin<br />
40 Time: <b>4.76</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>-0.383</b> Agility Score: <b>0.391</b><br />
Reilly and I can't figure out Schobert at all. Part of that is due to the somewhat peculiar way in which Wisconsin used him, as he would bounce around as an edge rusher, and then be lined up as a 4-3 OLB. While he really doesn't fit the typical mold of an edge rusher, the odd thing is that he seems to have been surprisingly effective in that role. Still, we have to suspect that those days are over for him, and he will most likely become a more conventional linebacker. Athletically, he is sort of a mixed bag. His speed and agility seem to be fairly mediocre. On the other hand, his lower body power and explosiveness aren't so bad, and we could even stretch his Kangaroo Score to a more impressive <b>0.040</b>, if we only considered the results from his vertical jump. In the end though, it's his statistical production which actually makes him somewhat interesting, more so than his athleticism. Over the past two years, Schobert put up somewhat above average results, and managed to be a surprisingly disruptive player. Of course, the way that Wisconsin moved him around makes a lot of this production difficult to translate to what he will probably do in the NFL, in a more conventional role. We sort of doubt that he could do particularly well in coverage, because of some of his athletic traits. He also might struggle to keep up with faster running backs along the sideline. Still, he struck us as a fairly interesting, and possibly underrated player. We suspect his best fit might be as an ILB in a 3-4 defense, who can also be sent up the middle occasionally to get the QB. He's an odd duck.<br />
<br />
<b>Blake Martinez</b> ILB, Stanford<br />
40 Time: <b>4.71</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>-0.788</b> Agility Score: <b>0.919</b> <br />
We may not be thrilled with Martinez, but since people are projecting that he might be selected somewhere around the 5th round, he at least seems to present a reasonably honest value. While his timed speed, lower body power and explosiveness all appear to just be fairly average, that is at least better than being terrible. His agility results are somewhat above average for a player of his size, but not necessarily shocking. His statistical production in college was generally pretty respectable, even if he seems to have made fewer of the big impact plays than we might hope to see. In the little we have seen of him, he appeared to be the sort of guy his results might suggest. He seemed to do everything you might expect a linebacker to do, in a somewhat respectable manner, without doing anything that jumped out as being incredibly unusual or impressive. He just strikes us as a serviceable sort of guy. For where he is expected to be taken, that seems like a possibly acceptable deal.<br />
<br />
<b>Nick Kwiatkoski</b> OLB, West Virginia<br />
40 Time: <b>4.71</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>-0.511</b> Agility Score: <b>0.517</b> <br />
We could fiddle around with Kwiatkoski's numbers a bit, and tell a more interesting story, but that's probably unnecessary. Let's just consider the worst case scenario, where Kwiatkoski possibly measures up as rather average when it comes to his speed, lower body power, explosiveness and agility. There are some simple arguments to suggest he might be somewhat better than average athletically, but let's roll with this. Okay, being an average athlete can still be perfectly acceptable. When we look at his statistical production, on the other hand, Kwiatkoski appears to have consistently been more productive than your average linebacker, regardless of where he lined up. Beyond just reaching the ball carrier, he even seems to have consistently made a somewhat above average number of higher impact plays, whether it was tackles for a loss, batted passes, or interceptions. We'd also give him some credit for the possibility that West Virginia's pass rush has probably been a bit mediocre, which doesn't really help a linebacker look particularly good in coverage. In the little we have seen of Kwiatkoski (I'm getting tired of typing that name), we wouldn't say that he was the most electrifying linebacker we have ever seen, but he generally appeared to be pretty competent. What is all of this worth? I don't know, maybe a 4th or 5th round pick?<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Brandon Chubb</b>, ILB, Wake Forest<br />
40 Time: <b>4.68</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>-0.672</b> Agility Score: <b>1.114</b><br />
Maybe it is partially due to the expected low cost of acquiring Chubb, and maybe it is because we find his last name somewhat amusing, but we actually like Chubb a fair bit. He appears to have respectable lower body power and explosiveness. His timed speed falls in a decent range as well. His agility results also seem to be fairly good. Overall, he looks like a pretty well rounded athlete, even if he isn't a shocking freak of nature. We wouldn't say that his statistical production in college was amazing, but for the last two years fell into a solidly average range for someone at his position. In the little we have seen of him, he seemed to look the part, and made a decent impression on us. Considering that he is only expected to be something like a 7th round pick, he seems like a decent bargain. <br />
<br />
<b>Will Ratelle</b> ILB, North Dakota<br />
40 Time: <b>4.57</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>0.180</b> Agility Score: <b>0.647</b><br />
At 5'9" tall, and 251 pounds, Ratelle is clearly a peculiar prospect. While his agility results are perhaps a tad lower than our ideal target, his other results are a bit more interesting. His Kangaroo Score would suggest that he has significantly above average lower body power, though his unweighted results suggest merely average explosiveness. He also seems to be surprisingly fast, despite being such a weird little tank of a man. While his level of competition was hardly top notch, we'd still say that his statistical production fell in the average to above average range during the past two years. From the little we have seen, he mainly appeared to be a dispenser of concussions, who thumped people in the running game. He's generally expected to go undrafted, but he strikes us as a somewhat interesting player, who could be amusing to watch as an ILB in a 3-4 defense. The cost of acquiring him will probably be close to nothing, and there appears to be at least some potential hidden in him.<br />
<br />
<b>Micah Awe</b>, ILB, Texas Tech<br />
40 Time: <b>4.67</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>0.152</b> Agility Score: <b>0.629</b><br />
There's really not much that we can say about Awe, since we haven't been able to find much information on him. Athletically, he just strikes us as a fairly interesting player. His Kangaroo Score might not seem terribly impressive, but for an inside linebacker this is actually a very good result, and suggests significantly above average lower body power. When weight isn't factored into the equation, his lower body explosiveness is about <b>1.717</b> standard deviations above average, which is exceptional. When it comes to his agility and straight line speed, his numbers are a bit more pedestrian, but nothing we would fret about too much. His statistical production in college merely fell into the average range, though some of this is hard to judge since he was really only a starter for his final season. It's hard for us to know how interested to be in Awe, without more data, but since he is generally only viewed as someone who will be an UDFA, there's no reason for us to get too crazy. If a team had a chance to bring him into their training camp, maybe they will find a pleasant surprise. Who knows?<br />
<br />Sidney Mussburgerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03104367326238874951noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9104858724022491504.post-44842843228458543622016-04-18T14:36:00.001-04:002017-01-29T09:59:25.451-05:00Kangaroo Court: The 2016 Wide ReceiversReilly and I have been a bit busy dealing with some of our other interests, and this has given us less time to fret over this year's class of draft prospects. I suppose, in some ways, having things to distract us from the draft is a good thing. This time of year tends to make us a bit crazy, as we try to examine all of the prospects, and then second guessing ourselves and the data that we have compiled.<br />
<br />
Regardless, our first impression of this year's group of wide receivers was a bit peculiar. When we ran the <b>2014</b> wide receiver prospects through our filters, <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2014/04/kangaroo-court-2014-wide-receivers.html" target="_blank"><b>14</b> prospects remained</a>, and seemed to deserve a bit of added attention. For the most part, I think people would agree that the 2014 class of receivers has turned out rather well. In our post on the <b>2015</b> wide receiver prospects, <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2015/04/kangaroo-court-2015-wide-receivers.html" target="_blank"><b>15</b> players made it through our filters</a>. While we thought that some of them were barely getting past the hurdles we set for them, that was also an above average number of prospects to focus our attention on, and to give some additional scrutiny.<br />
<br />
For the <b>2016</b> class of wide receivers, only <b>8</b> prospects have so far managed to make it past all of our filters, which is a somewhat disappointing result, and perhaps a bit worrisome. To some extent, this smaller pool of prospects might be a product of the limitations we have had in collecting data this year. There were a small handful of players who could have potentially been added to the year's list, but they never performed some of the tasks at the combine or their pro days, which we require. Still, of the 8 players that made it through, it also struck us that a great number of them seemed to have really glaring shortcomings, or areas of concern. I can't say that Reilly and I ended up having particularly strong feelings for any of the players who made it past our statistical hurdles. Overall, everything we looked at caused us to wonder just how poor this year's crop of wide receivers might actually be. It also seems quite possible to us, that this might just be the inevitable price that has to be paid, after a couple years of having an above average number of quality prospects. The talent pool might just need to replenish itself a bit.<br />
<br />
Undoubtedly, some of the receivers who are selected this year, will end up performing quite well, even if we may have doubts about many of them. In the end, teams are going to need receivers to catch the ball, even if they might not be the rarest sorts of talents. There's also a good chance that a strange player or two will emerge as a superior player, even if the computer wasn't a fan of them. These sorts of things happen, and there is usually at least one of these statistical anomalies at the wide receiver position in each draft class. That's not something we choose to focus on, or worry about.<br />
<br />
So, as we have done before, we will try to contemplate every wide receiver prospect who managed to produce both a <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-stat-score-rats-nest-of-numbers_26.html">Stat Score</a> and an Athletic Score, that was no worse than <b>-0.100</b>
standard deviations below average. The receivers will be divided into
two groups, one for players that are over 200# (the 'Big' receivers),
and those who are under 210# (the 'Small' receivers). For players who
fit in both groups (players who are between 200 and 210 pounds), we'll
test them in both groups to see where they might fit best. For 'Small'
receivers, the computer puts more of an emphasis on speed and agility
when forming their Athletic Score, and their Stat Scores is more
demanding of multiple seasons of solid statistical production. For the
'Big' receivers, the computer places more of an emphasis on lower body power and explosiveness (the
dreaded <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-kangaroo-score.html">Kangaroo Score</a>), and their Stat Score is somewhat less demanding. Additionally, there was one player that we included who fell into our somewhat less frequently discussed Midget group of receivers, which is a group that focuses purely on exceptional speed. We also filter out any 'Big' receivers with a 40-times below <b>4.60</b> seconds, as well as filtering out 'Small' receivers with 40-times below <b>4.50</b> seconds. This left us with the following list of wide receivers, which we tried to explore in more detail.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 307px;"><colgroup><col style="mso-width-alt: 4864; mso-width-source: userset; width: 100pt;" width="133"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 3218; mso-width-source: userset; width: 66pt;" width="88"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 3145; mso-width-source: userset; width: 65pt;" width="86"></col>
</colgroup><tbody>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 100pt;" width="133"><b>Big</b></td>
<td style="width: 66pt;" width="88"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 65pt;" width="86"><b><br /></b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><b>Player</b></td>
<td><b> Stat Score</b></td>
<td><b> Ath. Score</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Keyarris Garrett</td>
<td align="right">0.630</td>
<td align="right">0.772</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Leonte Carroo</td>
<td align="right">0.747</td>
<td align="right">0.439</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Andy Jones</td>
<td align="right">0.053</td>
<td align="right">0.757</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Jordan Payton</td>
<td align="right">0.172</td>
<td align="right">0.044</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Chris Moore</td>
<td align="right">-0.082</td>
<td align="right">0.310</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><b>Small</b></td>
<td><b><br /></b></td>
<td><b><br /></b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><b>Player</b></td>
<td><b> Stat Score</b></td>
<td><b> Ath. Score</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Josh Doctson</td>
<td align="right">0.349</td>
<td align="right">0.361</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Sterling Shepard</td>
<td align="right">0.228</td>
<td align="right">-0.074</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><b>Midget</b></td>
<td><b><br /></b></td>
<td><b><br /></b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><b>Player</b></td>
<td><b> Stat Score</b></td>
<td><b> Ath. Score</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Will Fuller</td>
<td align="right">0.517</td>
<td align="right">-0.495</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<br />
Just to be clear, these first filters are only intended to identify the players that the computer thinks have
the best chance of becoming 'average' NFL receivers. Our definition of
average is a player that can produce 35 receiving yards per game played
over the course of their career (or a modest 560 receiving yards over 16
games), so our standards are fairly low. If we raised our standards <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2013/08/wide-receiver-success-rate-part-2.html" target="_blank"> to players who averaged at least 45 receiving yards per game played</a>, it really becomes quite rare for a player not to pass both of these statistical hurdles. We wouldn't take the scores
listed above too seriously on their own, as they are really scores that are built
upon many smaller scores, which frequently matter even more. This is
just how we start the weeding out process, to determine which players we
want to focus our attention on. In reality, we always end up having to
veto some of the computer's recommendations for various reasons, which we
will try to describe as we go along. Unfortunately, our own worthless
and subjective opinion does come into play a bit more on some of these vetoes.<br />
<br />
It should also be mentioned that we were missing some data for a couple of this year's more intriguing wide receiver prospects. With <b>Corey Coleman</b>,
short shuttle and 3-cone results were never available, which is
something we require for smaller receivers. So, we were unable to put him on the list, even though we think there is a pretty good chance his agility results would have been perfectly adequate, or at least not so poor as to offset his other positive traits. For similar reasons, we also had to exclude <b>Tajae Sharpe</b>, as he also had areas of data that weren't available, but that are a significant part of our normal weeding out process. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Because
of the way that data slowly becomes available, I will continue to
modify and adjust some of these results as new information becomes
available. Last Updated: N/A</b><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Will Fuller</b>, WR, Notre Dame Ht: <b>6' 0.75"</b> Wt: <b>186</b><br />
40 Time: <b>4.32</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>-1.053</b> Agility Score: <b>-0.214</b><br />
In a typical draft class, we seem to stumble across maybe one or two players like this, who fit into our Midget group of receivers. Personally, we aren't really fans of this type of player, because they rarely turn into top tier receivers, but we still have to include them. While Fuller's Kangaroo Score suggests that he has significantly below average lower body power and explosiveness, that isn't unusual at all for this sort of player. The key trait for our Midget receivers is extreme speed. Now, simply finding a fast receiver isn't too difficult, or rare. With the Midget receivers, however, they seem to take things up a notch. When you look at their 10-yard split, 20-yard split, and finally their 40 time, they seem to be able to show steady and constant acceleration at every stage of their timed run. Not many players produce these kinds of results, and when they do, they are almost invariably lighter weight prospects like we see with Fuller. When we look at Fuller's <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2013/05/a-players-2nd-gear.html" target="_blank"><b>2nd Gear Score</b></a> of <b>0.19</b>, it does suggest that his already impressive 40 time might still be underestimating his deep speed by a fair bit. While he is clearly fast, his agility results wouldn't suggest that he is anything more than average, when it come to his change of direction ability. So, he would appear to mainly be a straight line deep threat type of player, which I suppose can be useful. Unfortunately, while he was productive in college, the data also seems to suggest that he dropped about <b>13.2%</b> of the passes that were directed towards him over the last two seasons, which is more than a little bit worrisome. Considering that his hands were measured at just <b>8.3"</b>, this seems like it could very easily continue to be an issue. Because of the occasional successes of other Midget group receivers, such as <b>DeSean Jackson</b>, we feel like we have to remain a bit open-minded about Fuller. Still, when you consider that Fuller is generally projected to be taken in the first couple of rounds, the cost of acquiring him just seems way too high for our tastes.<br />
<br />
<b>Josh Doctson</b>, WR, TCU Ht: <b>6' 2"</b> Wt: <b>202</b><br />
40 Time: <b>4.50</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>0.958</b> Agility Score: <b>0.361</b><br />
Among the receivers who made it through the computer's filters, Doctson might have the best overall combination of athletic traits. He seems to have above average lower body power and explosiveness, slightly above average agility, and at least respectably average speed. None of his results were exactly mind-blowing, but he didn't appear to have any troubling physical shortcomings. Because he weighed in at 202 pounds, we ran his numbers as a Big receiver, as well as a Small receiver. He ended up passing the filters for both groups, though the computer slightly preferred to keep him in the Small group. Part of this related to our concerns about his somewhat below average BMI results, where he was <b>-0.753</b> standard deviations below average. Our concern here is that players with these sorts of results frequently run into more issues with injuries, which is a consideration that is tough to ignore. Our concerns here probably aren't as high as they would have been with the even lankier <b>Sidney Rice</b>, and can possibly be removed altogether by implementing an all cheeseburger diet. One of the more worrisome issues with Doctson is his age, and how this relates to his college production. Doctson will already be turning 24 this upcoming December, which is quite a bit older than what we would ideally like to see. It also presents the possibility that he might have had some advantages in college, simply by being more physically mature than his opponents. The other peculiar issues, is how we view production for a Big receiver, versus a Small one. Seeing Big receivers hit their statistical peak later in their college careers, like Doctson did, is fairly common. We sometimes wonder if this has to do with them taking longer to fill out their larger physical frames, though this clearly doesn't apply to Doctson, who we mentioned is still a bit skinny. With Small receivers, the computer tends to set the bar a bit higher when it comes to showing dominant statistical production earlier in their college careers. We can't really say that Doctson really did this, as his numbers prior to the 2015 season were actually a little bit below average. So, we have a player who took a significantly longer time to hit their statistical peak, without the normal reasons that we associate with that sort of delay. We find this a bit curious. We also seemed to run into some worrisome issues when we looked into the six game stretch in 2015 where Doctson produced his most impressive statistical results. There seemed to be a fair bit of evidence to suggest that his big games were largely the result of beating up on some very poor defenses. We also had to wonder if playing with a scrambling QB like <b>Trevone Boykin</b> might have allowed Doctson to face somewhat less intense coverage. While we certainly didn't think Doctson was bad, when we watched him play, he just struck us as someone who felt more like a player who should be selected in the 3rd or 4th round, rather than the 1st or 2nd as some are currently proposing. <br />
<br />
<b>Sterling Shepard</b>, WR, Oklahoma Ht: <b>5' 10.3"</b> Wt: <b>194</b><br />
40 Time: <b>4.48</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>0.281</b> Agility Score: <b>-0.675</b><br />
Reilly and I actually like Shepard a fair bit, though our thoughts on him might not sound overwhelmingly positive. As an athlete, Shepard isn't the most amazing sort of creature. His timed speed is just adequate, and his agility is probably a bit lower than what we normally want to see in a smaller receiver. The main thing he seems to have going for him is that his vertical and broad jump results suggests better lower body power and explosiveness than you typically see in someone his size. When it came to his statistical production, his stat sheet probably looks a bit more exciting than how our computer viewed his results. By our calculations, his results were just a tiny bit above average for a draftable prospect, relative to the offense he played in. In many ways, his athletic traits and statistical production reminded us a fair bit of <b>Lance Moore</b>. Now, we should point out that we actually like Lance Moore, even though he was a player that went undrafted back in 2005. In a similar way to how we feel about Moore, we feel like Shepard's future is probably going to depend a lot on what sort of QB he ends up playing with. With a top notch QB, we think Shepard could be quite respectable, though probably not consistently great. With your typical NFL QB, our expectations would be quite a bit lower. Since some people seem to be projecting that Shepard will be a 2nd or 3rd round pick, we have been feeling a bit uncomfortable with the value he might have to offer. While we like Shepard, he just strikes us as more of a 4th or 5th round type of prospect.<br />
<br />
<b>Leonte Carroo</b>, WR, Rutgers Ht: <b>5' 11.9"</b> Wt: <b>211</b><br />
40 Time: <b>4.50</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>0.186</b> Agility Score: <b>?</b><br />
Technically, we shouldn't have let Carroo into this list of receivers, because we still don't have the data to calculate his agility score. We also have to admit that when a player doesn't perform the drills that allow us to calculate that score, we suspect it is because they believe they will perform poorly in that area. The reason we made an exception here, is because Carroo fits into the Big receiver group, and agility results don't tend to matter very much in how we calculate the overall scores for these types of players. Beyond that minor issue, there isn't much to say about Carroo's physical traits. Athletically, there is very little about Carroo that is terribly interesting, which oddly is kind of interesting in itself. For someone who is almost the precise definition of an average athlete, his statistical production in college was rather impressive. In 2014, he was responsible for <b>21.42%</b> of his team's offensive yards, <b>36.73%</b> of their receiving yards and <b>45.45%</b> of their receiving touchdowns. All of these results are quite a bit above average, but it appears that he would have topped them all in 2015, if an injury hadn't sidelined him. So, we adjusted his results to account for that missed time. In 2015, Carroo was responsible for <b>24.31%</b> of his team's offensive yards, <b>43.63%</b> of their receiving yards and <b>52.63%</b> of their receiving touchdowns. These are fairly ridiculous results. The primary reason why his Stat Score isn't significantly higher, is because much of this production came off of longer plays, with a somewhat lower volume of receptions than you might expect. The computer tends to like a larger sample size of receptions to help hedge its bets. Despite that, you have to respect the level to which his team relied on him, as he was clearly the main offensive force for Rutgers. You also can't say that he was a product of a particularly skilled QB, as Rutgers had two different QBs start for them over the last couple of years, and Carroo did well with both of them. So, how was such an athletically average guy so productive? We have no idea, he just was. While we certainly prefer it when a player has clearly identifiable athletic advantages to help explain their superiority, we can't really object to someone who exceeds our normal expectations. In a lot of ways, we think the situation with Carroo is somewhat reminiscent of what we saw last year with <b>Devante Parker</b>. Like Carroo, Parker had very few signs of physical greatness (though he was probably a tad more gifted than Carroo), and was also missing data that would allow us to calculate his Agility Score. Like Carroo, Parker also demonstrated some extremely impressive statistical production, which we had a difficult time explaining. Both players also hit their statistical peaks around the same age, though Carroo was probably showing signs of dominance slightly earlier in his college career. After watching a handful of Carroo's games, we're still a bit confused about how he was so productive. While he appeared to be a perfectly respectable receiver, there didn't seem to be anything about him that really stood out as being particularly unusual. At this point in time, it appears that Carroo is slowly being moved up draft boards, and some are now viewing him as a 2nd round pick. While he is an interesting player, that makes us a tad uncomfortable, and feels like it might be a product of this possibly being a weak class for receivers. We also tend to dislike the idea of drafting receivers with that high of a selection, if they don't have at least some sort of superior physical traits. To us, Carroo still feels like someone who should probably be a 3rd round pick.<br />
<br />
<b>Jordan Payton</b>, WR, UCLA Ht: <b>6' 1"</b> Wt: <b>207</b><br />
40 Time: <b>4.47</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>-0.115</b> Agility Score: <b>-0.798</b><br />
Payton is a bit of an oddball, who slipped through the computer's filters despite having a number of traits that we find less than thrilling. While we could have run him through the computer as either a Big or a Small receiver, due to his weight making him eligible for either group, the computer felt he was a better fit as a Big receiver. This is sort of an odd fit, because he really doesn't appear to have the lower body power and explosiveness that we tend to associate with that sort of player. On the other hand, he also doesn't have the sort of above average speed or agility we tend to prefer for Small receivers. His statistical production also falls into a range that just barely makes it past our filters, and appears to just be a bit average, relative to his team's offense. While we don't have particularly high expectations for Payton, the cost of acquiring him also doesn't appear to be terribly high. CBS is currently listing him as a 3rd or 4th round pick, while we would probably rank him just a bit lower.<br />
<br />
<b>Keyarris Garrett</b>, WR, Tulsa Ht: <b>6' 3"</b> Wt: <b>220</b><br />
40 Time: <b>4.53</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>1.058</b> Agility Score: <b>-1.338</b><br />
As we have said many times before, the computer is willing to ignore rather poor agility results with some of the bigger receivers. It's not that we wouldn't prefer to see someone like Garrett produce a better agility score, it's just that we don't demand it, at least not the way we would with a smaller receiver. Instead, we are more interested in seeing these kinds of players demonstrate that they have a higher degree of lower body power and explosiveness, which Garrett's Kangaroo Score would suggest is present. Athletically, Garrett basically appears to be a somewhat less explosive version of <b>Dez Bryant</b>. One of the more significant differences between these players is their hand size. While Bryant's hands measured <b>9.75"</b>, Garrett's came in at just about <b>9"</b> even. While we probably shouldn't make too much of this, it is something we have been giving some thought to lately. With some of these bigger receivers, whose change of direction skills can be a bit more limited than their smaller counterparts, we probably don't expect them to create quite as much separation from the defensive back. That's generally fine, as they can still frequently use their larger bodies to wall off their opponent, but this probably results in more contested catches. The more contested the catch is, the more we start to wonder if there really may be significant and obvious benefits to having larger hands to secure the ball. So, maybe this is a possible area of concern for Garrett. From what we can gather, he only dropped <b>3%</b> of his passes in 2015, which is an excellent result. On the other hand, he seems to have dropped about <b>14.5%</b> of his passes in 2014, which is a fairly wretched result. When it came to Garrett's statistical production, he followed what we consider a fairly normal path for larger receivers, by developing a bit more slowly than the smaller receivers, though his results ended up being above average overall. While we generally thought he looked like a respectable receiver, and someone who could be a desirable prospect, the biggest area of concern for us was his age. He will already be turning 24 this upcoming September. So, we have to consider the advantages he may have had when facing younger and potentially less physically developed college competition. We also have to wonder about how long the window for potential success will remain open for Garrett, as he will probably start to hit the age where players start to physically decline, even before his rookie contract has expired. While we generally like Garrett, we would probably lean towards selecting him no higher than the 4th or 5th round.<br />
<br />
<b>Chris Moore</b>, WR, Cincinnati Ht: <b>6' 1"</b> Wt: <b>206</b><br />
40 Time: <b>4.53</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>0.527</b> Agility Score: <b>0.426</b><br />
Chris Moore was one of the more peculiar players to make it through the computers filters this year. His actual contribution to his team's offense was significantly lower than what the computer would normally allow, with only <b>11.25%</b> of his team's offense in 2014, and <b>13.27%</b> in 2015. Players with those sorts of results typically get eliminated from further consideration pretty quickly. The problem is, the computer also factors in a player's average yards per reception, which periodically lets some weird prospects slip through the cracks. Since Moore has averaged <b>22.04</b> yards per catch, during the past two seasons, he managed to sneak past our guards, in a somewhat similar manner to what we saw with <b>Mike Wallace</b>. Now, obviously, Moore does not appear to have the rare sort of speed that Wallace had, but Moore did still seem to be a surprisingly effective down the field type of receiver. He also seems to be a fairly respectable athlete. His numbers suggest that he has moderately above average agility, as well as above average lower body power and explosiveness. If we only focused on his broad jump results, we could even elevate his Kangaroo Score to a more impressive <b>0.902</b>. He's admittedly a slightly older prospect than we like, turning 23 this coming June, and we have obvious concerns about why he wasn't a bigger part of his team's offense, but he does strike us as a curious anomaly. He's perhaps a bit unconventional, relative to the normal prospects we focus on, but he also isn't likely to cost very much to acquire. CBS seems to currently view him as just a 5th or 6th round pick. While we're not sure if we would pursue him, we might consider it if he did fall to the 6th round. Either way, we're rather curious as to how thing will turn out for such a strange player.<br />
<br />
<b>Andy Jones</b>, WR, Jacksonville University Ht: <b>6' 1.2"</b> Wt: <b>211</b><br />
40 Time: <b>4.58</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>1.207</b> Agility Score: <b>-0.722</b><br />
Every year, there is going to be some insanely weird small school player that the computer finds interesting, even if Reilly and I think it is a bit nuts. This year we have Andy Jones. When it came to his statistical production in college, Jones barely made it past the thresholds that we expect a player to reach. Of course, we also have to consider that he probably had an advantage reaching those thresholds by playing at a rather low level of competition. So, yes, his production was hardly overwhelming, and probably a bit inflated. Still, he does appear to have the sort of athletic traits that are worth giving some serious consideration. He's fairly big. He has borderline respectable speed. Most importantly, he seems to have exceptional lower body power and explosiveness. While his agility is a fair bit below average, this isn't terribly troublesome for someone of his size, and with his power, and falls within a tolerable range. It's unlikely that he will be drafted, and certainly not something we would encourage a team to do. Still, as an undrafted free agent, he seems like someone who could be interesting to bring into training camp.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Sidney Mussburgerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03104367326238874951noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9104858724022491504.post-11759885130950506962016-04-18T11:41:00.001-04:002016-08-24T22:47:12.397-04:00More Thoughts On The 2016 Running BacksSometimes I worry about the possibility that Reilly and I might be assholes. It's a thought that crosses our mind, from time to time, as it probably should with most people. After all, the people who don't give this thought some consideration, probably really are assholes.<br />
<br />
After <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2016/04/kangaroo-court-2016-running-backs.html" target="_blank">our recent post on the 2016 running back prospects,</a> we were feeling particularly guilty about our feelings that many of this year's players were probably mediocrities. This is actually a feeling we have had about several of the different position groups for this year, and expressing our constant pessimism rarely seems to bother us. Still, at some point, even jerks such as ourselves start to feel a bit bad for betting against the future success of a bunch of young kids whom we have never met.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, we just can't see a clear path to a more humane and sensitive perspective. Beyond the obvious and frequently discussed question of the positional value of running backs, Reilly and I tend to grade these players on a bit of a curve, depending on how highly they are projected to be selected. If a player is expected to be taken in the 1st round, we think they should have some clear signs of superiority. You don't want to see any reason to doubt their ability to succeed. On the other hand, if a player is expected to be a 5th round pick, we're more willing to accept it if the player possesses some peculiar quirks.<br />
<br />
So, while we don't like to be put in the position of betting against any of these kids, this year's crop of running backs presented us with a couple of troubling question. If <b>Ezekiel Elliott</b> and <b>Derrick Henry</b>
are this year's supposed top prospects, exactly how dominant do they need to be in order for them to be worth their purchase price? Even if we had perfect 20/20 hindsight, how many of the league's current top tier running backs would you be willing to go back and plunk down a 1st round pick to acquire? Probably not very many, I suspect, and the likelihood that either of this year's top running backs will enter that upper tier is hardly a sure thing. The likelihood that both will succeed is even less likely. While these two running backs may, or may not, be the top players at their position, it's also quite possible that their long term value to a team will be less than that of the 4th or 5th rated player, at a more valuable position.<br />
<br />
While <a href="http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000645917/article/eagles-howie-roseman-not-buying-into-devaluing-of-rb-position" target="_blank">Howie Roseman still seems to stubbornly cling to the idea that the top performing running backs were also high draft picks</a>, this overlooks the huge advantage that top picks have when it comes to receiving an opportunity to play. We could just as easily say that highly drafted quarterbacks throw for more passing yards than their 6th round counterparts, though we know this is primarily because teams generally refuse to bench their top draft picks, unless their incompetence reaches a truly epic level. Regardless of our doubts about Elliott and Henry, or our concerns over the value of the running back position, there is no denying that they both have a strong chance of becoming productive players, simply because they will be relatively high selections.<br />
<br />
Reilly and I also dislike finding ourselves in the awkward position of appearing to support odd prospects, merely for the sake of being different. Still, the computer did think there were some interesting reasons to be drawn towards the peculiar physical potential of <b>Daniel Lasco</b> and <b>Darius Jackson</b>. Neither of these running backs is expected to be selected before the 4th round, and though we would never suggest that either of them are certain to succeed, the cost of their failure is relatively insignificant. We just view them as interesting oddballs, and the sort of high-upside-low-risk players that we enjoy squandering late rounds picks to acquire.<br />
<br />
Again, we wind up having to ask some peculiar questions here. If given the same sort of opportunity to play, that Elliott and Henry will probably receive, what do you think the chances are that Lasco and Jackson could prove to be 90% as effective? Would you say that there is a slight possibility that they might even outperform their more highly drafted peers? Or, what if you selected both Lasco and Jackson, in the later rounds, would their combined odds of success as a pair be as great as the ones you might have for just one of either Elliott and Henry? The actual combined cost of selecting Lasco and Jackson, is still probably going to be significantly less than the likely cost of just a single 1st or 2nd round running back. These are the value related concerns that make Reilly and I trample on a lot of the higher rated prospects, even if we have no desire to be so harshly critical of a bunch of kids.<br />
<br />
While there is a reasonable chance that neither Lasco or Jackson will succeed, the question is whether that would really matter. The risks are minimal with both of them. On the other hand, if a team is anything less than ecstatic with what they get from Elliott and Henry, then a team might have a real problem. Elliott and Henry are going to need to dominate, in order to justify their selections, while Lasco and Jackson can be merely average, and still end up presenting a very respectable value.<br />
<br />Sidney Mussburgerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03104367326238874951noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9104858724022491504.post-45226226007946744302016-04-15T19:40:00.003-04:002016-04-15T20:21:15.180-04:00Jackson Jeffcoat Claimed By The Browns!Free at last! Free at last! Free at last! Thank God almighty, that Jackson Jeffcoat is free at last!<br />
<br />
Umm, maybe.<br />
<br />
I'm not really sure what to say about the <a href="http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/04/15/browns-claim-jackson-jeffcoat/" target="_blank">Browns signing of Jackson Jeffcoat</a> (oops, we initially posted the wrong link, sorry about that), after the Redskins waived him, <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2015/09/jackson-jeffcoat-vs-trent-murphy.html" target="_blank">that we haven't already said before</a>. All I can say is that Reilly and I are keeping our fingers crossed on seeing a potentially interesting player finally getting a legitimate opportunity. We have to assume that this is the work of <b>Paul DePodesta</b>, and so we will gently bow our heads towards Cleveland...for perhaps the first time ever.<br />
<br />
Yup, we are sadly and pathetically excited by this seemingly insignificant move, though we expect to be disappointed in the long run, as usual.<br />
<br />
<br />Sidney Mussburgerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03104367326238874951noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9104858724022491504.post-8272200279092944102016-04-11T14:22:00.000-04:002016-04-26T23:51:13.469-04:00Kangaroo Court: The 2016 Running Backs<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
It looks like we have reached that sad point in time where we have to blather about Reilly's views on this year's running back prospects, <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2015/04/kangaroo-court-2015-running-backs.html" target="_blank">much like we did last year</a>. Since this is one of our least favorite subjects, and we think too much of a running backs "success" is determined by their draft status and their offensive line, we thought we would start out by discussing something we find much more interesting. Of course, <i>you</i> probably won't find any of this interesting, but we're not terribly concerned with keeping you entertained. We're not clowns, whose purpose is to amuse you.<br />
<br />
So, at some point back in December, I had a rather strange and disturbing dream. At this point in my life I rarely remember the details of my dreams, but this one somehow stuck with me, and continues to rattle around in my noggin. Since I've been unable to figure of what it all meant, I thought I would offer up the chance for a wider audience to unravel its hidden meanings and mysteries. You will all get to play amateur psychoanalyst, and I will get to avoid paying for a real doctor. While my description of the dream may be a bit disjointed and confusing, what I am about to say is based on what I wrote down that morning, after waking up.<br />
<br />
At the beginning of this dream, Reilly and I found ourselves inside some restaurant in New York. This is already a little bit peculiar, because Reilly and I rarely travel, and aren't particularly drawn towards New York. Regardless, the building this restaurant was in felt fairly old and dingy, and reminded me of how a rowhouse is typically laid out. It seemed like the sort of place where the Corleone family would arrange to have a family rival assassinated.<br />
<br />
The maitre d' stepped forward, and bluntly informed us that Reilly would need to be tethered in a back storage room of the restaurant, as dogs weren't allowed in the area where people were eating. For reasons I can't explain, I grudgingly complied with this disgusting species-ist request. This is where we have <b>MYSTERY #1</b>. It is highly unlikely that I would let some stranger separate me from Reilly, or that I would leave him unsupervised. Nobody puts baby in the corner!<br />
<br />
Okay, that probably seems like an extremely minor issue to most people, but trust me when I say that this all gradually builds to a fairly demented crescendo. At this point, I am tying Reilly's leash to the end of a radiator in the storage room. There he sat, this old gray-bearded beagle, about to be temporarily abandoned, while I went to a table to eat. This is <b>MYSTERY #2</b>, as the real Reilly is in fact not a beagle (DUN! DUN! DUN!!!!), but a sheepdog. Why he transformed into a beagle in this dream, I really can't explain.<br />
<br />
At this point, I assume that I ate some sort of meal, but I have no actual memory of this taking place. Time just seemed to skip ahead. Either way, I went back to fetch Reilly, only to find that he had disappeared. Only his leash remained, lying on the floor where I had left him. I frantically searched high and low in the restaurant, in my attempts to locate him, but couldn't find a single clue as to his whereabouts. Eventually, I wandered down into the basement, which was set up as a bar. All along the counter were ragamuffin looking 8 year olds, sitting on stools and drinking pints of beer. All these little drunkards were dressed like paperboys from the early 1900s, as if they had escaped from the movies Newsies. I have no affection for the movie Newsies, but my little sister used to watch it all the time when she was a kid, so I suppose some of it must have infiltrated my brain, very much against my will. I think <b>MYSTERY #3</b> should be fairly obvious. What in the hell was going on with this bar full of weirdly dressed and liquored up children?</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKF_FKLc8XPyfnOO0gWj2gM-VHKANAT0TSBmteBCb2egGV0NAXc31j4L5wPIjt1l-0kOjlqMM99TWFp4sRK9ldR5r1kZz0XdXgqYlLpWY24T6YgN0ayrEFrP4Wd2jkk-I_RIetlgXbfn8/s1600/newsies.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="260" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKF_FKLc8XPyfnOO0gWj2gM-VHKANAT0TSBmteBCb2egGV0NAXc31j4L5wPIjt1l-0kOjlqMM99TWFp4sRK9ldR5r1kZz0XdXgqYlLpWY24T6YgN0ayrEFrP4Wd2jkk-I_RIetlgXbfn8/s400/newsies.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">It was like this, but they were much tinier, and much drunker.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I tried to ask these inebriated pipsqueaks if they had seen my partner in crime, Reilly, and they in turn asked me what he looked like. This is where it starts to seem as if I was suffering from an aneurysm, as I lost all ability to describe my own dog.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
"He's green," I said, despite knowing that the words coming out of my mouth were nonsensical. It was all I could think of to say, or at the very least, all I was able to say. Again, <b>MYSTERY #4</b> should be obvious, as Reilly, even in my dreams, is not green, though it would be kind of cool if he was. Showing serious and unfounded optimism about my communication skills, I continued,"You know what I mean, right?"</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Somehow, these little weirdos appeared to be able to make sense out of the gibberish that was tumbling out of my mouth. They formed a tiny drunken huddle, consulted with each other, and appeared to reach a conclusion. It turned out that some of them had seen a large Russian man departing the restaurant, with Reilly tucked under his arms. They warned me that I should be cautious when dealing with the Russian, as they felt that he was someone dangerous to get involved with.</div>
<br />
I thanked these boozed up children for their help, and after they gave me directions to locate the Russian, I seemed to magically and instantaneously arrive at my destination. I found myself standing in an unpaved dirt alley, in what was clearly a bad part of town, directly behind a rundown looking rowhouse. Weeds were growing everywhere behind these rundown buildings, and rats occasionally scurried past me. I found myself face to face with an enormously fat and hairy Russian man in a wifebeater, who had a distinctly gangsterish vibe to him. While this might sound as if I have some issue with Russians, I think my sense of tension was more a product of my long-standing fear of people who wear wifebeaters. They freak me out, for reasons that I can't entirely understand. Also, the only ethnic biases I am aware of possessing, are related to the Lizard People, for somewhat obvious reasons. Regardless, the dognapper looked eerily like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Brutananadilewski" target="_blank">Carl Brutananadilewski</a>, from the cartoon Aqua Teen Hunger Force, which is also a bit difficult to explain because I don't actually watch that show. I suppose it's just another example of peculiar things that have seeped into my mind over the years.</div>
</div>
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPYiRRZNDwkoHYsmzP7KLggYO5EZ-6pNTtmcpepHB2U3llUjYxSRrhtoMSEzTh21nv1aBzzGJW2mDxyAjJ2d5Dv-UuePA9xoTjnqOH7orVbiwzYhNMQ0BoD7vfcjEvluUMmXiGGL-uyvw/s1600/Carl_Brutananadilewski.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPYiRRZNDwkoHYsmzP7KLggYO5EZ-6pNTtmcpepHB2U3llUjYxSRrhtoMSEzTh21nv1aBzzGJW2mDxyAjJ2d5Dv-UuePA9xoTjnqOH7orVbiwzYhNMQ0BoD7vfcjEvluUMmXiGGL-uyvw/s320/Carl_Brutananadilewski.png" width="204" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Artist's rendering of the kidnapper.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
The Russian openly acknowledged the fact that he had my dog, and seemed to have no sense of shame or concern about being caught committing the most horrendous crime a human being is capable of. Rather than giving my loyal sidekick back to me, the fat man seemed to be more interested in putting Reilly to work.<br />
<br />
"Dog pulls cart very well," said the Russian, now showing my green (but not actually green) beagle (but not actually a beagle) Reilly to me, who was tethered and harnessed to a hot dog cart. It is somewhat difficult to adequately convey how disturbing I found this image to be.<br />
<br />
Reilly cowered before the fat man, an his puppy dog eyes cried out to be rescued. At this point, we have clearly reached <b>MYSTERY #5</b>, where we have to ask "Why would a little dog be pulling a hot dog cart?", or why would such an idiotic idea be rattling around in my subconscious. I have no explanation for that, or anything else that has happened in this dream.<br />
<br />
The Russian said he would return Reilly to me for $800, which I didn't have on hand. Whether I paid up or not, didn't seem to matter to the man, as he was perfectly happy to have Reilly continue in a life of hot dog cart pulling servitude. I suppose I was becoming a bit anxious at this point, and perhaps Reilly sensed that we were in trouble (he is a brilliant dog, and we have always had a strong telepathic bond), because he began to whimper in fear. This seemed to infuriate the Russian, who pulled his leg back, as he prepared to kick my puppy.<br />
<br />
I quickly weighed my options, including the seemingly strong possibility that this man was armed, and got ready to pounce (I'm like a jungle cat in real life as well), and then.....I woke up. <br />
<br />
Now, maybe this will make sense to you, or maybe it won't, but this dream left me feeling incredibly confused. My groggy but now conscious self was left with a serious feeling of "What the fuck was all of that about?". Sure, I could explain some parts of it. After all, I do have some perfectly rational fears concerning the possibility that one of the readers of this blog (or Ozzie Newsome) will recognize how wonderful and brilliant Reilly is, and try to steal my dog for themselves. Still, there was a rather intense level of weirdness to how all of this played out, that left me stupefied. It felt as if someone had slipped me some bad acid, and given David Lynch directorial control of my subconscious.<br />
<br />
If nothing else, you now have a better understanding of the sort of lunatic who writes this blog. I also, have unburdened myself, and admitted that I think you are all conspiring to abduct Reilly. If anybody has an interesting interpretation of this dream, I would certainly be curious to hear it. For the potential dognappers out there, you should be aware that we live in a heavily fortified compound, with a relatively large cult that watches over Reilly day and night, and whose sole purpose in life is dedicated to his well-being. So, good luck with whatever you may be attempting to do. <br />
<br />
With that out of the way, I suppose we should get back on track, and start prattling about this year's group of running back prospects, which I feel is a much duller subject.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br />
I've already mentioned our <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2013/06/running-backs.html">peculiar views on running backs</a> and their athletic abilities, so I'll just skip ahead a bit here. The player's <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-kangaroo-score.html">Kangaroo Score</a>
(our measure of lower body power) and Agility Score (based on their
short shuttle and 3-cone times) will be given in the form of how many
standard deviations above, or below average, that the player happens to
be compared to his peers at the same position. I'll also include the
player's <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2013/05/a-players-2nd-gear.html">2nd Gear Score</a>, and <a href="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/info/glossary">Speed Score</a>.
Personally, I have some issues/concerns with including the Speed Score, but a fair
number of people are familiar with this metric, so I figured I would toss it in
there. I should also mention that I sometimes use the unofficial 40 times, rather
than the magically altered official times of the NFL, since I prefer to
look at the results in relation to a player's 10-yard split.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>This list will continue to be updated, as new data and prospects come
to my attention. We won't list every prospect here, but instead will just
mention the players that we feel are interesting for one reason or
another. Last Updated: </b>4/18/2016<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Ezekiel Elliott</b>, RB, Ohio State Ht: <b>5'11.75"</b> Wt: <b>225</b><br />
40 Time: <b>4.47</b> 2nd Gear: <b>0.11</b> Speed Score: <b>112.7</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>0.217</b> Agility Score: <b>0.786*</b> <br />
Since Elliott didn't complete all of the drills at the combine, or at his pro day, we had to be a bit open minded about how we calculated some of his scores. This mainly became an issue with his agility score, where we had to input numbers that are sort of based on unreliable and difficult to verify rumors. Regardless, it does appear that Elliott is probably a fairly respectable athlete, even if none of his results are particularly outstanding. His college production was clearly well above average, even if playing at Ohio State might have inflated his numbers a bit, and included at least some evidence that he can also be used as a pass catcher. While we felt he looked like a respectable runner in the few games we watched, these subjective opinions also don't matter too much to us. Because of the opportunities he is likely to be given, as a relatively
high draft pick, some level of success is fairly likely, though we have
some doubts about whether he is truly an exceptional player. The real problem is the idea of selecting a running back in the 1st round. It's just not something we would ever be willing to do, and would strike us as an incredibly stupid decision. Still, we wish only the best of luck to whoever selects Elliott<br />
<br />
<b>Derrick Henry</b>, RB, Alabama Ht: <b>6'2.5"</b> Wt: <b>247</b><br />
40 Time: <b>4.54</b> 2nd Gear: <b>0.06</b> Speed Score: <b>116.2</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>2.810</b> Agility Score: <b>-0.778</b> <br />
Henry is kind of a weird prospect. His measurable traits suggest he has incredible lower body power, but just average speed and below average change of direction ability. Basically, he is probably just a human battering ram. The peculiar thing is, for a guy that should have great power, we felt that he routinely allowed himself to be tackled without the sort of resistance that you might expect. There's also the nagging issue that he has so far shown very little evidence that he can be useful as a receiver, which is a bit of a problem. Can a modern running back really succeed without contributing as a receiver? We have some doubts about that. People seem to enjoy comparing him to <b>Brandon Jacobs</b>, which is understandable, but this is also a bit perplexing. After all, Jacobs was only selected in the 4th round, largely because he had a lot of the same limitations that Henry seems to possess. <b>Andre Williams</b> might be another good comparison for Henry, though he was also selected in the 4th round, and arguably a somewhat better athlete. So, why are people suggesting that Henry should be a 2nd round pick? We have no idea.<br />
<br />
<b>Devontae Booker</b>, RB, Utah Ht: <b>5'11"</b> Wt: <b>219</b><br />
40 Time: <b>?</b> 2nd Gear: <b>?</b> Speed Score: <b>?</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>?</b> Agility Score: <b>?</b> <br />
Without much in the way of measurable data, there is very little that we can say about Booker. While he had steady and respectable production in college, the true value of some of this is murky. His average yards per carry tended to be unexceptional, though we could possibly blame his offensive line for some of that. It's also hard to weigh his impact relative to the other Utah State running backs, since so few opportunities were given to other backs. In 2015, yes, there is some evidence to suggest that the team did better when Booker was handed the ball, rather than another back. Prior to that season, it is hard to say for sure. The main thing that stands out about Booker, is his above average production as a receiver. We obviously like that. On the other hand, Booker will already be turning 24 this coming May, so the window for how much a team can get out of him during his physical peak is relatively small. Since he is coming off of a November knee injury, which could impact his usefulness as a rookie, this window may get even smaller. In the little that we have seen of Booker, he struck us as a respectable player, but not as someone who was a terrifying talent. He seemed to take the yards that were available to him, but not someone who could regularly create additional yards on his own. Some people seem to think that Booker will be a 2nd round pick, and while we wouldn't bet against him becoming a useful player, we think he's probably worth significantly less than that sort of investment.<br />
<br />
<b>Kenneth Dixon</b>, RB, Louisiana Tech Ht: <b>5'10.25"</b> Wt: <b>215</b><br />
40 Time: <b>4.56</b> 2nd Gear: <b>0.01</b> Speed Score: <b>99.4</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>0.562</b> Agility Score: <b>0.109</b> <br />
Except for his moderately above average lower body power and explosiveness, Dixon appears to generally be a very average athlete. While he was a productive running back, his rushing numbers were also probably inflated by playing against a lower level of competition. We suspect it is mainly his production as a receiver which is drawing some people to him, though this might be offset by his above average number of fumbles. He didn't make too much of an impression on either Reilly or myself, but we suppose he could do okay if he is put behind an above average offensive line. Really though, we suspect there are comparable free agent running backs floating around, who could be signed for practically nothing.<br />
<br />
<b>Alex Collins</b>, RB, Arkansas Ht: <b>5'10"</b> Wt: <b>217</b><br />
40 Time: <b>4.59</b> 2nd Gear: <b>0.03</b> Speed Score: <b>97.7</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>-0.467</b> Agility Score: <b>?</b> <br />
For a player of his size, it is a bit odd to see that his results don't suggest that he has particularly impressive lower body power. There also doesn't seem to be much evidence of great speed. It would be nice to have agility results to help explain his rather steady production as a runner, but that data is still unavailable. In the little we have seen of Collins, he actually struck us as a fairly nifty runner. Unfortunately, without some sort of confirmed data to suggest above average athletic potential, we would have a hard time trusting such subjective opinions. There are also a few additional problems here. For one, Collins has never demonstrated much as a receiver, which should probably be a requirement when drafting a running back. We were also somewhat concerned by the comparable effectiveness that his teammate <b>Jonathan Williams</b> had at Arkansas. Similar to what we see with Collins, Williams also possesses few signs of athletic superiority, but they both produced nearly identical results. Maybe the offensive line at Arkansas deserves a fair bit of credit? While we enjoyed watching Collins, and would be perfectly happy to see him succeed despite our cautious pessimism, he just isn't the sort of prospect that the computer would allow us to select.<br />
<br />
<b>Jordan Howard</b>, RB, Indiana Ht: <b>6'</b> Wt: <b>230</b><br />
40 Time: <b>4.59</b> 2nd Gear: <b>0.07</b> Speed Score: <b>103.6</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>0.929</b> Agility Score:<b>-0.499</b> <br />
We're still having a hard time finding sufficient data related to Howard, so we just have to make our guesses based upon what is available. One of the few things we know about his athletic ability, is that he should possess somewhat above average lower body power, according to his Kangaroo Score. While that score adjusts his vertical and broad jump results to account for weight, his non adjusted numbers suggest just average explosiveness, relative to other running backs. When it comes to Howard's speed and agility results, these also fall into a fairly mediocre range. The more interesting aspect to Howard, is his statistical production. Beyond just the volume of his numbers, we liked how Howard appeared to be a significantly more efficient runner than his peers at Indiana and also at UAB. At Indiana, his rushing average was <b>1.7</b> yards higher than that of <b>Devine Redding, </b>who had a roughly similar number of carries<b>.</b> At UAB, Howard's average gain was <b>1.2</b> yards higher than the next most frequently utilized running back on the team. We like these sorts of results, because they at least suggest that his production wasn't purely a product of the offensive line, or a result that any average player would have wound up with. On the flip side, Howard never produced much as a receiver, which is a bit of a problem. While we only saw him targeted a small handful of times as a receiver, we wouldn't say that he looked bad at all in this area, though there just isn't enough data to say anything conclusively. In the few games we saw Howard play, we wouldn't say that we were blown away by his performance, but he at least struck as somewhat more interesting than a number of the other mediocrities in this draft class. Without more data, we probably wouldn't pursue him ourselves, but if a team chose to pick him up in the 4th round, it wouldn't strike us as a terribly unreasonable gamble.<br />
<br />
<b>Jonathan Williams</b>, RB, Arkansas Ht: <b>5'11"</b> Wt: <b>220</b><br />
40 Time: <b>4.63</b> 2nd Gear: <b>-0.06</b> Speed Score: <b>95.7</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>?</b> Agility Score: <b>0.075</b> <br />
We might as well repeat what we said about his teammate <b>Alex Collins</b>. Considering the lack of evidence to support the idea that Williams possesses any sort of superior athletic traits, and the relative interchangeability of the Arkansas running backs, we have to lean towards the possibility that Arkansas' offensive line might deserve a lot of the credit for the success of these players. <br />
<br />
<b>Kenyon Drake</b>, RB, Alabama Ht: <b>6'0.5"</b> Wt: <b>210</b><br />
40 Time: <b>4.45</b> 2nd Gear: <b>0.19</b> Speed Score: <b>107.1</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>-0.009</b> Agility Score: <b>0.179</b> <br />
This must be the yin to Derrick Henry's yang. Drake is sort of an odd duck. Athletically, the numbers suggest that his lower body power and explosiveness is merely average. The same could be said of his agility. The weird thing is his 40 time. While he had a moderately impressive result here, his 2nd gear score would suggest that this is still underestimating his deep speed, possibly by a good bit. The question is whether this speed alone is sufficient for success in the NFL. Because of his other results, we wouldn't expect him to have significant success pounding the ball between the tackles. We also wouldn't expect him to prove to be terribly elusive. Based on the limited opportunities he had in college, we also don't have much to suggest that he can be a team's primary back. His results seem to point to him being a guy who can hit an occasional home run, but will also probably get stuffed on more plays than you might like. While he's shown some ability as a receiver, we also can't look at his results in this area as being terribly shocking or unusual. He sort of looks like the type of guy who becomes a 3rd down dump off option, but that isn't necessarily the hardest sort of player to find. We seem to see a number of sites projecting Drake as a mid-round selection, but that seems just a bit steep to us.<br />
<br />
<b>Paul Perkins</b>, RB, UCLA Ht: <b>5'11.5"</b> Wt: <b>208</b><br />
40 Time: <b>4.54</b> 2nd Gear: <b>0.08</b> Speed Score: <b>97.9</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>-0.397 </b> Agility Score: <b>?</b> <br />
Is it starting to feel as if we constantly criticize running backs, and never give them much respect? Yes, we are aware of the fact that we tend to be downers, when it comes to our views on players at this position. Even Reilly and I get tired of being so pessimistic, though I doubt we are going to change our ways any time soon. While we lack any agility data for Perkins, his other results suggest a rather common and unexciting variety of speed, lower body power and explosiveness. Athletically, he's probably like a whole slew of running backs prospects in this draft, and somewhat average. While Perkins was a highly productive runner, it is also moderately difficult to say that the other running backs on his team wouldn't have produced similar results, which somewhat troubles us. His contributions as a receiver are moderately intriguing, but also don't appear to be clearly out of line with what other UCLA running backs might have done, if given similar opportunities. Like a fair number of players we have discussed, he struck us as a respectable college running back, but not necessarily an electrifying one. One of the main things he has going for him, is that he is one of the younger prospects, and won't turn 22 until November. He also probably presents better value than some of his similar peers, since a lot of people seem to be projecting him as nothing more than a mid-round prospect. Like a lot of these players, we think the extent to which they succeed or fail, is going to be more determined by the team they wind up on, and the line they play behind, rather than their individual talent. In the little we have seen of him, he appeared to be respectable, and capable, but not someone we would probably worry about pursuing.<br />
<br />
<b>C.J. Prosise</b>, RB, Notre Dame Ht: <b>5'11"</b> Wt: <b>219</b><br />
40 Time: <b>4.48</b> 2nd Gear: <b>0.09</b> Speed Score: <b>109.2</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>0.555</b> Agility Score: <b>-1.403</b> <br />
Based on his production in college, we were kind of excited about taking a look at Prosise. When you consider his high yards per carry, and his production as a receiver, he looks fairly ideal. Unfortunately, we didn't like all of the things that turned up when we started to poke around. First of all, it was hard to say that his rushing results were significantly different than those of his fellow Notre Dame running backs, though this is a bit tough to gauge since Procise was really only the starter for one season. His receiving numbers are also a bit odd, since we don't normally expect players with his sort of abysmal agility results to be terribly effective in this area. Of course, we have to admit that the relationship between a running backs ability as a receiver and his agility results, isn't always reliable, but this still seems odd to us. His other athletic results also didn't strike us as being anything better than just okay. He seems to have lower body power and explosiveness that is just a tad better than average. His speed, was likewise respectable, but nothing that should frighten people. In the handful of games we have seen him in, he struck us as a respectable running back, though our nipples never got more than lukewarm watching him. While we weren't overwhelmed by him, we suppose he could do okay, so long as he isn't tossed into a terrible situation. Since he is generally projected to be a 3rd or 4th round pick, the potential risks versus rewards of selecting him is probably reasonably acceptable. Still, there are probably going to be cheaper options that we like even more.<br />
<br />
<b>Daniel Lasco</b>, RB, California Ht: <b>6'0.3"</b> Wt: <b>209</b><br />
40 Time: <b>4.44</b> 2nd Gear: <b>0.09</b> Speed Score: <b>107.5</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>1.517</b> Agility Score: <b>-0.420</b> <br />
I guess we should just be happy that people aren't talking about turning him into a fullback, eh? Okay, we're not exactly breaking new ground by suggesting that Lasco has interesting athletic potential. His numbers would suggest that he has good speed, excellent lower body power and explosiveness, and agility that is at least close enough to average to not cause great concern. If we were willing to consider his pro day results, we could also boost this agility score to a significantly more impressive <b>0.927</b>. Suddenly, you are talking about a very well-rounded athlete. The main knock on Lasco probably has to do with his production in college. He only really had one complete year as a starter, and while his numbers were okay, some might fret over his rushing average of just <b>5.3</b> yards in that season. We're sort of leaning towards the possibility that his team's offensive line might have been to blame for some of that. In the little we have seen of Lasco, there seemed to be no shortage of examples of an opponent meeting him behind the line of scrimmage, just a split second after he was handed the ball. You can't really blame the running back for that. The Cal offensive line also seemed to struggle with not getting Jared Goff killed, so I think we can assume that their line mostly sucked. When given halfway decent blocking, we think Lasco actually looked pretty damn good, and was one of the more exciting guys in this class. He also showed at least a reasonable amount of ability as a receiver, which we think is fairly critical nowadays. There are really only a couple relatively minor concerns that we have with Lasco. First of all, he will already be turning 24 this coming October, which is a bit older than what we would prefer. Secondly, he has already dealt with a couple injuries, and when you consider how few games he has played in, it makes you worry how he will handle a steady stream of physical abuse. We're currently seeing people project Lasco as a 4th round pick, which seems fairly reasonable to us. <br />
<br />
<b>Tyler Ervin</b>, RB, San Jose State Ht: <b>5'9.7"</b> Wt: <b>192</b><br />
40 Time: <b>4.41</b> 2nd Gear: <b>0.15</b> Speed Score: <b>101.5</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>-0.074</b> Agility Score: <b>-0.236</b> <br />
Except for his above average straight line speed, Ervin appears to be a fairly average athlete. There's nothing wrong with that, but it does make guessing whether he will succeed or fail a bit more difficult. Give him a good offensive line, and he might do okay. Give him a terrible one, and he might suck. When we looked at his statistical production, two thoughts occurred to us. One, his rushing numbers seemed to get inflated a bit by beating up on some terrible teams. Two, he does appear to have some value as a receiver. Considering his smaller size, and modest athletic traits, he would appear to be the type of running back that teams trot onto the field for 3rd downs, as a dump off option. It's kind of hard for us to imagine him being a team's primary running back, but we're open to the idea that he could do okay in a rotation. Since CBS seems to project that he will just be a 4th or 5th round selection, we don't necessarily have any significant complaints about him. Still, he's probably not someone we would strongly pursue.<br />
<br />
<b>Darius Jackson</b>, RB, Eastern Michigan Ht: <b>6'1"</b> Wt: <b>220</b><br />
40 Time: <b>4.40</b> 2nd Gear: <b>0.16</b> Speed Score: <b>117.3</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>2.006</b>* Agility Score: <b>0.314</b> <br />
When it comes to physical potential, very few running backs can challenge Darius Jackson. Lower body power and explosiveness? His Kangaroo Score suggests that he has significantly more than his fair share. Speed? Well, his 40 time is impressive, but his 2nd Gear Score suggests that this is still probably underestimating his deep speed by quite a bit. Agility? Well, Darius evidently didn't feel like showing off, and decided he should only allow himself to be a little bit above average in that department. Athletically, he is basically everything that <b>Adrian Peterson</b> is, but better. Of course, we're only talking about physical potential here, and you never can tell whether a player is going to choose to live up to their abilities. When it came to his statistical production in college, his results can give you somewhat mixed feelings. In general, we would say that his rushing numbers were relatively solid, for a guy who didn't get a ton of carries. Why didn't he get more carries, if he is so talented? Well, basically, Eastern Michigan sucked. They were routinely blown out, which limits the likelihood that a team is going to stick with their running game. His rushing average was also a bit pedestrian (just a <b>5.2</b> YPC average in his final season), but there's so little data on Jackson, that it makes it hard to determine whether this was his fault, or the fault of his offensive line. His receiving numbers may only appear to be borderline adequate, but we think they are actually fairly impressive relative to the limited effectiveness of his team's overall passing offense. We've had very few opportunities to see samples of his play, but for the most part we were impressed with what was available. We were particularly surprised to see how natural he appeared as a receiver, which we view as a huge bonus. As far as his blocking, umm, we really couldn't care less. Some people like to fuss about that, but it strikes us as a bit silly. We currently see CBS listing him as a player who might get selected somewhere around the 6th round, but this feels like a rather low appraisal of Jackson. While it might be a bit of a gamble, based on how little data there is on him, we think it wouldn't be unreasonable to start considering him as high as the 3rd or 4th round. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Sidney Mussburgerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03104367326238874951noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9104858724022491504.post-77961827032065451242016-04-05T14:04:00.001-04:002016-09-26T00:08:53.422-04:00Jared Goff: Making Chicken SaladDo you remember when sitcoms used to have those "very special episodes"? They were the ones where we were supposed to dispense with frivolity, and discuss more serious matters. There was the time when Mr. Belvedere went in for a sex change operation, and we learned a valuable lesson. Or, that time when ALF developed anorexia, and again, we learned a valuable lesson. Shit, I'm probably dating myself by referring to these old television programs, and alienating the youngsters who might wander in here. Well, whether you remember these events or not, this post is going to be something like those special events.<br />
<br />
Reilly and I generally prefer to avoid the subject of quarterbacks. We've already found plenty of other ways to prove that we are fools, without dipping our feet into the peculiar and dangerous arena of QB speculation. Still, we feel as if this year's crop of QB prospects is sort of odd, especially when you look at <b>Jared Goff</b> and <b>Carson Wentz</b>, who are supposedly the top prospects at their position. The more we looked at the data related to these players, the more interesting we felt their individual stories were. I can't say that we feel terribly confident about our ability to present our arguments regarding these two players in a way that will be sufficiently persuasive, but hopefully you can bear with us.<br />
<br />
Because quarterbacks don't really fit within the mold of what we normally discuss, which often relates to our obsession with highly productive athletic freaks, Reilly and I have never been uncertain as to how we should pursue this topic. It's one of those odd positions where what is going on between a player's ears probably matters more than how superior an athlete they are. We also tend to feel a bit uncomfortable with purely subjective opinions of a player's performance, but with quarterbacks we sometimes have to wonder if that sort of analysis might be more valid. Still, that really isn't our way of doing things.<br />
<br />
So, what we decided to do was to analyze the college production for about 20 of this year's QB prospects. Our methods were half-assed, and highly questionable, as you would probably expect if you have been here before. First, we wanted to calculate what percentage of an individual's pass attempts resulted in a touchdown, interception or a sack, in each season that a prospect played. We also kept a close eye on their YPA (yards per attempt), since we feel this has significant value when it comes to a prospect's willingness to be more aggressive with the ball. Then, we ran their game to game numbers, and attempted to compare their results to the touchdown rates, interception rates, YPA and sack rates of the different opponents they faced. We were basically trying to find out which games the player might have performed above or below the expectations one might have, relative to the opponent they were facing.<br />
<br />
Now, we have to admit that we still aren't certain about whether this is a method we will pursue in the future. It's just something we are kicking around, and have gradually been trying to improve over the past few years. Maybe we'll come up with something better, or maybe we'll become frustrated and give up on pursuing the highly frustrating subject of quarterbacks. Either way, we were kind of amused to see what the computer had to say about this little endeavor.<br />
<br />
When we reached the end of our calculations, we were able to produce a rough sort of score that possibly suggested which players were most consistently performing above expectation, relative to the opponents they faced. The interesting thing was, the computer's most highly rated players were also this year's presumed favorites, Carson Wentz and Jared Goff (what a fortunate coincidence!). Unfortunately, there was still a lot of data hidden in all of this, and our investigation took us in some weird directions.<br />
<br />
Let's start off by simply comparing the most superficial results for these two players.<br />
<br />
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 500px;"><colgroup><col style="mso-width-alt: 2706; mso-width-source: userset; width: 56pt;" width="74"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 2962; mso-width-source: userset; width: 61pt;" width="81"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 3254; mso-width-source: userset; width: 67pt;" width="89"></col>
<col span="4" style="width: 48pt;" width="64"></col>
</colgroup><tbody>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 56pt;" width="74"><b> Goff</b></td>
<td style="width: 61pt;" width="81"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 67pt;" width="89"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><b> Year</b></td>
<td><b> YPA</b></td>
<td><b> Rating</b></td>
<td><b> Sack%</b></td>
<td><b> TD/INT</b></td>
<td><b> TD%</b></td>
<td><b> INT%</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2015</td>
<td align="right">8.92</td>
<td align="right">161.3</td>
<td align="right">4.68</td>
<td align="right">3.3</td>
<td align="right">8.12</td>
<td align="right">2.45</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2014</td>
<td align="right">7.81</td>
<td align="right">147.6</td>
<td align="right">4.85</td>
<td align="right">5</td>
<td align="right">6.87</td>
<td align="right">1.37</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2013</td>
<td align="right">6.61</td>
<td align="right">123.2</td>
<td align="right">5.68</td>
<td align="right">1.8</td>
<td align="right">3.38</td>
<td align="right">1.88</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 500px;"><colgroup><col style="mso-width-alt: 2706; mso-width-source: userset; width: 56pt;" width="74"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 2962; mso-width-source: userset; width: 61pt;" width="81"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 3254; mso-width-source: userset; width: 67pt;" width="89"></col>
<col span="4" style="width: 48pt;" width="64"></col>
</colgroup><tbody>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 56pt;" width="74"><b> Wentz</b></td>
<td style="width: 61pt;" width="81"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 67pt;" width="89"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><b> Year</b></td>
<td><b> YPA</b></td>
<td><b> Rating</b></td>
<td><b> Sack%</b></td>
<td><b> TD/INT</b></td>
<td><b> TD%</b></td>
<td><b> INT%</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2015</td>
<td align="right">7.93</td>
<td align="right">152.3</td>
<td align="right">3.70</td>
<td align="right">4.25</td>
<td align="right">8.17</td>
<td align="right">1.92</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2014</td>
<td align="right">8.68</td>
<td align="right">154.1</td>
<td align="right">5.29</td>
<td align="right">2.5</td>
<td align="right">6.98</td>
<td align="right">2.79</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
On the surface, these two appear to have a fair bit in common, and look rather impressive. They both show a high rate of touchdown production, with a seemingly respectable ability to avoid interceptions. When it comes to pushing the ball deeper down the field, and being aggressive, they both seem to get good marks in that area as well. They also seem to potentially display a gradually improving ability to avoid sacks, from year to year.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, we think a lot of these similarities are bullshit. The more we looked at the data, the more we started to see some glaring differences in their numbers, which caused us a fair amount of concern. It also made us start to suspect that one of these players might be a fraud, while the other one could be fairly interesting. I suppose the title of this post might be tipping our hand as to which prospect our conclusions ended up pointing towards as the safer investment.<br />
<br />
Okay, let's get our geek on!<br />
<br />
<b>Absence Makes The Heart Grow Fonder</b><br />
<br />
One of the potentially interesting questions that occurred to us, was to ask whether these results are purely a product of the quarterback, or a reflection of their team's passing offense as a whole. This could be summed up as "Are <b>Matthew Stafford's</b> statistics really a product of his skill, or a result of playing with <b>Calvin Johnson</b>?" You can insert your own scenario where a player might be benefiting from surrounding talent here. "Was Ringo Starr a great drummer, or was he just benefiting from playing with The Beatles?", we could apply this idea to pretty much anything.<br />
<br />
Now, here was one other interesting issue that these players had in common. At no point did either one of them have a receiver who accounted for a terribly high percentage<b></b> of his team's receiving yards. Wentz might have leaned a tad bit more on individual receivers, but not by much. In 2015, <b>23.9%</b> of North Dakota State's receiving yards went to <b>R.J. Urzendowski</b>. For Goff, the most he ever leaned on a receiver was in 2013, when <b>21.4%</b> of his team's receiving yards went to <b>Chris Harper</b>. Either way, these sorts of low percentages from a group of receivers would most likely eliminate the possibility that either quarterback was benefiting from having a particularly dominant receiver helping them out.<br />
<br />
One possible difference that is worth noting here is the rate at which their respective receivers were dropping passes. With Wentz, it would appear that his receivers dropped about <b>5.5%</b> of the balls thrown their way, in 2015. In Goff's case, this number climbs to <b>9.8%</b>. While we can't validate this information ourselves, we are instead using <a href="https://twitter.com/NFLFilmStudy/status/683166642822639616/photo/1" target="_blank">data provided by Ian Wharton</a>. If this information is accurate, then we would probably have to say that Goff's receivers potentially presented quite a bit more of a disadvantage than the ones that Wentz played with.<br />
<br />
Then, we come to a different sort of question. While the passing results for both quarterbacks appear to be impressive, how do these results differ from the quarterbacks that preceded them at their respective schools? After all, you would expect a truly superior and unique talent to produce results that clearly separate them from some other bozo who was placed in a similar situation. Let's take a look.<br />
<br />
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 580px;"><colgroup><col style="mso-width-alt: 4205; mso-width-source: userset; width: 86pt;" width="115"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 2962; mso-width-source: userset; width: 61pt;" width="81"></col>
<col span="6" style="width: 48pt;" width="64"></col>
</colgroup><tbody>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 86pt;" width="115"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 61pt;" width="81"><b>Goff</b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><b>Player</b></td>
<td><b> Year</b></td>
<td><b> YPA</b></td>
<td><b> Rating</b></td>
<td><b> Sack%</b></td>
<td><b> TD/INT</b></td>
<td><b> TD%</b></td>
<td><b> INT%</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td class="xl24" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Goff</td>
<td align="right">2015</td>
<td align="right">8.92</td>
<td align="right">161.3</td>
<td align="right">4.68</td>
<td align="right">3.3</td>
<td align="right">8.12</td>
<td align="right">2.45</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Goff</td>
<td align="right">2014</td>
<td align="right">7.81</td>
<td align="right">147.6</td>
<td align="right">4.85</td>
<td align="right">5</td>
<td align="right">6.87</td>
<td align="right">1.37</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Goff</td>
<td align="right">2013</td>
<td align="right">6.61</td>
<td align="right">123.2</td>
<td align="right">5.68</td>
<td align="right">1.8</td>
<td align="right">3.38</td>
<td align="right">1.88</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Maynard</td>
<td align="right">2012</td>
<td align="right">7.48</td>
<td align="right">130.3</td>
<td align="right">11.64</td>
<td align="right">1.1</td>
<td align="right">3.71</td>
<td align="right">3.37</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Maynard</td>
<td align="right">2011</td>
<td align="right">7.38</td>
<td align="right">127.0</td>
<td align="right">6.25</td>
<td align="right">1.4</td>
<td align="right">4.19</td>
<td align="right">2.96</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Riley/Mansion</td>
<td align="right">2010</td>
<td align="right">6.38</td>
<td align="right">117.4</td>
<td align="right">6.66</td>
<td align="right">1.3</td>
<td align="right">4.65</td>
<td align="right">3.41</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
Okay, so what happened when Goff took over at Cal, just a few weeks before his 19th birthday? Well, you might not notice much here initially, beyond immediately reducing the rate at which the team was producing interceptions, and perhaps lowering the rate at which the QB was getting sacked. There's a bit more going on in these numbers, which we'll get to as we proceed, but we can say that Goff gradually progressed to produce results in virtually every category that were significant improvements better than anything his predecessors had ever done. The team's touchdown rate kept going up. The interceptions kept going down. Though his 2015 interception results are a bit higher, that is mainly the result of just one game against Utah, which we might want to dismiss as an anomaly You can make up your own mind about that possibility. If that game was excluded, his interception rate would have been <b>1.65%, </b>which is probably more in line with his other seasons. The rate at which the QB was getting sacked also kept improving (which we'll eventually try to show was a product of Goff's presence). The team's YPA similarly kept moving ever higher, possibly suggesting that Goff was becoming a more aggressive passer with each season. Goff's presence appeared to matter.<br />
<br />
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 580px;"><colgroup><col style="mso-width-alt: 4205; mso-width-source: userset; width: 86pt;" width="115"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 2962; mso-width-source: userset; width: 61pt;" width="81"></col>
<col span="6" style="width: 48pt;" width="64"></col>
</colgroup><tbody>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 86pt;" width="115"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 61pt;" width="81"><b>Wentz</b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><b>Player</b></td>
<td><b> Year</b></td>
<td><b> YPA</b></td>
<td><b> Rating</b></td>
<td><b> Sack%</b></td>
<td><b> TD/INT</b></td>
<td><b> TD%</b></td>
<td><b> INT%</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td class="xl24" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Stick</td>
<td align="right">2015</td>
<td align="right">7.78</td>
<td align="right">150.3</td>
<td align="right">5.16</td>
<td align="right">3.25</td>
<td align="right">8.84</td>
<td align="right">2.72</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Wentz</td>
<td align="right">2015</td>
<td align="right">7.93</td>
<td align="right">152.3</td>
<td align="right">3.7</td>
<td align="right">4.25</td>
<td align="right">8.17</td>
<td align="right">1.92</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Wentz</td>
<td align="right">2014</td>
<td align="right">8.68</td>
<td align="right">154.1</td>
<td align="right">5.29</td>
<td align="right">2.5</td>
<td align="right">6.98</td>
<td align="right">2.79</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Jensen</td>
<td align="right">2013</td>
<td align="right">8.48</td>
<td align="right">186.2</td>
<td align="right">4.63</td>
<td align="right">4.8</td>
<td align="right">10.33</td>
<td align="right">2.12</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Jensen</td>
<td align="right">2012</td>
<td align="right">6.89</td>
<td align="right">155.4</td>
<td align="right">6.62</td>
<td align="right">2.1</td>
<td align="right">5.02</td>
<td align="right">2.36</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Jensen</td>
<td align="right">2011</td>
<td align="right">7.74</td>
<td align="right">143.9</td>
<td align="right">5.23</td>
<td align="right">3.5</td>
<td align="right">4.29</td>
<td align="right">1.22</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Mohler/Jensen</td>
<td align="right">2010</td>
<td align="right">6.95</td>
<td align="right">119.6</td>
<td align="right">9.94</td>
<td align="right">1.2</td>
<td align="right">3.89</td>
<td align="right">3.24</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
What we see with Wentz, is a bit different. The quarterback who preceded Wentz at North Dakota State, <b>Brock Jensen</b>, seemed to have steadily been making progress. In general, the rate at which Jensen was producing touchdowns and interceptions was fairly exceptional, especially by his 2013 season. Jensen's YPA and sack rate also didn't differ greatly from what we see with Wentz. If anything, Wentz merely appeared to be picking up where Jensen left off. Wentz was also only becoming a starter just a few weeks before his 22nd birthday, which is about 3 years older than when we saw Goff entering games.<br />
<br />
Of course, Wentz's 2015 season only consisted of a mere 8 games in which he played. When he was out, <b>Easton Stick</b> took over (with a name like that, he should have been a lacrosse player). Strangely, Stick seemed to end up producing touchdown and interception rates that didn't differ significantly from what we saw from Wentz, despite being a freshman with no prior starting experience. The areas where Stick fell short of Wentz, largely came in Stick's YPA and sack rate results, but we think we can explain at least some of that as we get further along. Now, admittedly, we do have some ways to suggest that Wentz was still performing a little better than Stick. That largely comes down to comparing their results to the individual opponents that they faced. Still, you would probably hope to see a greater divide between these two players, all things considered. In the 8 games in which Stick filled in for Wentz, North Dakota State continued to pummel their opponents, and still won every single game This all makes it rather difficult to tell whether Wentz was the driving force of this offense, or if his presence even mattered.<br />
<br />
If a player is actually superior, you would tend to think their presence or absence would be felt by their team. Which of these two players, Wentz or Goff, appears to have had a greater effect on their team's passing results?<br />
<br />
<b>Interceptions!</b><br />
<br />
Generally speaking, I think we can say that we want to see a quarterback keep their interception rate below <b>2.5%</b>. For the most part, Wentz and Goff would appear to meet this criteria. Of course, when and how a quarterback produces interceptions, is also something we have to consider.<br />
<br />
We thought it would be interesting to eliminate all the games in which either player threw an interception, and only examine the games in which they might have been making mistakes. The funny thing was, with neither player was there any significant correlation between the rate at which they were getting sacked, and the rate at which the were producing turnovers. At best, our regressions only produced an R^2 value of <b>0.018</b>, which is absolutely insignificant.<br />
<br />
The more interesting question might relate to how playing with a lead, versus playing from behind, affected their individual interception rates. Let's consider the very different situations these players found
themselves in, despite their seemingly similar ability to produce gaudy
passing statistics. For Wentz,, his team was operating with an average
score differential of <b>17.34</b> points, over the past 2 seasons. For Goff, his team was operating with an average score differential of just <b>3.04</b> points, also over the past 2 seasons. They were clearly operating in very different circumstances.<br />
<br />
So, once again, we eliminated all games in which these players were interception free, and only looked at their worst days. In Goff's case, there was an R^2 value of just <b>0.059</b>, very slightly suggesting that as his team gained the lead, he became less likely to throw interceptions. This is still a very insignificant statistical relationship. In Wentz's case, his R^2 value leapt to <b>0.347</b> in this regression, which is a somewhat relevant correlation. The odd thing was, we couldn't attribute this to him being more aggressive in order to win. Wentz's results actually suggested that the bigger his team's lead was, the more likely he was to throw an interception. It was a bit peculiar. Wentz seemed to become more reckless in games that were blowouts.<br />
<br />
But let's get back to the idea of having a quarterback keep his interception rate below our <b>2.5%</b> mark. While Goff might have thrown interceptions more steadily from game to game, possibly due to the need to catch up to opponents, he rarely put up truly terrible numbers. In his past 2 seasons (26 games), Goff only had his interception rate fall below <b>3%</b> in 6 games (<b>23%</b> of his games in that span of time). Throwing out the games in which Goff threw no interceptions, his average interception rate would have still only been <b>3.8%</b>. With Wentz, during the past 2 seasons (23 games), his interception rate exceeded <b>3%</b> in 10 games (<b>43.4%</b> of his games in that span of time). When we eliminate games in which Wentz threw no interceptions, his average interception rate was <b>6.07%</b>.<br />
<br />
So, this is a bit odd. Despite having less incentive to be aggressive, because of the leads his team operated with, Wentz would appear to more frequently become a potential interception machine. Wentz's bad days were possibly both more frequent than those of Goff, and also more extreme in their negative outcomes.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Sack Rates And Rushing Attempts!</b><br />
<br />
We discussed this a bit before, when we were <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2015/10/pfft.html" target="_blank">making fun of Pro Football Focus</a>, but the way a quarterback can influence our perception of a team's pass protection, is something that greatly interests us. When looking at quarterbacks like <b>Tom Brady</b>, <b>Peyton Manning</b> and <b>Drew Brees</b>, there does appear to be something to suggest that they can make an offensive line look significantly better than it would with a lesser quarterback. Maybe this is a trait that is worth seeking out, just as much as you would a good completion rate or a high TD to INT ratio.<br />
<br />
We also wanted to explore this idea that Wentz brings something significant to the table as someone who can occasionally scramble with the ball. This is something that people feel that Goff may lack, and perhaps might give some potential edge to Wentz. Since this sort of crosses over with what we are going to say about sack rates, we're going to bundle these two thoughts together, and probably create an unnecessary amount of added confusion.<br />
<br />
Let's start this off fairly simply, and just look at Wentz's rushing production, and compare it to the other quarterbacks who have played at North Dakota State in recent years.<br />
<br />
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 516px;"><colgroup><col style="mso-width-alt: 4205; mso-width-source: userset; width: 86pt;" width="115"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 2962; mso-width-source: userset; width: 61pt;" width="81"></col>
<col span="5" style="width: 48pt;" width="64"></col>
</colgroup><tbody>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 86pt;" width="115"><b>Player</b></td>
<td style="width: 61pt;" width="81"><b> Year</b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b> Att</b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b> Yards</b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b> Avg</b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b> TD</b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b> TD/Att</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Stick</td>
<td align="right">2015</td>
<td align="right">85</td>
<td align="right">498</td>
<td align="right">5.9</td>
<td align="right">5</td>
<td align="right">0.058</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Wentz</td>
<td align="right">2015</td>
<td align="right">63</td>
<td align="right">294</td>
<td align="right">4.7</td>
<td align="right">6</td>
<td align="right">0.095</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Wentz</td>
<td align="right">2014</td>
<td align="right">138</td>
<td align="right">642</td>
<td align="right">4.7</td>
<td align="right">6</td>
<td align="right">0.043</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Jensen</td>
<td align="right">2013</td>
<td align="right">99</td>
<td align="right">479</td>
<td align="right">4.8</td>
<td align="right">10</td>
<td align="right">0.101</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Jensen</td>
<td align="right">2012</td>
<td align="right">111</td>
<td align="right">357</td>
<td align="right">3.2</td>
<td align="right">12</td>
<td align="right">0.108</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Jensen</td>
<td align="right">2011</td>
<td align="right">73</td>
<td align="right">173</td>
<td align="right">2.4</td>
<td align="right">9</td>
<td align="right">0.123</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Mohler/Jensen</td>
<td align="right">2010</td>
<td align="right">134</td>
<td align="right">256</td>
<td align="right">1.9</td>
<td align="right">6</td>
<td align="right">0.044</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
Once again, we seem to find ourselves in a very weird situation. Despite the praise that Wentz has received for his ability to carry the ball, there seems to be little evidence to separate him from the quarterbacks who preceded him (mainly Jensen), or the man who filled in for him when he was injured for much of 2015 (Stick). If anything, Wentz's rushing TDs appeared to drop significantly from what Jensen was producing, both in total, and on a per attempt basis. Wentz's rushing averages also come in a hair below what Jensen was producing in his final season. With Stick, who filled in for Wentz in 2015, we also see his replacement rushing for a significantly better average gain, and an arguably similar amount of touchdowns.<br />
<br />
There is another peculiar trend here. On offensive plays that weren't designed to be handoffs to the running back, North Dakota State quarterbacks have chosen to run the ball, on average, about <b>26.3%</b> of the time during the past 6 seasons. That is well above the <b>14%</b> rate we see from Cal. The interesting thing about this is that with North Dakota State, there wasn't any significant correlation between these rushing attempts, and the pressure that was being applied to the quarterback. The R^2 value for sack rates to percentage of plays in which the quarterback scrambled with the ball was a measly <b>0.098</b>. When we look at Wentz's individual game to game results, there is slightly more evidence to say that he is choosing to run to avoid pressure, but the R^2 value still only rises to <b>0.209</b>. For the most part, the majority of Wentz's runs still don't seem to be a product of escaping pressure, but a characteristic of his team's offense. Regardless of who the quarterback was at North Dakota State, they were going to be trying to rush for yards. But, let's look at this another way.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjG3yH-pvi7kKsTQIpTJvF04YINHiBO17x_ScooH54PHo4iJZbLdGZFhgnx2F8onNWR19vuFxSwELCmhcYUgeWu-sE62eeWkcsCrB3pKG9-C1ICuzkvTXoGxFJJ71vfcmIVjCkLbXHxRwo/s1600/wentzteamrush.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="436" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjG3yH-pvi7kKsTQIpTJvF04YINHiBO17x_ScooH54PHo4iJZbLdGZFhgnx2F8onNWR19vuFxSwELCmhcYUgeWu-sE62eeWkcsCrB3pKG9-C1ICuzkvTXoGxFJJ71vfcmIVjCkLbXHxRwo/s640/wentzteamrush.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Let's take a look at the trajectory for North Dakota State quarterbacks from the past 6 years, when it comes to their rushing averages. We've highlighted Wentz's two seasons in green, in order to help separate his results. If anything, it looks like Wentz might have potentially been performing a tad below expectations, relative to the other quarterbacks who have played for his team. Either way, I have a hard time being persuaded by the idea that Wentz was a unique runner, and not a product of a team's offensive system, and their desire to see the quarterback scramble.<br />
<br />
Ah, but we promised earlier that we were going to discuss how North Dakota State's sack rate appeared to worsen in the eight games in which Wentz was out in 2015. This is kind of interesting, if also a bit obvious. In 2015, the North Dakota State's sack rate did increase from <b>3.7%</b> to <b>5.1%</b>, when Easton Stick took over at quarterback. This 3.7% rate that was also notable for being the best sack rate for the team, during the past several years. Unfortunately, this probably wasn't entirely a product of Wentz having gained an exceptional sense of pocket presence. As we already said, the correlation between the percentage of plays that aren't handoffs to the quarterback, but where the quarterback scrambles with the ball, produced an insignificant R^2 value of <b>0.098</b>. On the other hand, when we look at the pure volume of plays in which a North Dakota State quarterback ran with the ball, we get an R^2 value of <b>0.442</b>, which is quite a bit more significant.<br />
<br />
So, a fair amount of the improvement in Wentz's 2015 sack rate probably stems from the fact that he was simply running with the ball less frequently. When Easton Stick, came into the game, he actually ended up running the ball far more frequently than any quarterback who has played for North Dakota State in the past 6 years, which was almost inevitably going to end up making the team's sack rate look significantly worse under his leadership.<br />
<br />
Okay, let's turn this back to the subject of Jared Goff. With Cal, we have a radically different situation. Among the 5 different quarterbacks who have played for the team in the past 6 seasons, none of them produced significant rushing results. Of course, we also don't think Cal intended to have their quarterbacks run with the ball the way that we think North Dakota State might have. In fact, we would say that Cal quarterbacks almost exclusively ran to escape pressure. They were there to pass the ball, not run with it. So, remember how we said that with North Dakota State there was almost no correlation between the team's year to year sack rate, and the percentage of snaps where the quarterback ran with the ball, with only a <b>0.098</b> R^2 value. What do you think the results were for Cal? Well, under these same circumstances, the R^2 value for Cal was <b>0.881</b>, which is highly suggestive of the idea that their QBs were mainly running simply to preserve their lives.<br />
<br />
Now, let's consider something for a moment. As we said much earlier in this post, there did appear to be some suggestion that Cal's sack rate gradually improved during the Goff years. There are also many people who would suggest that Cal's offensive line remained fairly inept during Goff's time with the team. The problem is in deciding whether we are underestimating improvements that the line made, of whether this is something we should be crediting Goff with. It's a bit of a tricky question.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhep-vhQ5aROMIJaRgLnkFYUY7QlYkZV7O83_-3mBaDWtGaRItbkWIBrd19MkPUK7vDJlkij32wOy_JO6dOK65JvL_dRePoSfq4Km4uku-wO9LURDyWiRHsV5vh5F_03IyoaVHYD6Hoxtc/s1600/goffpockpres.bmp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="438" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhep-vhQ5aROMIJaRgLnkFYUY7QlYkZV7O83_-3mBaDWtGaRItbkWIBrd19MkPUK7vDJlkij32wOy_JO6dOK65JvL_dRePoSfq4Km4uku-wO9LURDyWiRHsV5vh5F_03IyoaVHYD6Hoxtc/s640/goffpockpres.bmp" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
This is where we stumble into a realm of magical discussion related to the difficult to quantify term "pocket presence". In the chart above, We have shown the percentage of plays in which Cal quarterbacks have chosen to scramble with the ball (highlighted in blue). As we have said, the rate at which they do this appears to be almost exclusively linked to feeling pressure, and not out of an actual desire to run with the ball. We have also listed the sack rate for Cal's offense during this same period of time (highlighted in green).<br />
<br />
While we are mainly concerned with understanding Goff, I think it is interesting to take note of what was occurring prior to his arrival in 2013. In the three years from 2010-2012, we can see the team's sack rate gradually getting worse, and the team's quarterbacks were taking flight at an increasingly alarming pace. Then, somehow, with the arrival of some goofy 18 year old named Goff, the team's sack rate begins to stabilize, and gradually improve. More noticeably, the rate at which Goff was fleeing the pocket dramatically dropped, and remained fairly stable.<br />
<br />
I think we have two possible ways to view this. One theory would be that the Cal offensive line radically improved just as Goff took the field, and we all owe them a great apology for the criticism their linemen have taken. The second possibility, is that Goff handles pressure way better than his predecessors did. If it is option number two, we might be seeing evidence of a characteristic we frequently associate with some of the NFL's better quarterbacks.<br />
<br />
<b>So, What Does It All Really Mean?</b><br />
<br />
I think the debate over who a team should select, whether Jared Goff or Carson Wentz, is kind of interesting. The criticism and praise you frequently hear for these two players is so incredibly different, that it makes examining people's perspectives and biases kind of entertaining.<br />
<br />
If you are just looking at their respective stat sheets, it's easy to say that they both put up rather impressive numbers. When you poke around a bit more, the picture seems to change quite a bit.<br />
<br />
<b>1</b>. The data suggests that Wentz's receivers were probably more reliable pass catchers, relative to their level of competition. <br />
<b>2.</b> While Goff might have thrown interceptions more steadily than Wentz, when Wentz did so, he might have went off the rails more spectacularly. Wentz also appeared to have less of a clear reason for throwing interceptions, considering the leads his team routinely operated with.<br />
<b>3.</b> When comparing these quarterbacks to other quarterbacks who have played for the same team, Goff's presence seemed to significantly improve his team's statistical output. With Wentz, the evidence seems to suggest that a number of other North Dakota State's quarterbacks have produced similar results.<br />
<b>4.</b> While Goff probably isn't a huge rushing threat, Wentz might not be either. Wentz's rushing results appear to be no different than what we would expect of any North Dakota State quarterback.<br />
<b>5.</b> While there seems to be substantial evidence to support the idea that Goff has what people call "pocket presence", or an ability to make his offensive line look better than they might really be, with Wentz, the results are just murky at best. Maybe Wentz has some skill in this area, but we can't say that the data clearly revealed significant or unexpected changes in his team's sack rate.<br />
<b>6.</b> While it might be a minor issue, we're also interested in the fact that Goff is so much younger (he turns 22 this October), while Wentz is significantly older (turning 24 in December). The potential upside in investing in youth, and continued development, seem like a significant factor.<br />
<br />
Despite all of that, people will continue to debate which quarterback is the better prospect. Right now, much of the support for Wentz appears to revolve around his larger and heavier frame. With Goff, people seem intensely focused on his smaller than normal hand size. (around 9"), despite a lack of evidence to suggest that this has actually impeded his progress. Some anonymous scouts have also <a href="http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25527291/an-nfc-scout-is-not-big-on-jared-goff-to-me-hes-another-jay-cutler" target="_blank">criticized Goff for not winning more games</a>, as if that is entirely a product of the quarterback. This strikes us as the sort of old and tiresome "he's not a winner" analysis that probably lacks much real thought behind it, but we can't really debate this perspective either. Many of these sorts of discussions seem to revolve around the idea of "who looks the part of an NFL quarterback", which also isn't something we really want to discuss.<br />
<br />
While people will have their own subjective opinions, based on watching these two individuals play, that is also something we don't want to get caught up in debating. Everybody has their own opinions, and that's swell. We're merely curious about finding evidence to support the idea that either of these two players has elevated the performance of the players that surround them. With Goff, we think this is possibly the case. With Wentz, we feel there are quite a few reasons to be concerned. Wentz has a number of issues to suggest that he might have merely been the product of North Dakota State's offensive system. In Goff's case, when we consider our doubts about the receivers he played with, as well as Cal's offensive line, he looks like someone who might have been making chicken salad out of chicken shit. That sort of impresses us.<br />
<br />
At the end of the day, we would never want to say that any quarterback is guaranteed to succeed or fail. The teams that a player winds up on, and the circumstances they find themselves in, will probably dictate our eventual opinions, just as much (and probably more) than the talent they actually possess. All we can really suggest, is that if we were having to make such a decision, at the top of the 1st round, we would be terribly nervous about ignoring a lot of the data that is buried in these player's statistics. While some people will suggest that Wentz has more potential for continued development and improvement, that is also something we can't argue, one way or another. It simply appears to us that, given the current data, Goff is the safer and smarter selection to make, and presents less risk. Avoiding risk and the unknown, is something we generally choose to support.<br />
<br />
<br />Sidney Mussburgerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03104367326238874951noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9104858724022491504.post-65508988204857522052016-03-29T21:26:00.003-04:002016-08-21T19:47:08.876-04:00Kangaroo Court: The 2016 Defensive BacksI think we started off <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2015/03/kangaroo-court-2015-defensive-backs.html" target="_blank">last year's list of defensive back prospects</a> by claiming that the cornerback position was largely populated by bloodsucking parasites. In particular, we expressed some doubts about the value of <b>Byron Maxwell</b>, and <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2015/03/cash-ruins-everything-around-me.html" target="_blank">in a different post</a>, <b>Cary Williams</b>. As long as these players don't know our home address, I suppose that is a position we are willing to stand behind.<br />
<br />
So, who does Reilly think will become a future highly paid disappointment? Hmm, well, if I am interpreting Reilly's semaphore communications correctly, the cornerbacks he currently has the highest doubts about would be <b>Josh Norman</b>, <b>Janoris Jenkins</b> and <b>Trumaine Johnson</b>. It seems amazing to us that they are currently among the most highly paid corners in the league, but as long as it's not our money, who really cares? If they can continue to play behind an above average pass rush, maybe things will continue to work out for them. They just aren't players that Reilly has ever had much confidence in.<br />
<br />
The more important question might be, who will be this year's winner of the annual <b>Captain Munnerlyn Award</b>? Every year, my father and I have bestowed this honor on the player who we felt had the most entertaining name. Last year, the academy of voters unanimously supported <b>Jazz King</b>, a wide receiver from Marshall. Next year, we will probably end up giving the trophy to <b>Money Hunter</b>, a defensive back from Arkansas State. That is a name worthy of a 1st round draft pick. Sure, his real first name is Monshadrik, but that would still probably end up being a contender. This year, however, we haven't really zeroed in on a clear winner. If any of you have a great suggestion for who this year's winner should be, feel free to let us know. <br />
<br />
Since I'm feeling a bit uninspired about working up a demented rant to precede this week's post, I thought I would take the lazy route. So, we now invite you to be a witness to Nathan, the dancing Chinese Crested dog.<br />
<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9CJu43AvIds?rel=0" width="480"></iframe>
<br />
<br />
<br />
For reasons that I can't fully explain, Nathan absolutely kills me. The best thing about this is that there are tons of videos of Nathan dancing to different songs. It's as if they thought that being exposed to this horror a single time just might not be enough. I'm not mocking this decision by Nathan's owner, because I think he was right. I genuinely support his decision to repeatedly film his dog dancing like a fool.<br />
<br />
Okay, let's move on to this year's demented and untrustworthy speculation.<br />
<br />
Besides the player's Agility Score, we will also list their <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2013/05/a-players-2nd-gear.html"><b>2nd Gear</b></a>
score, and their average number of passes defended in their last two
years in college. We're basically just looking for a pleasantly reassuring combination of speed, agility, explosiveness and power, as well as statistical production that met or exceeded their assumed physical potential. For safety prospects, our expectations for the Agility Score will go down
a bit, but we hope to see an increase in their <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-kangaroo-score.html"><b>Kangaroo Score</b></a>
(our measure of lower body power), which is also given in the form of
how many standard deviations that a player is away from the average
result for someone in their position group. <br />
<br />
<b>This list will continue to be modified and updated as new data, and additional prospects, come to my attention.</b> <b>Not
every prospect will be included here, but instead, just the ones that I
find interesting for one reason or another. Updated: </b>4/25/16<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Jalen Ramsey</b> CB/S, Florida St. Ht: <b>6'1.3"</b> Wt.:<b>209</b><br />
40 time: <b>4.42</b> 2nd Gear: <b>0.10</b> Agility Score: <b>-0.119</b> Avg. PD: <b>12</b><br />
This is probably going to sound like we don't like Ramsey, but we actually think he is a fairly interesting player. Just bear with us. When it comes to the idea of a team employing him as a cornerback, we won't deny that his physical measurables are possibly acceptable for that role. Our only concern here, is that it would probably be a bit risky to play him off of the line, since his biggest advantage is his physical power (with a ridiculous <b>2.407</b> Kangaroo Score). If he played off of the line, and faced some of the league's more nimble receivers, he might have some issues, based on his agility results. As a safety, however, his combination of speed, power, explosiveness and just moderate agility, is pretty much a perfect match. Whether a team put him at strong safety or free safety, probably wouldn't matter too much. When it came to his statistical production, we would also say that his results were above average when playing safety, and a tiny bit worse than we would like when he played corner. Based on the games we have seen, our lying eyes generally thought he looked pretty good, though perhaps not as other-wordly as he is sometimes made out to be. One of the peculiar things to us, is how athletically similar he is to the Rams' safety, <b>T.J. McDonald</b>, who wasn't selected until the 3rd round in 2013. That might sound like an insult, but it shouldn't. Ramsey is a tad faster, and perhaps a hair more explosive than McDonald, but beyond that, they are actually very similar athletes. We actually liked McDonald quite a bit too, back in 2013, and thought he was drafted lower than he possibly should have been. Regardless, we think Ramsey has a good shot at turning into a pretty good player, which is about all you can reasonably hope for. Whether he becomes a great player, and someone who is worth selecting in the first 3 picks of the draft, is debatable. In the end, we'd be willing to select him in the 1st round.<br />
<br />
<b>Vernon Hargreaves MMXVI</b> CB, Florida Ht: <b>5'10"</b> Wt.:<b>204</b><br />
40 time: <b>4.50</b> 2nd Gear: <b>0.08</b> Agility Score: <b>1.272*</b> Avg. PD: <b>10.5</b><br />
The
NFL and their stooges have been meddling with the results from players'
40 times again, but this is something we've grown used to. According
to Hargreaves "official" results, his speed would be somewhat average,
though his 2nd Gear Score does suggest that his deep speed is still probably
a tad better than his timed 40 might suggest. The odd thing is that when we
look at his unofficial results, his 40 time jumps to about <b>4.41</b> seconds, with a 2nd gear score of <b>0.19</b>.
Those would be some very impressive results. Either way, Hargreaves
speed shouldn't be a huge problem. At worst, it is just average. I just marvel at the idiotic way
that the NFL modifies these numbers with no clear explanation as to
their methods. While we have to currently base his agility score on
just his short shuttle time, since he didn't do the 3-cone drill, his
results here are excellent. It seems unlikely to us that his eventual
3-cone results would significantly alter this score. Then we come to
one of the more interesting aspects of Hargreaves' results. While much
of the criticism of Hargreaves has been directed towards his lack of
size, his Kangaroo Score of <b>1.392 </b>suggests that he has
significantly better lower body power and explosiveness than you
typically see in a corner. These are actually the sorts of results you
more typically find in a safety, and a reason why we aren't terribly
surprised to see that he does in fact appear to be a fairly physical
player, who can also be effective against his opponent's running game.
While his statistical production took a dip in 2015, his overall results
were above average, and he appeared to show an above average ability to
force turnovers. Based on the little we have seen of him, he appeared
to live up to the expectations we might have based on his results. We
would feel quite comfortable taking him in the 1st round.<br />
<br />
<b>Eli Apple</b> CB, Ohio St. Ht: <b>6'1"</b> Wt.:<b>199</b><br />
40 time: <b>4.40</b> 2nd Gear: <b>0.13</b> Agility Score: <b>?</b> Avg. PD: <b>11</b><br />
Unless this bozo is going to eventually complete the other combine drills, which he also avoided at his pro day, then we're not interested in him. Sure, he ran the 40 yard dash, and did fine there, but that really doesn't provide us with nearly enough information to estimate what his true strengths and weaknesses might be. When someone is trying this hard to avoid doing all of the drills, we generally suspect it is because they know they are going to perform poorly. While we realize that many people seem to have a high opinion of Apple, we're also not inclined to watch any of his games to form a more subjective opinion. For us, that's like eating the icing, without ever baking the cake. We also suspect that the judgment of our lying eyes could be warped by the favorable circumstances that Apple found himself in at Ohio State. Their defense had a sack rate of <b>8.4%</b> in 2015, and a sack rate of <b>8.3%</b> in 2014. The likelihood that this made it significantly easier for this Apple to shine, seems rather high. Until we get more objective facts, we can't feel comfortable with pursuing Apple.<br />
<br />
<b>Mackensie Alexander</b> CB, Clemson Ht: <b>5'10"</b> Wt.:<b>190</b><br />
40 time: <b>4.49</b> 2nd Gear: <b>0.07</b> Agility Score: <b>-0.824</b> Avg. PD: <b>5.5</b><br />
Reilly is somewhat mystified about the assumption that Alexander could be a 1st or 2nd round draft pick. It's caused him to start drinking again, and I have to admit he is a fairly surly and difficult drunk. Oh well, let's consider the objective facts here. According to Alexander's measurable traits, we seem to run into numerous issues. Athletically, his numbers would suggest he is a player with average speed, average power and average explosiveness. There's nothing wrong with any of that, but there's also nothing that screams "stunning physical potential" or "high draft pick". Then we come to his agility results, where he put up some worrisome numbers. Now, we could throw out his poor 3-cone result, if we were feeling whimsical, and pretend that this was an anomaly. That would still only boost his agility results to <b>-0.306</b>, which still isn't anything better than slightly below average. Now, I also seem to recall that Reilly was muttering something about Alexander appearing to be a bit grabby with his opponents, and maybe it's this lack of agility that is causing him to resort to this. Of course, Reilly's speech is a bit slurred right now, so I might have misunderstood him. Finally, we have to look at Alexander's production in college. Does it seem odd to anyone else how rarely this guy got his hands on the ball? Beyond his low number of batted passes, it also appears that he has never recorded a single interception. You would think that playing on a college team with an insanely effective pass rush would have put him in a pretty good position to make some turnovers, but evidently this was not the case. We're really having a hard time seeing what the hype is all about.<br />
<br />
<b>William Jackson DCLXVI</b> CB, Houston Ht: <b>6'0.4"</b> Wt.:<b> 189</b><br />
40 time: <b>4.37</b> 2nd Gear: <b>0.15</b> Agility Score: <b>-0.399</b> Avg. PD: <b>16</b><br />
Well, he does appear to be fast. He definitely has that going for him. His 2nd Gear Score even suggests that his already impressive 40 time might not be fully capturing how fast Jackson really is. Of course, if speed was all that mattered, I would be much more popular with the ladies. So, let's examine the issues that worry us about Jackson. First of all, we could throw out his wretched short shuttle time, but this would still only make his agility result <b>0.261</b>, which is just a hair above average. Against more nimble receivers, like <b>Amari Cooper</b> or <b>Odell Beckham Jr.</b>, we have to wonder if Jackson would have a hard time keeping up with their ability to change direction. Then we have to consider his lower body power and explosiveness, where he produced a Kangaroo Score of <b>-1.170</b>. Admittedly, our data here is incomplete, since he didn't do the vertical jump, but this does worry us. It would suggest that against bigger more powerful receivers, like <b>Demaryius Thomas</b> or <b>Mike Evans</b>, Jackson might just get trampled or flung out of the way. So, umm, yeah, this does create an interesting question as to who he does match up well against. Maybe small fast receivers who only run in a straight line? Okay, let's try to be a bit more positive for a second. There is the fact that this guy seemed to get his hands on the ball with some regularity. There is something to be said for that, and many people seem to be willing to overlook a player's struggles in coverage, so long as a player produces enough turnovers. Personally, it's a potential trade off that we're not particularly fond of, so we would probably pass on Jackson. It's not that he can't succeed, it's just that we view the risk versus reward of spending a 1st round pick on him as being well outside of our comfort zone.<br />
<br />
<b>Kendall Fuller</b> CB, Virginia Tech Ht: <b>5'11"</b> Wt.:<b>187</b><br />
40 time: <b>?</b> 2nd Gear: <b>?</b> Agility Score: <b>?</b> Avg. PD: <b>17*</b><br />
It's looking more and more unlikely that we will ever get any measurable results for Fuller, which is a shame. All we can say at this point, is that his statistical production was rather impressive, though we have some concerns about the extent to which he might have benefited from a Virginia Tech pass rush that was significantly above average in the two seasons that Fuller produced his best results. Without more information, we can't say too much, and wouldn't feel comfortable spending a draft pick on him without more data.<br />
<br />
<b>Vonn Bell</b> FS, Ohio St. Ht: <b>5'11"</b> Wt.:<b>199</b><br />
40 time: <b>4.53</b> 2nd Gear: <b>0.07</b> Agility Score: <b>?</b> Avg. PD: <b>11.5</b><br />
Bell barely participated in the combine or his pro day. That doesn't give us much to go on, when trying to concoct our normal half-assed theories. The only measurable data we have, beyond his perfectly acceptable 40 time, is the result from his vertical jump. This produced a Kangaroo Score of <b>-1.517</b>, which is well below what we would want to see from either safety position, and suggests rather meager lower body power and explosiveness. The possibility that he might be able to play somewhere else in the secondary is difficult to really make any guesses about, because of a shortage of other measurable data. Yes, we should also mention that we are listing him here as a free safety, while some sites are putting him down as a strong safety. That's just one of our little judgment calls, and you can feel free to disagree. We would probably classify his statistical production as only moderately acceptable, and suspect his high rate of interceptions in 2014 is influencing peoples' opinions of him quite a bit. Like many of the highly touted Ohio State players, we would feel extremely concerned about the extent to which Ohio State's pass rush, and overall team success, might be influencing how we perceive someone like Bell. Based on the little we have seen of him, we didn't find Bell to be very interesting.<br />
<br />
<b>Jeremy Cash</b> SS, Duke Ht: <b>6'</b> Wt.:<b> 212</b><br />
40 time: <b>?</b> 2nd Gear: <b>?</b> Agility Score: <b>?</b> Avg. PD: <b>6.5</b><br />
Give us some data, and we'll offer some half-assed opinions. We're still waiting for his pro day results.<br />
<br />
<b>Artie Burns</b> CB, Miami Ht: <b>6'</b> Wt.:<b> 193</b><br />
40 time: <b>4.46</b> 2nd Gear: <b>0.10</b> Agility Score: <b>?</b> Avg. PD: <b>8.5</b><br />
Yup, we're still waiting for data. <br />
<br />
<b>Xavien Howard</b> CB, Baylor Ht: <b>6'0.1"</b> Wt.:<b> 205</b><br />
40 time: <b>4.58</b> 2nd Gear: <b>0.03</b> Agility Score: <b>0.058</b> Avg. PD: <b>16</b><br />
Howard is kind of an interesting prospect, though we have to tinker with his numbers quite a bit. Based on his 40 time at the combine, which is listed above, there isn't much to suggest that he has anything more than a fairly mundane variety of speed. We could give some consideration to his improved times at Baylor's pro day (where had runs of <b>4.45</b> and <b>4.41</b>), but that might be a bit risky. After all, <b>Andrew Billings</b> and <b>Shawn Oakman</b> also dropped <b>0.13</b> and <b>0.11</b> seconds respectively from their 40 times at this pro day, which is similar to the jump in speed we are seeing from Howard (<b>0.13</b> seconds). Suspicious, suspicious, suspicious. Regardless, we're perfectly willing to accept Howard's more pedestrian results, as they are still within a tolerable range for a somewhat larger cornerback. Then we get to his agility results, which are also pretty much the definition of average. That would normally be a bit of a problem, but we have seen a number of larger corners who were able to succeed with those sorts of results, if they had the power to compensate for their lack of agility. That's where Howard becomes a bit more interesting. With a Kangaroo Score of <b>1.018</b>, he does appear to have some ability in this area. It's not awe inspiring, and his results would suggest he is probably less explosive than he is powerful, but it is interesting. Really, his physical traits come rather close to what we normally like to see in a free safety, which we think would be an interesting position to transition Howard to. Based on the little we have seen of Howard, he appeared to do okay as a corner, though he had his occasional struggles. He did, however, seem to have a knack for getting his hands on the ball, when he was in the right position. If he was moved to free safety, we just suspect it would accentuate his strengths, while minimizing his weaknesses. Right now people seem to be suggesting that he will be selected in the second round. If we were certain that he was going to be used as a safety, we might feel relatively comfortable with that. If he is truly going to be used as a corner, we would probably prefer to see him drop to the 4th or 5th round.<br />
<br />
<b>Jalen Mills</b> FS, LSU Ht: <b>6'</b> Wt.:<b> 191</b><br />
40 time: <b>4.61</b> 2nd Gear: <b>-0.03</b> Agility Score: <b>0.698</b> Avg. PD: <b>4</b><br />
I have to admit that we haven't explored Mills very deeply. Based on the data we had, we just didn't think it was probably worth devoting much time to him. While we could give him some praise for having above average agility results for a safety, that would be about all the flattery we could give him. When it comes to speed, power and explosiveness, his results fell a bit short of what we would normally like to see. When we looked at his statistical production, there was also nothing that really leapt out at us as being particularly noteworthy. We can't say that a player is going to fail in the NFL, and such predictions wouldn't exactly fill our hearts with glee. We're not quite that depraved. Still, we can say that for the 2nd to 3rd round pick that some people are suggesting Mills will cost, the risks seem to outweigh the potential rewards. This seems like someone who should be selected quite a bit later than what many people are currently projecting.<br />
<br />
<b>Will Redmond</b> CB, Mississippi St Ht: <b>5'11"</b> Wt.:<b> 182</b><br />
40 time: <b>?</b> 2nd Gear: <b>?</b> Agility Score: <b>?</b> Avg. PD: <b>5.5</b><br />
Give us data, or give us death! Because of a knee injury in October, we may never get to have the data related to his athletic ability that we would like to have. All we can say at this point, is that for a slightly older prospect, his statistical production didn't overwhelm us.<br />
<br />
<b>Karl Joseph</b> SS, West Virginia<br />
40 time: <b>?</b> 2nd Gear: <b>?</b> Agility Score: <b>?</b> Avg. PD: <b>5</b><br />
Were all of this year's defensive backs in a bus crash? It certainly seems like we are dealing with an abnormal number of injured players. Normally, in situations like this, we would suspect this is the result of the Lizard People, and their fiendish plots. Oh well, we're still waiting for more data.<br />
<br />
<b>KeiVarae Russell</b>, CB, Notre Dame Ht: <b>5'11.25"</b> Wt.:<b> 194</b><br />
40 time: <b>4.49</b> 2nd Gear: <b>0.11</b> Agility Score: <b>0.748</b> Avg. PD: <b>8.5</b><br />
Since we finally have a fuller set of data for Russell, we decided to add him to the list. Right now, he sort of strikes us as an odd prospect. Athletically, he generally meets most of the standards we would want to see in a corner, with adequate speed, good agility, and above average lower body power and explosiveness (with a <b>0.882</b> Kangaroo Score). He might not be an overwhelmingly gifted athlete, but he is probably a pretty good one. The problem we had with Russell was that we sometimes felt he didn't live up to his potential. While he had some occasional bright moments, he seemed to allow his opponent to catch the ball a bit more than we would ideally like to see. He also appeared to be less likely to make a play on the ball himself, than we really felt was ideal. It's not that we felt he was bad, but he frequently appeared to be "just a guy", rather than someone who was likely to make a noticeable impact. That seemed like a shame, considering that he is probably physically capable of being more than that. If he was projected to be a 5th round pick, this might not bother us so much, but since people seem to be moving him up towards the 3rd round, we've been feeling a bit more uncomfortable about whether there is sufficient value to Russell.<br />
<br />
<b>Maurice Canady</b>, CB, Virginia Ht: <b>6'1"</b> Wt.:<b> 193</b><br />
40 time: <b>4.49</b> 2nd Gear: <b>0.10</b> Agility Score: <b>-0.036</b> Avg. PD: <b>10.5</b><br />
The NFL is once again playing their little games when it comes to "official" 40 times here. Canady's unofficial results were a fair bit worse than what we have listed above, but we'll pretend to go along with the program. Overall, Canady's athletic results were pretty much average in every way. Average speed, average agility, average explosiveness and average lower body power. That's nothing to worry about, but it also doesn't excite us very much. We'd also say that his statistical production at Virginia generally appeared to be a bit pedestrian, except perhaps during his 2014 season. The rate at which he got his hands on the ball noticeably rose that year, though it should also be noted that his team's sack rate was also a bit better at <b>7.9%</b>. When Virginia's sack rate dropped back down to a more commonplace <b>6.7%</b> in 2015, so did Canady's results. Is this a coincidence? Maybe, or maybe not. For the most part, Canady didn't make much of an impression on us. He didn't strike us as being exceptional, but he also didn't appear to be horrible. Considering how many people seem to be listing him as just a mid-round pick, that's perhaps not an unreasonable area to acquire someone like him.<br />
<br />
<b>T.J. Green</b>, SS, Clemson Ht: <b>6'2.5"</b> Wt.:<b>209</b><br />
40 time: <b>4.34</b> 2nd Gear: <b>0.18</b> Agility Score: <b>-1.310</b> Avg. PD: <b>2</b><br />
Okey-dokey, let's talk about that 40 time. That's probably the first thing people notice about Green, and it is mighty impressive. The interesting thing is, when we look at his 2nd Gear Score, there is some suggestion that we are still underrating his straight line speed by a fair bit. Just wanted to throw that out there. Then we look at his fairly horrific Agility Score, and we start to wonder if that glorious speed is being wasted on a clumsy oaf.. It's a bit odd, because we really didn't think he looked nearly as awkward as this result would suggest, though the value of trusting our lying eyes is debatable. We should also give him credit for a <b>1.122</b> Kangaroo Score, which does suggest that he has at least adequate lower body power for a safety. Some sites seem to be listing Green as a free safety, but we are definitely leaning towards the idea that strong safety is the better position for him. Beyond the possibility that his athletic traits are a better match to the strong safety position, he also just didn't make many plays in coverage. If he was noticeable in a game, it almost invariably seemed to be within 10 yards of the line of scrimmage, though we still wouldn't say that he was anything more than just an average tackler. As an athletic specimen he is kind of interesting, but his college production, as well as the impression he made on us was fairly underwhelming. The best thing he might have going for him is his youth, as he is still one of the younger defensive backs in this draft. If he was available in the 4th or 5th round, we might consider him, if we were a bit tipsy.<br />
<br />
<b>Zack Sanchez</b>, CB, Oklahoma Ht: <b>5'11"</b> Wt.:<b>185</b><br />
40 time: <b>4.50</b> 2nd Gear: <b>-0.01</b> Agility Score: <b>-1.703</b> Avg. PD: <b>14</b><br />
Has there ever been a successful cornerback with a short shuttle time of <b>4.51</b> seconds? Seriously, I really want to know. I suspect the attraction some people have to Sanchez must come from the rather absurd number of interceptions (13) that he has recorded in the past two seasons. That is kind of a nifty stat to have on your resume. We're probably not going to spend much time exploring Sanchez, because at the end of the day, he's just a little to weird for our tastes. If he succeeds in the NFL, he would be something of an anomaly, which isn't what we are looking for.<br />
<br />
<b>Darian Thompson</b> FS, Boise St. Ht: <b>6"1.8"</b> Wt.:<b>208</b><br />
40 time: <b>4.69</b> 2nd Gear: <b>-0.03</b> Agility Score: <b>-1.437</b> Avg. PD: <b>8.5</b><br />
People
seem to be claiming that Thompson could be selected somewhere around
the 3rd round, but none of his results so far have been encouraging
enough to make us want to spend much time studying him. When it came to his
speed, quickness, agility, explosiveness and lower body power, all of
his measurable results were significantly lower than what we would
normally expect to see in a successful safety. We would give him credit
though, for having some rather interesting results when it came to his
statistical production. Particularly when it came to his high rate of
interceptions, we could understand why people would be curious about
him. Unfortunately, we would still be worried that he was benefiting
from a significantly above average Boise State pass rush, and might not
be able to continue producing in this manner once he gets to the NFL.
We would probably feel forced to bet against him.<br />
<br />
<b>Cyrus Jones</b>, CB, Alabama <b>5'9.8"</b> Wt.:<b> 197</b><br />
40 time: <b>4.49</b> 2nd Gear: <b>0.06</b> Agility Score: <b>0.354</b> Avg. PD: <b>12.5</b><br />
Despite our typical mockery of most Alabama prospects, we are slightly curious to see what will become of Cyrus Jones. It's true, he isn't very big, or particularly fast. His agility results also appear to be a bit mediocre, though the differences between his short shuttle (<b>-0.306</b>) and 3-cone (<b>1.014</b>) times might make this look worse than it really should. Our bigger concern would probably be related to his vertical and broad jumps, which did seem to suggest somewhat below average lower body power and explosiveness. So, in general, he's a fairly commonplace athlete. On the flip side, his college stats are somewhat better than your typical prospect, and he appeared relatively immune to the high and low points of Alabama's pass rushing efforts. In the little we have seen of him, we wouldn't say that he appeared to provide particularly tight coverage, but he seemed to indeed have above average hands when forcing turnovers. We probably wouldn't want to see Jones as a starting cornerback, but he might be an acceptable depth sort of player. Some people seem to have a much higher opinion of him, and we occasionally see him projected as a 3rd or 4th round pick. That seems a bit high to us. At best, we might see a prospect who could be taken in the 5th or 6th round. One funny thing that we were struck with when looking into Jones, was the regularity with which former classmates seemed to refer to him as an asshole. It was kind of astounding and peculiar. Make of that whatever you wish.<br />
<br />
<b>Miles Killebrew</b> SS, Southern Utah Ht: <b>6'1.8"</b> Wt.:<b> 217</b><br />
40 time: <b>4.65</b> 2nd Gear: <b>-0.00</b> Agility Score: <b>-0.094</b> Avg. PD: <b>8.5</b><br />
Because of his production in college, as well as some of his favorable measurable traits, we were fairly curious about Killebrew. Unfortunately, the more we thought about it, the less excited we were with him as a draft prospect. We don't have any complaints about his agility results, because they are actually fairly respectable for a strong safety. While his Kangaroo Score of <b>1.904</b> suggests ideal lower body power for a strong safety, when you remove mass from the calculation his explosiveness measured up as a more modest <b>0.874</b>. Really, we can't complain about either of those results, as they are both pretty encouraging. When we look at his timed speed, we start to potentially see greater issues. His 40 time is just a bit further out on the fringe than we would like, and his 2nd Gear Score suggests that this wasn't just the result of a poor start to his run. Even at this point, we should still have felt pretty excited about him. In the end, I think our opinion of him was probably actually influenced by something that falls disturbingly close to having a subjective opinion. While he does make the occasional flashy knockout hit, as his Kangaroo Score would suggest he would, he also frequently seemed slow to react to what was going on. Perhaps even more concerning, we were annoyed by the number of times we saw people escaping from his grasp. When the most striking thing on your resume is that you are a tackling machine, we just don't think that should be happening, especially at the lower level of competition he faced. The more we thought about whether his tackle numbers might be inflated, the more we questioned what would be left to praise if we weren't drooling over his tackles. After all, his abilities in coverage would seem to be mediocre at best. It's hard for us to ignore the computer's pleas to take Killebrew seriously, but we just didn't fall in love with him. With projections for where he will be selected ranging from the 4th round, and occasionally going much higher, we also have to wonder if we would simply prefer to wait for someone like <b>Kavon Frazier, </b>who has a lot of the same strengths as Killebrew, but did a better job of setting our panties on fire.<br />
<br />
<b>Kevin Byard</b> SS/FS, Middle Tennessee State Ht: <b>5'11.5"</b> Wt.:<b> 212</b><br />
40 time: <b>4.45</b> 2nd Gear: <b>0.15</b> Agility Score: <b>0.509</b> Avg. PD: <b>7.5</b><br />
Byard is a weirdly interesting prospect. His agility results and timed speed would seem like a good match for a free safety. When we looked at his Kangaroo Score of <b>0.428</b>, that would also seem like a respectable result for a free safety. The odd thing is that there were some huge differences between his vertical and broad jump results. If we only looked at his Kangaroo Score from the vertical, we would get a result of <b>1.417</b>, which is entering fairly ideal territory to also play strong safety. So, he should be able to play either safety position. While we haven't had many opportunities to watch Byard play, the little we saw of him made it look like he was much more inclined to drop into coverage, rather than to try to level someone. That's not a criticism, just a worthless observation of ours. It's not that he wasn't a willing and capable tackler, he just didn't strike us as an enforcer. So, maybe viewing him mainly as a free safety is the best idea. His statistical production was quite steady and impressive over the last four years, including a fairly ridiculous number of interceptions, which is always nice to see. One of the few minor quibbles we might have with Byard, is that he will already be turning 23 this coming August, which is a tad older than what we feel is ideal. We suspect he could be a fairly interesting pick, maybe somewhere in the area of the 3rd round.<br />
<br />
<b>Eric Murray</b> CB, Minnesota Ht: <b>5'10.6"</b> Wt.:<b> 199</b><br />
40 time: <b>4.50</b> 2nd Gear: <b>0.04</b> Agility Score: <b>-0.025</b> Avg. PD: <b>8</b><br />
There were some fairly significant differences between Murray's short shuttle and 3-cone times, which makes judging his agility a bit murkier than we really like. Instead of picking apart these results, we'll stick with the overall grade that suggests his agility is just average. Even with this middle of the road view, we have to say that he did appear to have a tendency to grab at his opponents in the games we saw, which could cause some concerns as to how NFL referees will respond. The frequency with which Murray got his hands on the ball was also a bit pedestrian, and didn't seem to point to him becoming a huge turnover machine. If there was one positive aspect to him that seemed to stand out, it was probably related to his above average effectiveness and willingness as a tackler. Considering that his Kangaroo Score of <b>0.793</b> points towards a moderately above average measure of lower body power and explosiveness, this ability as a tackler doesn't surprise us very much. Though we seem to say this about everyone, we sort of think he might make a better free safety than a corner. CBS is currently listing him as a potential 4th round pick, which strikes us as an unrealistic appraisal. We'd probably wait until the 5th or 6th round before seriously considering him.<br />
<br />
<b>Sean Davis</b> CB/S, Maryland Ht: <b>6'1"</b> Wt.:<b>201</b><br />
40 time: <b>4.48</b> 2nd Gear: <b>0.08</b> Agility Score: <b>1.353</b> Avg. PD: <b>7</b><br />
At the moment, CBS is still listing Davis as a potential 4th or 5th round draft pick. Based on his measurable characteristics, we sort of doubt he will last that long. Athletically, he is arguably one of the best physical specimens among the defensive backs in this draft. The problem comes in deciding which position he should end up playing, though he has at least had some experience getting moved around the secondary in college. While he is physically fairly ideal for a corner, we're just not sure that this would be the best position for him. He appeared to make his biggest mistakes when he had his back to the quarterback, and was beaten a bit more than we would like while lined up at the corner position. As a safety, he seemed to do quite a bit better, and this position seemed to suit his willingness to attack ball carriers. Even here, we sort of suspect his high number of tackles might be a bit misleading, as he also missed a few more tackles than we would ideally like to see. With a <b>0.741</b> Kangaroo Score, we also have a result that suggests that his lower body power and explosiveness is above average for a corner, but a tad lower than what we would ideally want in a strong safety. So, free safety it is then. It wouldn't be the least bit surprising if Davis turns out to be one of the better defensive backs to come out of this draft, but we also think that he currently runs some risk of getting overdrafted, based on his measurables. He undeniably has great potential, but we're not sure that his history of performance completely lives up to some of the hype. If he was available in the 3rd round, we would certainly consider him. In the 2nd round, that decision might be a bit riskier than we would feel comfortable with.<br />
<br />
<b>Kalan Reed</b> CB, Southern Mississippi Ht: <b>5' 11.2"</b> Wt.:<b>192</b><br />
40 time: <b>4.49</b> 2nd Gear: <b>0.08</b> Agility Score: <b>-0.196</b> Avg. PD: <b>17</b><br />
We haven't had a lot of time to look into Reed, but there seems to be some increasing interest in him, so we thought we should add him to the list. Athletically, his results are sort of a mixed bag. His agility results are probably a little bit below what we would ideally like to see in a corner, though not exactly terrible. The issue of his 40 time is also a bit peculiar. We've listed one time here, though other reports put his 40 in the <b>4.38</b> second range. Who should we believe, when reports diverge this much? We have no idea. The more interesting physical trait for Reed is related to his lower body power and explosiveness. His overall Kangaroo Score would me a fairly tame <b>0.514</b>. If we only considered his vertical jump, his results move to a much more impressive <b>1.287</b>. In the little we have seen of Reed, we were left with somewhat mixed feelings. A lot of the hype with Reed seems to relate the the above average rate at which he got his hands on the ball, which we would agree is an area that he seemed to have a knack for. At the same time, we think you have to look at how his results in this area varied, from the 2014 season to the 2015 season. In 2014, his team had a fairly poor sack rate of <b>3.7%</b>, and he produced a moderately impressive <b>11</b> passes defensed. In 2015, when his team's sack rate improved to a somewhat more average <b>6.1%</b>, Reed's number of passes defended leapt to <b>23</b>. Coincidence? Well, probably not. You also have to consider the level of competition he faced, which was relatively poor. While we're open to the possibility that Reed could be an interesting prospect, and that some of the projections which place him as a 5th round pick aren't outrageously off base, we currently feel a bit divided about him. Still, if someone wanted to select him in the 5th or 6th round, that wouldn't strike us as a crazy investment.<br />
<br />
<b>James Bradberry</b> CB, Samford Ht: <b>6'0.8"</b> Wt.:<b>207</b><br />
40 time: <b>4.46</b> 2nd Gear: <b>0.08</b> Agility Score: <b>-0.147</b> Avg. PD: <b>9.5</b><br />
With larger corners like Bradberry, you are rarely going to see them producing exceptional agility scores. Physics is a bitch, and their center of gravity is working against them. Still, his results are at least in a respectably average range. We would normally expect a larger players like this to compensate for their mediocre gracefulness by physically manhandling their opponents. With a <b>1.250</b> Kangaroo Score, there does seem to be evidence that Bradberry has the lower body power and explosiveness to succeed with those methods. In the very little we have seen of him, we think this theory probably fits. When allowed to jam his opponents at the line of scrimmage, he seemed to do a pretty good job. When playing off of the line, and allowing his opponent a clean release, he was a bit more likely to get himself into trouble. In many ways, we think he is athletically similar to Ravens' cornerback <b>Jimmy Smith</b>. They both possess similar size, speed and quickness. Smith might be a tad bit more nimble, but Bradberry appears to be a little more explosive and powerful. Depending on how they are used, either jamming their opponent at the line or playing off, they also seem to succeed or fail in similar ways. Even their statistical production in college is fairly similar, though we think Bradberry might have a slight edge here, even if we have to take into account the lower level of competition he faced. Then there is the murky area of subjective opinions. Honestly, I think we might have enjoyed watching Bradberry play a bit more than we did with Smith back in 2011. Smith just didn't strike us at the time as a guy who routinely took full advantage of his physical size as much as we would have expected him to. Bradberry seems a bit more willing to attack people. Compared to Smith, Bradberry also seems to have shown a significantly better ability to get his hands on the ball. While there are certainly some increased risks that come with selecting players from lower levels of competition, we would also say that this could be somewhat diminished by the possibility that Bradberry could also transition to one of the safety positions, where his physical traits are an even better fit. We might be gambling on upside potential here, but seeing as how most people are projecting him as a mere mid-round pick, we think the risk versus reward is somewhat favorable. We'd probably start to give him serious consideration in the 3rd or 4th round.<br />
<br />
<b>Justin Simmons</b> FS, Boston College Ht: <b>6'2.3"</b> Wt.:<b>202</b><br />
40 time: <b>4.61</b> 2nd Gear: <b>-0.01</b> Agility Score: <b>1.915</b> Avg. PD: <b>7</b><br />
Because of Simmons exceptional agility results, as well as a Kangaroo Score of <b>1.178</b> which suggest a respectable degree of lower body power and explosiveness, the computer was urging us to take him somewhat seriously. The issue we couldn't get past was his timed speed. Normally, we could overlook his 40 time, if there was some suggestion that the player just had a bad start to their run. Not everybody is going to be a former track star, after all. The problem is that his 2nd Gear Score of <b>-0.01</b> sort of suggests that his time of <b>4.62</b> is probably an honest depiction of his real speed, and probably points to a potentially significant limitation in his effective range. His statistical production in college was fairly respectable, though we didn't see anything that stood out as being particularly unique. It wouldn't surprise us if he had some limited success in an NFL secondary, with speedier teammates who could compensate for the potentially small window within which Simmons probably operates, but he isn't someone we would feel highly compelled to pursue.<br />
<br />
<b>Jordan Lucas</b> FS/SS, Penn State Ht: <b>6'</b> Wt.:<b>203</b><br />
40 time: <b>4.45</b> 2nd Gear: <b>0.07</b> Agility Score: <b>0.447</b> Avg. PD: <b>6</b><br />
This strikes us as a rather interesting situation. Last year, we talked about his former teammate, <b>Adrian Amos</b>. In general, Amos met most of the minimal requirements we desire to see in a safety prospect, both athletically and in terms of statistical production. Despite that, we still weren't huge fans of him, though he was eventually drafted in the 5th round. In many ways, we think that Lucas is probably a better prospect, though a lot of people seem to be ranking him even lower than Amos was. This just strikes us as a bit odd. According to the computer, Lucas is most likely quicker, faster and more explosive than Amos. Despite their difference in size, Lucas' Kangaroo Score of <b>1.176</b> is also pretty much just as impressive as what the larger Amos produced. So, despite being physically smaller than Amos, Lucas is arguably just as powerful. This result also fits well with the sort of lower body power we like to see in our safety prospects. While Amos did have more interceptions in college, we would also suggest that Lucas probably outperformed in him pretty much every other area of statistical production. While he is sometimes listed as a strong safety prospect, we'd say that his athletic results could actually make him capable of playing either safety position (though we prefer him as a free safety), which provides some additional benefits in terms of flexibility. In a pinch, he could also probably fill in as a halfway respectable cornerback. While we won't go so far as to suggest that Lucas is going to become a star, we do think he probably has a realistic shot at becoming at least a respectable and serviceable player. Since people seem to be ignoring him, we might feel tempted to consider snagging Lucas around the 4th or 5th round.<br />
<br />
<b>Kavon Frazier</b> SS, Central Michigan Ht: <b>6'</b> Wt.:<b>215</b><br />
40 time: <b>4.58</b> 2nd Gear: <b>0.07</b> Agility Score: <b>-0.724</b> Avg. PD: <b>4.5</b><br />
We probably like Frazier a great deal more than will make sense to a lot of people. Yes, his agility results are a tad disappointing, and fall a bit below our normally accepted range for a strong safety (though many list him as a free safety, which we think is a bit peculiar). We'll also admit that, yes, he didn't get his hands on the ball quite as often as many of the other prospects. To some extent, we think Central Michigan's horrible pass rush probably didn't help him in this area, as he struck us as a player who has decent hands when he is given an opportunity. Still, we will admit that being a dominating player in coverage might not be his strong suit. The reason we like him is that he appeared to be a heat seeking missile, whose mission was to punish opposing players. Forget about covering people, he is just there to hit you. With a rather exceptional Kangaroo Score of <b>2.233</b>, his game is probably built around his lower body power and explosiveness. These are the kind of traits that get us excited about strong safeties. He probably won't appeal to some of the teams in the league, but for someone who wants an enforcer, he strikes us as a very neat prospect. We'd probably give some serious consideration to selecting him as high as the 5th or 6th round, which appears to be a bit higher than where many people have him ranked. Yes, we're fully aware of the fact that this sort of crush will probably end with <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2015/03/cedric-thompson-shopping-for-wedding.html" target="_blank">similarly disappointing results to what we suffered last year with <b>Cedric Thompson</b></a>. Unfortunately, Reilly and I are romantics at heart, and we won't give up on our foolish ways.<br />
<br />
<b>Mike Jordan</b> CB, Missouri Western State Ht: <b>6'</b> Wt.:<b>200</b><br />
40 time: <b>4.63</b> 2nd Gear: <b>0.00</b> Agility Score: <b>-0.218</b> Avg. PD: <b>19</b><br />
There's still a fair amount of information that we can't seem to get our hands on, when it come to Mike Jordan. One of the more annoying issues is that we still have no idea what his 40 time is. Still, based on his results in all of the other drills, it would seem unlikely that he wouldn't wind up at least in the 4.5 second range, which would be perfectly adequate (Ooops! We now know he ran a 4.63, so off to the dumpsters with him!). It's also probably a bit odd that we find ourselves so interested in a corner who's agility results are so incredibly average. All we can say is that we do lower our expectations a bit for late potential round draft picks. While his 40 time is unknown, and his agility might be unexceptional, his results did suggest a somewhat higher degree of lower body power and explosiveness, with a <b>0.734</b> Kangaroo Score. That's a pretty good result for a corner, and actually is getting close to what we like to see in a safety. The thing about Jordan that really draws our attention, is his extremely high level statistical production. He appears to get his hands on the ball at an incredible rate, and turns a lot of those opportunities into interceptions. In the little we have seen of him (because there is very little available to see), he actually struck us as a rather impressive player. He seemed to cover opponents tightly. He did a good job of jumping routes. He even appeared to be a willing and capable tackler. While he might just be a slightly above average physical specimen, he seemed to have a lot of the statistical and subjective traits that we look for. Since he is only projected to be a late round draft pick, we think he could be an interesting player to gamble on. We'd probably start to give him some serious consideration as early as the 7th round.<br />
<br />
<b>Ian Wells</b> CB, Ohio Ht: <b>5' 10.5"</b> Wt.:<b>199</b><br />
40 time: <b>4.49</b> 2nd Gear: <b>-0.06</b> Agility Score: <b>0.860*</b> Avg. PD: <b>11</b><br />
It would be nice if there was more information available on Wells, but we are sort of stuck here, without much to go on. From the little we can gather, he has adequate speed, respectably above average agility (though we only had his short shuttle results), and exceptional lower body power and explosiveness (with a <b>1.698</b> Kangaroo Score). His statistical production appears to have been adequate, especially when you factor in Ohio's somewhat mediocre pass rush. Still, it would have been nice to see some clips of his actual games, in order to gain a bit more perspective on him. Since he is generally only projected as someone who might be selected in the 7th round, or perhaps go undrafted, we'd probably be willing to take a shot at him, based solely on his physical potential, and the limited data we have.<br />
<br />
<b>Kamu Grugier-Hill</b> SS, Eastern Illinois Ht: <b>6' 2"</b> Wt.:<b>208</b><br />
40 time: <b>4.45</b> 2nd Gear: <b>0.07</b> Agility Score: <b>-0.063</b> Avg. PD: <b>2.5</b><br />
We can't really find too much information on Grugier-Hill, but we're still somewhat interested in him. While he seems to have mainly played linebacker in college, his size and athletic traits seem to clearly point towards him transitioning to the safety position, where he is possibly a very interesting fit. While his agility result are just average compared to the entire pool of defensive backs, this is actually pretty respectable result for a strong safety. His Kangaroo Score of <b>1.520</b> is also rather ideal for this position. While he may not have gotten his hands on the ball very frequently, he still amassed 6 interceptions during his college years, and this might have been improved upon if he had been used as a defensive back. In his final year, he also had 16.5 tackles for a loss, as well as 6.5 sacks, despite being an undersized linebacker who missed two games due to an injury. While we wish we knew more about him, he still strikes us as someone who might be interesting to pick up in the 7th round, or bring in as an UDFA.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Sidney Mussburgerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03104367326238874951noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9104858724022491504.post-80003479040261299252016-03-23T14:52:00.000-04:002016-04-29T23:19:33.426-04:00Kangaroo Court: The 2016 DEs & 3-4 OLBsSometimes occupying this weird and quiet little corner of the internet makes us feel like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/52-hertz_whale" target="_blank">the 52 hz whale</a>, the loneliest whale in the world. Other times, we imagine ourselves more like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cookiecutter_shark" target="_blank">cookiecutter sharks</a>, vicious and disturbing creatures taking little bites out of the NFL's belly. While we occasionally question why we continue to put up these demented posts, there does seem to be a shark-like compulsion to continue moving forward. So, <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2015/03/kangaroo-court-2015-des-3-4-olbs.html" target="_blank">much like we did last year</a>, and in the years before that, we'll just keep swimming along as we take a look at this year's crop of outside pass rushers. <br />
<br />
We've been a bit busy lately, which has slowed down our progress in examining this year's prospects. Perhaps too much our our time has been invested in trying to arrange a parade to march <b>Courtney Upshaw</b> out of town. His impending departure absolutely fills us with joy, though it doesn't appear to have infected the other nearby sports fans with the same sort of enthusiasm. That has left just Reilly and myself to construct our parade float, artistically depicting Upshaw's athletic ability in the form of a papier-mache tree stump. <br />
<br />
It's fair to say that we <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2013/06/courtney-upshaw-he-fell-to-us.html" target="_blank">have never been fans of Upshaw</a>. We've expected him to turn into a dismal failure for quite a while now. The odd thing is, that while his performance would seem to have confirmed our initial assessment of him, the locals have tended to be much more forgiving of his shortcomings than we ever would have imagined. The argument they raise in his defense consistently seems to refer to his supposed ability to "set the edge", as they say.<br />
<br />
This has made us curious about how people can see the silver lining in a bad situation. After all, what does "setting the edge" really mean, other than "he is a fairly immobile/unmovable lump, who opponents could potentially trip over"? While we certainly wouldn't want to deny that having the ability to hold your ground is a worthwhile trait in a defensive linemen, it doesn't suggest that a player is terribly dynamic or impactful, if that is all they are really doing. Surely, this sort of "stand in one place and don't fall down" skill set can be accomplished fairly easily, can't it?<br />
<br />
So, let's pretend that we decided that an unexceptional lump-like presence, similar to what Courtney Upshaw offered, was a perfectly acceptable outcome from one of our defensive ends or outside linebackers. Like Upshaw, this imaginary player would not need to show any real ability to drop into coverage. Also, like Upshaw, we would feel no great need for this player to reach the quarterback more frequently than a fat man touches his toes. We also would have very limited expectations that this player would be able to pursue running backs to the sideline. Nope, we just want a guy who can occasionally make a tackle when an opponent runs straight into his waiting arms. How the Ravens managed to find such a rare gem with just a mere 2nd round pick is a bit amazing.<br />
<br />
Then, while contemplating Upshaw's glorious accomplishments, a thought crossed our mind. If this is all we want out of our DE/OLB, why not just put one of the team's defensive tackles on the field, in Upshaw's place. Would he be any less likely to match Upshaw's incredible 7 defensed passes over the past 4 years? Or what about the 5 sacks Upshaw produced during the same period of time? Would a typical 3rd string defensive tackle likely be any less stout against the run? It may sound a bit stupid, but we even think the team could have put a random undrafted nose tackle on the field, and there would have been very little difference in the actual outcome. It's not like such a player would have been sacrificing any sort of athleticism at the position, because Upshaw really possessed none in the first place.<br />
<br />
Yet, despite our complaints about Upshaw, a surprisingly significant portion of local fans seem willing to defend him. The Ravens have put him on the field for every single game since the day he was drafted, even listing him as the starter in 52 games (81.2% of the time). It is...confusing. All we can really figure is that this is an amazing testament to the power that a player's draft status has on the opportunities that are presented to him. We also have little doubt that we still have not seen the end of this peculiar and vexing anomaly. Some other team will surely employ him, though it is hard to guess whether they will be as forgiving.<br />
<br />
Oh well, I suppose that's all we have to say on this little rant, so let's move on to this year's crop of future disappointments.<br />
<br />
As always, we will list the player's <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-kangaroo-score.html">Kangaroo Score</a>
(our measure of lower body power), and their Agility Score (which comes
from the short shuttle drill and the 3-cone drill). The scores are
shown in the form of how many standard deviations that a player is
above, or below, the average result for a player in their position
group. The ideal prospect, in our opinion, would have a Kangaroo Score
that is at least one standard deviation above average, at least
an average Agility Score, and be averaging about 15 tackles for a loss
in his final two college seasons. Of course, in the end, we often have
to make some compromises here. <br />
<br />
While we know that many people prefer to take a more subjective approach to judging NFL prospects, we generally feel that produces much more erratic and undependable results. To illustrate this, we had the computer play a little game to demonstrate <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2014/10/pass-rushersnow-lobotomized.html" target="_blank">what players it would have selected over a ten year period</a>, under fairly restrictive guidelines. We then made a separate post to show how this compared to <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2014/12/perhaps-lobotomy-would-help.html" target="_blank">the results of a select group of NFL teams</a>, during the same period. While there is no way to guarantee success, we do think the more objective approach of the computer does tend to improve a team's chance of a positive outcome. Maybe you will agree, or maybe you won't.<br />
<br />
We should also mention that while we tend to use the Kangaroo Score as a general tool to capture a player's explosiveness and power, there are are some times where this runs into potential issues. Particularly with a position group like this, where the weights of the players covers a broader range than in most position groups (perhaps from 235 pounds to 285 pounds). So, we sometimes need to clarify things a bit more. Generally, lower body power and explosiveness go hand in hand to a large degree. Sometimes they don't. The discrepancies that arise are all a product of how we value mass, and sometimes we need to sort things out a bit more, in order to get a better picture of how a player is likely to perform.<br />
<br />
For instance, you could have a heavier player, say a 275# defensive end, with a Kangaroo Score of <b>1.500</b>. That would suggest a rather impressive amount of lower body power. Despite that, this player might also have a non-weight adjusted explosiveness result of perhaps <b>0.500</b>, which is fine but not nearly as impressive. This is a player that we might expect to be stout against the run, and perhaps capable of pushing his opposing blocker backwards, but not what we might consider a speed rusher.<br />
<br />
At the same time, you might have a smaller 240 pound defensive end, with a mildly respectable Kangaroo Score of <b>0.500</b>. This player's relative lack of mass is not doing them any favors. Still, this player might have a non-weight adjusted explosiveness result of <b>1.500</b>, which would be exceptional. We would expect this player to be a bit less likely to hold his ground in the running game, but have much more of an explosive first step when rushing the passer. This is perhaps a player who is more likely to fit the mold of a speed rusher, who can get to the quarterback very quickly (assuming that other physical traits don't hamper him).<br />
<br />
This is just an issue that tends to come up a bit more frequently with this group of players, and something that we will try to make additional comments about. We wouldn't say that one type of player is necessarily better than the other, just that there is more than one way to skin a cat. The way these results can tilt things in one direction or another just helps to better understand how a player might succeed, and perhaps how they should best be utilized.<br />
<br />
<b>This list will continue to be modified/updated as new data and
prospects come to my attention. I don't plan to list every prospect
here, but instead will just show the ones that I think are interesting
for either good or bad reasons. Last Updated: </b>4/16/2016<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Joey Bosa</b>, DE/OLB, Ohio State<br />
Kangaroo Score: <b>0.763</b> Agility Score: <b>1.064</b> Avg TFL: <b>18.5 </b><br />
Based on our normal methods for doing this, Bosa is someone we should probably be excited about. When examining his athletic traits and college production, this is someone that the computer would allow us to select in the 1st round. Still, there are some odd details and concerns about Bosa that make us scratch our heads a bit. His Kangaroo Score suggests that he should have the lower body power to bull rush, as well as stand up against the opponent's running game. The score above actually might underestimate his power a bit, as the results from his broad jump would produce a result of <b>1.601, </b>which is a significant improvement on his overall result. Then we have his agility results, which are also really quite good, especially for someone of his size. The one odd thing about his results was what happened when we removed mass as a factor. Suddenly, his lower body explosiveness was appearing to be just "okay", with a result that came in between <b>0.208</b> and <b>0.823. </b>That result is a tad lower than what we normally see in most of the NFL's top level pass rushers, but not necessarily a significant problem. These results would suggest that he is probably more of a bull-rushing torque machine, and less of a blow past the tackle at the snap kind of player. That also probably fits with what we have seen of Bosa in the few games we have watched. The most similar athletic comparison we can make, is probably <b>Kyle Vanden Bosch</b>. Yes, we feel a bit awkward about making a white-guy-to-white-guy comparison. Then we come to Bosa's statistical production in college, which is a whole other can of worms. Because of the recent successes of the Ohio State football program, it is a bit more difficult to tell who is benefiting from being in an potentially advantageous situation. In 2014, we would say that Bosa's production was quite good, though still perhaps a hair short of what we typically find with top level pass rushers. In 2015, we run into much bigger problems. Bosa took a rather severe tumble in production, and we don't have an adequate explanation for why that is. Some people will say that it was caused by Bosa being double-teamed more often, but we're not so sure about that. Considering that his team was actually improving the rate that they were getting to the opposing quarterback (going from an <b>8.3%</b> sack rate in 2015, to an <b>8.4%</b> in 2015), and that Bosa was frequently benefiting from being able to go after the opponent's right tackle, his slump bothers us a bit. We'd also say that while Bosa appears to be active against the run, he was probably making about 10% fewer plays in this area than we would really like to see. Admittedly, part of the reason we are being so critical of Bosa is because of some of the similarities he possesses to another former Ohio State player, <b>Vernon Gholston</b>. Like Bosa, Gholston was an extremely gifted athlete whose market share of his team's pass rushing success was less impressive than his stat sheet might make you suspect. You could say, that for as gifted as Bosa/Gholston appeared to be physically, we actually think they both should have been even more productive in college, especially considering the beneficial environment they found themselves in. Maybe that seems like nitpicking. Despite all of this criticism, we still think Bosa is probably one of the better pass rushing prospects in this draft, and worth a 1st round pick. We just aren't certain that he should go in the top 5.<br />
<br />
<b>Shaq Lawson</b>, DE, Clemson<br />
Kangaroo Score: <b>0.700</b> Agility Score: <b>0.544</b> Avg TFL: <b>18.5 </b><br />
What can we really say about Lawson? Well, he did produce the sort of good but not great athletic results that would allow the computer to give him a 1st round grade. Lawson also had the sort of statistical production that would merit a 1st round grade from the computer. So, why are we feeling so underwhelmed by him as a draft prospect? Of the three outside pass rushers that the computer gave a 1st round grade to this year, Lawson was the one that seems to bother us the most. We could complain that he was a bit of a late bloomer, who only really produced to a significant level in his final collegiate season. We could point to the way that Clemson seems to currently be able to turn anyone into a productive pass rusher, similar to what Missouri has done in the past few years. Along with this, there is the concern that Lawson's numbers in 2015 might have been inflated due to the overall success of the Clemson pass rush, which lessened the extent to which opponents could focus on stopping just him. Really though, Reilly and I were mainly disturbed by how little excitement we felt when we watched him play, and we think this might be related to a potential athletic deficiency that gets ignored in the scores we listed above. While Lawson has respectably adequate agility, and his Kangaroo Score suggests he has good lower body power (which could be rated at an even higher <b>1.202</b> if we only looked at his broad jump), there is still something missing. When we remove weight as a factor from his vertical and broad jumps, to just look at his explosiveness, his results fall somewhere between <b>0.264</b> and <b>0.655</b>. Those aren't bad results, but they also aren't particularly exceptional. In the end, this creates a fairly specific sort of athletic profile. It would suggest that Lawson is probably stout enough to hold up against the run, as well as having the power to occasionally push offensive tackles around, but he probably isn't going to consistently explode past/through the blocker to create the sort of quick sacks that we associate with some of the more exciting pass rushers. None of this should necessarily change the grade that the computer gave him, of alter our expectations that he can become a good player, we just suspect that he might be a bit less of a dynamic player than the top NFL players at his position. We're leaning towards the idea that his best position might be as a left end in a 4-3 defense, since we think his physical traits would probably match up better against the types of athletes you typically find among right tackles.<br />
<br />
<b>Leonard Floyd</b>, OLB, Georgia<br />
Kangaroo Score: <b>0.829</b> Agility Score: <b>0.201</b> Avg TFL: <b>9.5 </b><br />
With Leonard Floyd, we have a very different sort of prospect than what we see among the other players that are generally projected to be taken in the 1st round. Athletically, he is actually kind of interesting, and his overall results would allow the computer to give him a 1st round grade. Unfortunately, when the computer looks at his statistical production, the best assessment it can give Floyd is a 6th round grade. That imbalance between physical potential, and proven productivity is a huge problem for us. As a pass rusher, he simply never reached any of the benchmarks that we generally associate with top level players at his position. His athletic results also point in a different direction than many of the other prospects for this year. While he appears to have perfectly adequate agility, and above average lower body power, his explosiveness (when weight isn't factored into it) appears to be his best trait. Here, his result would be about <b>1.773</b> standard deviations above average, which is pretty exceptional. His results would suggest to us that his best opportunity might come as an OLB in a 3-4, or perhaps even in a 4-3, where he could be positioned further outside, in order to try to explode past the offensive tackle rather than bull rushing through him. Based on the little we have seen of him, our observations seemed to line up with the computer's suspicions. He does appear to be less inclined to try to physically maul his opponents. While some people have talked about adding weight to his relatively slim 6'6" and 244 pound frame, we think that could be a bit of a complicated proposition. That added mass shouldn't really improve his Kangaroo Score, but it should reduce his agility and explosiveness to some degree. Overall, we don't think that would be a great idea. We also have some concerns about the fact that Floyd will already be turning 24 this upcoming September, and the possibility that his Georgia teammate <b>Jordan Jenkins</b> might present better value as a draft pick. While Floyd is a somewhat interesting physical specimen, and has the physical traits to perhaps exceed our conservative expectations, the computer would suggest that his overall results present too much risk relative to where he is expected to be selected.<br />
<br />
<b>Noah Spence</b>, DE/OLB, Eastern Kentucky<br />
Kangaroo Score: <b>0.213</b> Agility Score: <b>0.060</b> Avg TFL: <b>18.5* </b><br />
Reilly and I really have no idea what to make of Noah Spence. Based on the little we have seen of him, our lying eyes thought he looked fairly impressive. Of course, these things are a bit hard to judge when he was typically playing against such a low level of competition. Athletically, there was little to complain about with his results, but also little to praise. His numbers were pretty much average across the board. While his Kangaroo Score doesn't suggest that he has the sort of lower body power we typically like to see in these sorts of prospects, when mass was removed as a factor, his results did suggest a slightly above average level of explosiveness (with a result of <b>0.599</b>), though nothing terribly impressive. We think those results generally fit with what we saw of him. He seemed like he wanted to be more of a speed rusher, rather than someone who could consistently drive an offensive tackle backwards. At the end of the day, we just don't like to bet on players with these sorts of physical traits, especially not with high draft picks. Though they can occasionally succeed, we feel falling into a pattern of making these sorts of selections will eventually get you into trouble. If somebody wanted to select Spence in the 4th or 5th round, sure, we could perhaps understand that gamble. In the 2nd round, not so much. Of course, all of this speculation doesn't even take into account his issues with ecstasy. We're not trying to be judgmental, because drugs can be a great way to get through the weekend, but there are some clear reasons to be concerned here. I mean, what's going to happen if an opposing offensive tackle pulls out a glow stick, and starts to wave it around? Is he just going to start dancing as if he is attending a rave, and forget to go after the quarterback? It seems like a legitimate risk.<br />
<br />
<b>Emmanuel Ogbah</b>, DE, Oklahoma St<br />
Kangaroo Score: <b>1.326</b> Agility Score: <b>-0.450</b> Avg TFL: <b>15.25 </b><br />
The main thing we like about Ogbah is his potential lack of complicating issues. Unlike Bosa or Lawson, the only two other players that the computer gave a first round grade to, Ogbah is a bit more straightforward. While the rate at which Ogbah made plays behind the opponent's line of scrimmage is a tad short of what we associate with top level pass rushers (which also applies to Bosa and Lawson), the were fewer issues to suggest he was benefiting from other players on his own team's defense. His results were also a bit more consistent over the past two years, though we personally think his 2014 season was more impressive (relative to the opponents he faced), at least as a pass rusher. Athletically, because of the way Ogbah's athletic results tilt significantly towards power over agility, we would probably say that he is best suited to remaining as a 4-3 defensive end. Like Bosa and Lawson, his results suggest he is somewhat less explosive than he is powerful, though he probably has more of a burst than Lawson. We would also mention that Ogbah's exceptional arm length of 35.5" makes our nipples tingle a bit. Based on the little we have seen of him, there did seem to be a bit of inconsistency to his performances, but at his best he still struck us as fairly impressive. Another thing we like about Ogbah, is the possibility that he will be taken a bit later than some of the other top prospects, perhaps even as late as the end of 1st to early 2nd round range. If so, that sort of relative potential value would be rather appealing to us.<br />
<br />
<b>Kevin Dodd</b>, DE, Clemson<br />
Kangaroo Score: <b>-0.204</b> Agility Score: <b>-0.400</b> Avg TFL: <b>13 </b><br />
Just like we said when discussing his teammate, Shaq Lawson, we have some concerns about how these two players might have benefited from each other's presence, as well as the overall environment at Clemson. That they were similar in being one year wonders, also makes us nervous. Unfortunately for Dodd, he has significantly more issues that worry us than Lawson did. For one, Dodd will already be turning 24 this coming July. We don't particularly like it when players take this long to start performing at a high level. Secondly, Dodd's athletic traits suggest just average lower body power, below average agility and significantly below average explosiveness (<b>-1.133</b>). For someone who is often projected to be taken in the first 2 rounds of the draft, these issues would make us extremely concerned. While we could try to draw parallels to someone like Tamba Hali, who also had extremely questionable athletic traits, trying to find future successes by looking towards past anomalies doesn't strike us as a great idea. Even if he fell to the 7th round, we would have a hard time selecting someone with these issues.<br />
<br />
<b>Jonathan Bullard</b>, DE, Florida<br />
Kangaroo Score: <b>0.949</b> Agility Score: <b>-0.713</b> Avg TFL: <b>13</b><br />
We still haven't really made up our mind about the possibility of using Bullard as a defensive end. <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2016/03/kangaroo-court-2016-defensive-tackles.html" target="_blank">As we suggested in an earlier post</a>, we kind of prefer the idea of using him as a defensive tackle. It should also be noted how differently his athletic traits appear under these two different scenarios. While we can't rule out the possibility of using him as a defensive end, we just think lining him up inside might give him more physical advantages with fewer potential weaknesses, than putting him on the edge of the line. He's a fairly interesting guy, but we suspect that the way he is utilized could have a much larger impact on his ability to succeed than what we see with many other players. <br />
<br />
<b>Shilique Calhoun</b>, OLB, Michigan St.<br />
Kangaroo Score: <b>-0.188</b> Agility Score: <b>0.800</b> Avg TFL: <b>13.75* </b><br />
Players like this tend to be a great source of annoyance to us. It's hard to say that there is necessarily anything wrong with them, and there are clearly a few positive traits that they bring to the table. They just aren't the sort of athletes we prefer to bet on. Calhoun's results would place him in the <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2013/07/high-agility-pass-rushers.html" target="_blank">high agility group of pass rushers</a>, which can be a strange and unpredictable group to deal with. Even when players like this do well, they still don't tend to become nearly as productive as their peers who have a higher degree of lower body power and explosiveness. When these players do thrive, we also tend to suspect that they do better when given a bit more space to operate, because if an offensive tackle gets their hands on them, they frequently get buried. This usually means that a player like Calhoun would do better if they went to a team that uses a 3-4 defense. We should also say that while Calhoun may be agile, his results probably still aren't quite good enough for us to feel very optimistic about how this will turn out. His agility results are just good, not great. As far as his statistical production is concerned, we would say that his results were a bit mediocre. While he produced okay results as a pass rusher, this appeared to come at the expense of his efforts as a run defender. He seemed to either reach the opposing QB, or he just got run over. People seem to think that he will be selected somewhere in the 2nd round, but we think he presents way too man risks, and would probably avoid him completely.<br />
<br />
<b>Carl Nassib</b>, DE, Penn St.<br />
Kangaroo Score: <b>-0.070</b> Agility Score: <b>-0.110</b> Avg TFL: <b>11.5 </b><br />
For someone who is often projected to be selected somewhere around the 3rd round, we don't have a great deal of confidence in Carl Nassib. While we could try to pick apart his athletic results, and say that there was at least some evidence of lower body power suggested by his broad jump, but we don't want to pursue that argument. His overall results point to the possibility that Nassib has only moderate lower body power, average agility, and significantly below average explosiveness. When we also consider that he will be turning 23 in April. and didn't show significant statistical production until this past season, that creates additional areas of concern. That this late statistical surge coincided with somewhat similar difficult to explain performances from teammates <b>Austin Johnson</b> and <b>Anthony Zettel</b> (to a lesser degree), makes us suspicious about how this all occurred. Much like Nassib, these other players also seemed to lack the sort of athletic traits that we normally associate with highly successful NFL players. While it is impossible to say that a player is doomed to become a failure, we would suggest that consistently overlooking the objective and measurable facts that a prospect like this presents should eventually erode a team's chances of success in the draft. We currently don't see any potential situation in which we would select Carl Nassib as an outside pass rusher. The computer does, however, view Nassib as a moderately interesting prospect as as a 3-4 defensive end, as his athletic results come out much better when compared to players in that weight class.<br />
<br />
<b>Kamalei Correa</b>, OLB, Boise St.<br />
Kangaroo Score: <b>-0.567</b> Agility Score: <b>1.011</b> Avg TFL: <b>15</b><br />
Since we finally have updated information from Correa's pro day, we've had to adjust his results a bit. While he did improve his Kangaroo Score since the combine, his results still suggest that he has below average explosiveness and lower body power for a 3-4 OLB. On the other hand, we did expect him to turn out to be a fairly agile player, and his results in that area were significantly better. Unfortunately, we usually find that <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2013/07/high-agility-pass-rushers.html" target="_blank">high agility pass rushers don't tend to be quite as productive</a> as the more explosive and powerful players in this position group, and also have a lower rate of success in general. Because of this, we tend to be wary of selecting these sorts of players in the first couple of rounds. While his statistical production looks impressive at first glance, there are some potential problems there as well. First of all, it is troubling how his numbers dropped in 2015, versus what they were in 2014 when his team's overall pass rushing success was much better. It creates the possibility that Correa was making plays behind the line of scrimmage because his opponents were more engaged with some of his teammates. Even if that wasn't the case, the rate at which he was making plays behind the line of scrimmage in 2014 (his best season) still falls a fair bit below what we would expect to see in a top level prospect. Based on the information we currently have, we would have a hard time envisioning a situation where the value that the computer places on Correa lines up with the 2nd to 3rd round grade that some people have proposed. On a more positive not, we think his results do a rather nice job of fitting the mold for an outside linebacker in a 4-3. <br />
<br />
<b>Charles Tapper</b>, DE, Oklahoma<br />
Kangaroo Score: <b>0.881</b> Agility Score: <b>?</b> Avg TFL: <b>7.5</b><br />
Without having all of the data we would like on Tapper, it is a bit difficult to speculate about his future. It becomes even more challenging when we consider the way that Oklahoma frequently used him as an undersized defensive tackle on so many snaps, which makes examining his production a bit murky, and somewhat problematic. While we can give him credit for appearing to have somewhat above average lower body power, we wouldn't say that his results suggest he has a matching level of explosiveness. If we can eventually get some agility results for Tapper, that would probably help to clarify what sort of athletic potential he really has, so we may have to reevaluate him once that comes in. So far, and based on what we have seen of Tapper, the expectations that some people have that he will be selected in the 2nd or 3rd round strikes us as a bit ridiculous.<br />
<br />
<b>Kyler Fackrell</b>, OLB, Utah St.<br />
Kangaroo Score: <b>-0.137</b> Agility Score: <b>0.113</b> Avg TFL: <b>14</b><br />
At 245 pounds, Fackrell is sort of on the fringe when it comes to whether he
could fit as a 3-4 OLB, or whether he would be a better fit as a 4-3
OLB. Since we now have Fackrell's pro day results, we can toss out our wild and irresponsible hunches about his future. Athletically, he sort of falls into a no man's land, where there seems to be nothing particularly interesting about him, but also nothing worth condemning. Since some people seem to be projecting him as a 3rd round pick, we would hope to see more dynamic physical traits. If it wasn't for his statistical production, we would probably ignore him completely. The problem is, while he was quite productive, he didn't produce exceptional results in the areas that interest us for an outside pass rusher. Right now we are leaning towards the 4-3 OLB option as being a better fit for someone with his physical traits, which we'll explore in a later post. <br />
<br />
<b>Bronson Kaufusi</b>, DE, BYU<br />
Kangaroo Score: <b>0.371</b> Agility Score: <b>0.684</b> Avg TFL: <b>15</b><br />
We already kicked around the idea of using Kaufusi as a 3-4 defensive end <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2016/03/kangaroo-court-2016-defensive-tackles.html" target="_blank">in one of our earlier posts</a>, but we thought we should include him here as well. Depending on what position he is going to play, we have to compare him to a different set of athletes, so his scores come out quite a bit differently on this list. He's kind of an odd prospect, who may not perfectly fit any one particular position. Teams may need to move him around a bit, in order to get the most out of him, though that isn't necessarily a bad thing. At the end of the day, he is a fairly gifted athlete, who was rather productive in college. Those are things we appreciate. Based on his overall results, the computer would give him a 3rd round grade.<br />
<br />
<b>Jordan Jenkins</b>, OLB, Georgia.<br />
Kangaroo Score: <b>1.042</b> Agility Score: <b>-0.241</b> Avg TFL: <b>10.75</b><br />
The similarities and differences that exist between Jenkins and his college teammate <b>Leonard Floyd</b>, strike us as rather interesting. While Jenkins Kangaroo Score suggests he might have slightly more lower body power than Floyd, their agility results would give a slight edge to Floyd. When weight isn't a factor, Floyd is clearly quite explosive, though Jenkins result of <b>1.158</b> is still quite impressive. While Floyd's athleticism might suggest he would benefit from being utilized as a 3-4 or 4-3 outside linebacker, where he would have more space, Jenkins results might point towards a career as a 4-3 defensive end. While their are potential differences, we wouldn't say that their is really an enormous divide between them when it comes to athletic ability. They are perhaps different sorts of athletes, but not from entirely different planets. When we look at their statistical production, we also don't see much to separate them, as the computer feels that both of them were just fairly average in college. The real difference, at least to us, comes in the possibility that Jenkins might only be selected somewhere between the 3rd to 5th round range, while Floyd is talked about as someone who will be taken much higher. We think that might tilt the potential question of value in Jenkins direction. We would also say that the fact that Jenkins is about 2 years younger than Floyd is another factor we appreciate. Based on our normal method of doing things, the computer gives Jenkins a 5th round grade.<br />
<br />
<b>Jason Fanaika</b>, DE, Utah<br />
Kangaroo Score: <b>0.735</b> Agility Score: <b>0.239</b> Avg TFL: <b>10</b><br />
We have a very, very, very modest level of interest in Fanaika. Athletically, his results suggest that he has a respectable amount of lower body power, and could be someone that can hold up against the run, and perhaps bully his way towards an occasional sack. At the same time, he probably only has average agility and explosiveness. These are not the results of a highly dynamic player, but perhaps a serviceable one. From what we have seen of Fanaika, he plays pretty much the way his athletic results would suggest. When we consider his statistical production, there was a similar pattern of being serviceable but not spectacular. He was probably more of a contributor to his team's run defense, than he was to their pass rush, where his results were rather bland. In the end, the computer views him as possibly being worth a pick in the 6th round, though that appears to be a bit later in the draft than many are expecting him to be selected.<br />
<br />
<b>Matt Judon</b>, DE, Grand Valley State<br />
Kangaroo Score: <b>0.590</b> Agility Score: <b>-1.296</b> Avg TFL: <b>21.25</b><br />
Because of the rather wildly divergent outcomes from Judon's vertical jump and broad jump, it is possible that his Kangaroo Score is underestimating his lower body power a fair bit. If we only considered the results from his vertical jump, his result would move to <b>1.032</b>, which is a bit more impressive. Still, while he may have some measure of power, his results don't suggest a high degree of explosiveness. We also worry that his rather poor agility results might make him a bit too stiff to really capitalize on the few strengths he does have. His statistical production is arguably more impressive than anyone else in this position group, and even more notable for having extended over multiple seasons. Granted, he was playing at a lower level of competition, but even when we attempt to adjust for that, his results are still quite good. Based on the very limited amount that we have seen of him, he made a reasonably good impression on us. Of course, we don't trust our lying eyes very much. Unless he shows significantly improved results at his pro day, we would have a hard time feeling that he has the sort of athletic traits that can produce any sort of consistent success in the NFL. Some people seem to think he will be a mid-round selection, but that strikes us as a bit too much of a gamble for our tastes.<br />
<br />
<b>Tyrone Holmes</b>, OLB, Montana<br />
Kangaroo Score: <b>0.196</b> Agility Score: <b>0.603</b> Avg TFL: <b>19</b><br />
Every single year there is some small school player who puts up goofy pass rushing stats, and 50% of the time they seem to come from Montana. We've had <b>Zach Wagenmann</b> in 2015, and <b>Brock Coyle</b> and <b>Jordan Tripp</b> back in 2014. Really though, we should primarily just be comparing him to Zach Wagenmann, who went undrafted last year but has a temporary home with the Cardinals. Like Wagenmann, Holmes overall athletic scores were fairly pedestrian, but there are some moderately interesting signs of potential buried underneath it all. If we separate the two aspects of the Kangaroo Score, and only looked at the results from his vertical jump, we would wind up with a result of <b>0.879</b>, which suggests a moderately intriguing amount of lower body power. Also, like Wagenmann, Holmes statistical production clearly stands out as being unusually strong, though Holmes period of productivity was mainly limited to one season, unlike his former teammate. Initially, we suggested giving Holmes a 6th or 7th round grade, but we've changed our minds about this. Our cowardice, that stems from a lack of confidence in the Montana football program, might have been clouding our minds. If we strictly adhered to what the computer was telling us to do, our Banana 6000 Data Thresher would allow us to pick him as high as the 4th round. Holmes may be one of the few mid-to-late round pass rushing prospects who has a legitimate chance to exceed peoples' expectations.<br />
<br />
<br />Sidney Mussburgerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03104367326238874951noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9104858724022491504.post-86473612724862221142016-03-15T14:21:00.001-04:002017-01-28T13:26:24.325-05:00Kangaroo Court: The 2016 Offensive LinemenReilly and I have seen some strange things over the years. Whether we give off some sort of pheromone that attracts lunatics, we can't say for sure. All we know is that we seem to keep finding ourselves in peculiar and difficult to explain situations, that frequently make us marvel at the insanity of the world.<br />
<br />
For instance, in high school, the older brother of one of our closest friends used to insist that the state of Wyoming didn't exist. He was absolutely adamant about this. His defense of this theory was also surprisingly difficult to refute. Had we ever been to Wyoming? Had we ever met someone from Wyoming? The answer to both questions was no. Our friend's brother suggested that this was ample evidence that this supposed land south of Montana was entirely made up, and perhaps part of a grander conspiracy. We eventually came to the conclusion that it was simpler just to accept his views on this subject, rather than to pack up a camera and make an 1,800 mile road trip.<br />
<br />
We also had the opportunity to meet someone who sincerely believed that the government was watching us through the light bulbs in our homes (when any sane person knows that they watch us through our electrical outlets). We'll call this guy George. George happened to live in one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in Baltimore, which made it all the more entertaining that he covered his windows with aluminum foil. He also had AR-15 assault rifles positioned by every window in his house. You know, just in case. Years later, we would learn that George died under mysterious circumstances while running a brothel in Mexico. True story.<br />
<br />
Reilly and I have also been exposed to the philosophical teachings of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drukpa_Kunley" target="_blank"><b>Drukpa Kunley</b></a>, and eventually decided to place our spiritual well-being in his capable hands. Not only did he introduce <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phallus_paintings_in_Bhutan" target="_blank">phallus paintings to Bhutan</a>, but his dong was referred to as "The Thunderbolt of Flaming Wisdom". That is what we call a role model. It is even claimed that he <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimi_Lhakhang" target="_blank">defeated a demon</a> by beating it into submission with his "thunderbolt". It may all seem a bit demented, but I don't think most guys would be opposed to leaving behind such an impressive legacy.<br />
<br />
When it comes to bat-shit craziness, Reilly and I would also have to include the current 2016 presidential campaign. It's not that we want to pick on any particular candidate, because we think they are all probably a bit loopy. The bigger issue for us has been the way that this has convinced us that the average American might be much crazier than we ever thought was possible. We didn't think we would need to lower the bar, for our expectations of most people, but it now seems to be necessary. When <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra's_al_Ghul" target="_blank">Ra's al Ghul's</a> plan to destroy Gotham, in order to start over from scratch, starts to seem like a sane alternative, you might have a problem with your elected officials.<br />
<br />
So, yes, we've seen some crazy shit in our time. What we haven't seen is any clear evidence that the experts who work for NFL teams actually have an eye for offensive line talent. At best, they appear to be guessing, just like the rest of us. Because of this, Reilly and I have decided that this is the one position where we actually won't bother to watch any of the prospects. Based on a little game we played, which we refer to as the <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-lbtmy-line.html" target="_blank"><b>Lobotomy Line</b></a>, we tend to think that you're probably just as well off picking your offensive linemen based on the more objective facts that come from the combine. The fact that this also allows us to be a bit lazy is purely a coincidence.<br />
<br />
As always, we'll be judging the players based on a few very <strike>idiotic</strike> basic criteria. We will measure their <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-kangaroo-score.html" target="_blank"><b>Kangaroo Score</b></a> (our measurement of lower body power), and their <b>Agility Score </b>(based
on their short shuttle and 3-Cone drills). These scores are given in
the form of how many standard deviations that the prospect is away from
the average result for an offensive linemen. If you are curious, you
can take a look at <b>Athleticism and the Offensive Line</b> <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2013/05/athleticism-and-offensive-line.html" target="_blank">part I</a> and <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2013/06/athleticism-and-offensive-line-part-2.html" target="_blank">part II</a>,
to get some sense as to how this relates to offensive tackles and
guards. For centers, we place more importance on their short shuttle
times, as you can <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2013/09/short-shuttle-times-and-nfl-centers_2.html" target="_blank">read about here</a>.
There
are, of course, other factors such as injuries, inability to elude the
law, playing time, comically unnecessary punctuation in a player's name,
and positional versatility that
also somewhat weigh into our views on a prospect, as well as a few
other minor measurable athletic traits.<br />
<br />
<b>This list is still under construction, as we await the complete
sets of data for individual draft prospects. The list will continue to
grow, and be updated with additional players. Individual Agility Scores are unlikely to be
changed, but based on the results from college pro-days, Kangaroo Scores
may be adjusted.</b> <b>The order the players are listed in will also
periodically be adjusted to roughly coincide with the CBS' rankings.
Last Updated: </b>4/5/2016<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Laremy Tunsil</b>, OT, Mississippi<br />
Arm Length: <b>34.25"</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>0.612</b> Agility Score: <b>?</b><br />
Wait a second, is he from Wyoming? Oh never mind, he spells it Laremy, not Laramie. I guess this doesn't solve our long-standing mystery about government conspiracies in the 44th state. Since we only have his pro day results for the vertical jump and the broad jump, we are still a bit more limited in our ability to examine him than we would really like to be. We can say that his Kangaroo Score does suggest that he has the sort of lower body power and explosiveness we look for in an offensive tackle, and that this might still be underrating him a bit. The results from his broad jump would have actually been an even more impressive <b>1.237</b>. Based on this limited information, we see good reasons to be optimistic. Still, we would feel slightly annoyed about having to make this sort of selection in the top 5, without a full set of data.<br />
<br />
<b>Ronnie Stanley</b>, OT, Notre Dame<br />
Arm Length: <b>35.625"</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>-0.067</b> Agility Score: <b>-0.823</b><br />
If a team we were rooting for selected Stanley in the 1st round, we would feel just a little bit terrified. The measurable results that have come in so far, that relate to Stanley's athletic ability, are well below what we are normally looking for in successful NFL offensive tackles. Average lower body power, below average explosiveness, below average agility, below average speed and quickness, these are not the sorts of things that make us quiver with delight. Even if we accepted Stanley's improved agility results from his pro day, he would still only get a score of <b>-0.185</b>, which is still a hair below average. About the only positive we can see is Stanley's rather exceptional arm length, but that isn't something we like to bet on without other supporting factors. People might point towards someone like <b>Cordy Glenn</b>, as a below average athlete (at least according to his measurable data) who has supposedly done well. Personally, we've never had much confidence in Glenn, and still think his performance has been fairly erratic. You can judge that for yourself. The role that having a high draft status plays in boosting peoples' opinions of players like that is a peculiar but interesting subject.. While Notre Dame has had a reasonable amount of success protecting their quarterbacks the last few seasons, we would say that was also a situation that preceded Stanley's arrival. In fact, the team's sack rate has gradually declined over the last three years. What is Stanley's role in all of this? We really can't say. We would let some other team find out whether he can outperform his measurable traits.<br />
<br />
<b>Jack Conklin</b>, OT, Michigan State<br />
Arm Length: <b>35"</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>0.020</b> Agility Score:<b> 0.692</b><br />
We normally wouldn't be very supportive of a player with these kinds of scores. These results would put him in the dangerous <b>Luke Joeckel </b>zone. It's possible that Conklin's 2015 leg injury is still a nagging issue, so perhaps we should give him the benefit of the doubt here. We also would give him a slight boost for his fairly exceptional arm length. While some quarterbacks can improve our perception of an offensive line's perception, we also suspect that <b>Connor Cook</b> does not fall into this category. Still, he was the quarterback throughout Conklin's career at Michigan State, which is sort of nice because it eliminates one potential variable. The main thing that worried us about Conklin related to his 2014 season. As his team's offensive line seemed to have its most success as a pass blocking unit (<b>2.67%</b> sack rate) during Conklin's time at Michigan State, and as Cook started to achieve higher YPA results as a passer (<b>8.6 </b>YPA<b>)</b>, Conklin started to give up a higher than expected share of his team's sacks. In his two other seasons as a starter, there appeared to be a potentially similar pattern that might suggest he was either benefiting from an offense that was less aggressive, or possibly looking better simply by comparison to fellow offensive linemen who were under-performing, and thus were more appealing targets for opposing defenses to attack. We're not going to bet against Conklin, because he does have some rather positive attributes buried within his assorted results, but there are some strange issues that surround him which cause us a bit of concern. We wouldn't be surprised if Conklin turns out to be a good player, but we would tend to bet against him becoming a great one. In the 1t round, where he is projected to be taken, we think you should have a higher expectation of greatness than what we are seeing here.<br />
<br />
<b>Taylor Decker</b>, OT, Ohio State<br />
Arm Length: <b>33.75"</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>-0.198</b> Agility Score: <b>-0.103</b><br />
I guess it's time to continue this year's rant against the current crop of Ohio State prospects Our concern with Decker is that he reminds us just a little too much of <b>Adam Terry</b>. They have similarly average explosiveness and lower body power. They also have similarly average agility. Being average might not be a bad thing at some positions, but for an offensive tackle, it is unusual to have a great deal of success with these traits. The only thing we can figure that might explain why people are interested in Decker, is that he is ridiculously tall. At a hair over 6'7" tall, he probably looks like someone who should be a good player. It's sort of like the way you would expect a DeLorean to be fast, even though it is a bit of a slug. Unfortunately, we think Decker's height is possibly working against him here, much like it did with Adam Terry (who was 6'8"). The problem, <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2014/02/arm-length-pythagoras-was-o-line-coach.html" target="_blank">as we've discussed in the past</a>, is the way that arm length relates to a player's height. When you are as tall as Decker is, while having somewhat shorter arms, you can actually wind up in a position where your effective reach is even shorter that what your arms measure. Suddenly, Decker's somewhat below average arm length, becomes ever so slightly worse worse. There are just a few too many areas of concern with Decker. While people have suggested that he will be selected in the first two rounds of the draft, we wouldn't touch him with a ten foot pole, though a much sorter pole is all that is probably required to keep your distance from him.<br />
<br />
<b>Ryan Kelly</b>, C, Alabama<br />
Arm Length: <b>33.625"</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>0.136</b> Agility Score:<b> 0.732</b><br />
Just for a change of pace, we're going to talk about an Alabama player, and not say something terrible. While Kelly doesn't precisely fit our ideal mold for a center, he isn't that far off of the mark. The first thing we always geek out about with centers is their short shuttle time. We generally want a result of about <b>4.50</b> seconds or better. In Kelly's case he had a <b>4.59</b>, which isn't stunning, but is close enough for us to not eliminate him from consideration. The more peculiar issue with Kelly is his Kangaroo Score. Centers tend to post up rather poor results here, that frequently go into the negative range. So, while Kelly's result is just average, relative to all offensive linemen, this is actually a fair bit better than you normally see for someone at his position. This sort of lower body power certainly can't hurt. Among all of his other measurable traits, everything checks out as either good or at least within the average range. Finally, we look at the fact that he has been a 3 year starter, who has yet to give up a single sack, despite playing in the SEC. All things considered, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he turns out to be a pretty respectable player. The only potential concern we have is that people are expecting him to be selected somewhere around the late 1st to early 2nd round range. Maybe that's fair, but as we've said in the past, teams have routinely shown that you are just as likely to find a quality center in the 5th round or later. While Kelly might turn out to be a good player, we think you could probably also find someone to fill this role at a significantly cheaper price.<br />
<br />
<b>Cody Whitehair</b>, G, Kansas State<br />
Arm Length: <b>33.625"</b> Kangaroo Score: -<b>0.416</b> Agility Score:<b> 1.216</b><br />
Whitehair actually comes pretty close to fitting the prototype of what we expect to see in successful offensive guards. While his Kangaroo Score is a little bit below average for an offensive lineman, suggesting somewhat below average power, it is actually well within the range of what we would feel comfortable with at the guard position. Most quality guards tend to produce results that lean much more towards agility, rather than raw power. In fact, this score is possibly being unfairly weighed down by his results from the vertical jump, as his broad jump results would have produced a result of <b>0.419. </b>So, he might actually be a bit more explosive than your typical guard prospect. While we don't tend to care about bench press results, unless they are extremely abnormal, the fact that Whitehair only benched 225 pounds 16 times is a bit curious. That is a rather peculiar result, and something we would like to see him improve on at his pro day. It's also somewhat annoying that he will already be turning 24 this upcoming July, making him one of the older prospects in this draft. We think Whitehair is an interesting prospect, who could possibly turn out to be pretty good, but we're just not sure if we would spend anything more than a 2nd or 3rd round pick on him at this point.<br />
<br />
<b>Shon Coleman</b>, OT, Auburn<br />
Arm Length: <b>35.125"</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>?*</b> Agility Score:<b> ?</b><br />
We're still waiting for data. All we can say at this point, is that drafting him in the first few rounds might be pretty risky considering his medical history. We can applaud him for coming back from cancer, but we still have to view that as a bit terrifying. He is also currently dealing with an injury to his MCL. For now, we'll just keep waiting for his pro day.<br />
<br />
<b>Jason Spriggs</b>, OT, Indiana<br />
Arm Length: <b>34.125"</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>1.328</b> Agility Score:<b> 1.471</b><br />
It looks like interest in Jason Spriggs has picked up a fair bit since the combine. People seem to be projecting that he will be taken in the 2nd round, or perhaps even the late 1st, and based upon his athletic ability we think he could be a very interesting pick. Spriggs seems to have the explosiveness (<b>2.188</b> standard deviations above average), agility and quickness to become a solid pass protector. He also appears to have the lower body power (Kangaroo Score) to hold his ground or perform well as a run blocker. While we have adjusted his scores a bit, because of his recent pro day, this largely just evened out some of the unevenness from his combine numbers. It's nice to know that even if things didn't work out at left tackle, he should have the ability to move to the right tackle position, which should somewhat minimize the risks of selecting Spriggs. While Spriggs did occasionally surrender some sacks, we don't think the rate at which he did so was out of line with what we would have expected from his team's offense, and the instability at his team's QB position over the past few years. We're leaning towards the idea that Spriggs may eventually be viewed as one of the better offensive tackles in this draft, and probably well worth a 2nd round pick, and possibly even a 1st round pick.<br />
<br />
<b>Vadal Alexander</b>, G, LSU<br />
Arm Length: <b>35.25"</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>-0.880</b> Agility Score:<b> -0.841</b><br />
Outside of his exceptional arm length, we're having a difficult time seeing anything we find encouraging about Alexander. Having results that suggest a player lacks speed, quickness, power, agility or explosiveness, would make us extremely nervous about spending the 2nd round pick people claim he will cost. Nope, we don't like this situation at all.<br />
<br />
<b>Germain Ifedi</b>, OT, Texas A&M<br />
Arm Length: <b>36"</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>1.491</b> Agility Score:<b> -0.017*</b><br />
We still don't have all the data we would like to have for Ifedi, but so far his results are looking pretty good. While his scores might suggest that he doesn't have the quickness or agility to play left tackle, his overall numbers look like a rather good fit for the right tackle position. When you look at his extremely long arms, significantly above average lower body power and explosiveness, he probably has a pretty good chance of succeeding against the players he would face on the right side of the offensive line. He might not become a top level pass blocker, we suspect he should be capable of becoming a pretty good run blocker. He strikes us as a fairly exciting prospect, and if he was available in the 2nd round we would probably give some serious consideration towards selecting him.<br />
<br />
<b>Le'Raven Clark</b>, OT, Texas Tech<br />
Arm Length: <b>36.125"</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>0.534*</b> Agility Score:<b> ?</b><br />
It looks like we're never going to get a full set of data for Clark, since he didn't do all of the drills at his pro day. Normally, when players duck out of doing the agility drills, we suspect they made this choice because they knew that their results were going to suck. Outside of this issue, Clark seemed to have okay, but not really exceptional, lower body power and explosiveness. We might also give him a slight boost for going through with the surgery to have gorilla arms transplanted onto his body. Our picture of him so far is incomplete, but reasonably promising. Still, if he is really going to be selected in the first few rounds, as people are suggesting, we wouldn't feel thrilled about making that pick without more data.<br />
<br />
<b>Nick Martin</b>, C, Notre Dame<br />
Arm Length: <b>32"</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>-1.041</b> Agility Score:<b> 0.431</b><br />
We could possibly overlook his poor Kangaroo Score, since we generally expect centers to do poorly in that area. Really though, even for a center his results here were rather terrible. While his agility results aren't quite as bad, and we have seen interior linemen who have gotten by with less, this score also fails to excite us very much. Perhaps the most worrisome issue we have is with his short shuttle time of <b>4.72</b> seconds, which is a fair bit below what we prefer to see in centers. We're gradually coming to the conclusion that there was something fishy going on at Notre Dame, that might have inflated peoples' opinions of some of their offensive linemen. While we had mixed feelings about his brother, <b>Zach Martin</b>, Nick's measurable traits are nowhere near what his brother produced. Maybe Mrs,. Martin should have stopped having children after her first son? While we certainly can't say that Martin is sure to fail in the NFL, we will say that his chances of success would probably be slightly improved by becoming a guard, rather than a center. As things currently stand, there is no way we would feel comfortable selecting him in the 2nd round, and we would probably avoid him altogether.<br />
<br />
<b>Landon Turner</b>, G, North Carolina<br />
Arm Length: <b>32.875"</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>-2.055</b> Agility Score:<b> -1.247</b><br />
As far as we can tell, Turner is so lacking in lower body power, that a gentle breeze might knock him over. Fortunately, he seems to make up for this with horrible agility. His 40 yard dash time of <b>5.56</b> seconds is also so far outside of the normal range for successful guards, that we almost wonder if the folks who are projecting him as a 2nd or 3rd round pick were watching tape of him without knowing that the fast forward button was still being held down..<br />
<br />
<b>Joshua Garnett</b>, G, Stanford<br />
Arm Length: <b>32.875"</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>-0.269</b> Agility Score:<b> 0.538</b><br />
For someone who is supposedly viewed as a potential 2nd round pick, we're having a hard time finding any sort of objective numbers to justify that position. If he turns out to be good, well, congratulations to Mr. Garnett. It still wouldn't strike us a a sensible investment to make at that point in the draft. Players with results like this can really go in any direction, so we try to avoid placing bets on these situations.<br />
<br />
<b>Jerald Hawkins</b>, OT, LSU<br />
Arm Length: <b>34.25"</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>-1.276</b> Agility Score:<b> -1.082</b><br />
The only explanation we have for Hawkins' terrible scores is that he wanted to make his teammate <b>Vadal Alexander</b> feel better about also putting up a disastrous performance at the combine. CBS claims that Hawkins will be selected somewhere in the 2nd or 3rd round, but we suspect that is unlikely, unless all of the GMs are extremely drunk.<br />
<br />
<b>Connor McGovern</b>, G, Missouri<br />
Arm Length: <b>32.875"</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>0.820</b> Agility Score:<b> 0.726</b><br />
Hey, it's the new <b>-- .. - -.-. .... / -- --- .-. ... .! </b>So far, we're finding the superficial similarities between McGovern and <b>Mitch Morse</b> to be kind of eerie. The main difference is that while both of them are rather gifted athletes, and have played numerous positions on the offensive line, we suspect Morse is the only one that was likely to potentially thrive as an NFL center. McGovern's short shuttle time of <b>4.65</b> is just a tad slower than we would like to see for that position. Outside of that minor complaint, we think McGovern is a very interesting prospect, much like we felt with Morse. He has above average agility, which fits the mold we like to see in a guard, but his results also suggest he has significantly better lower body power and explosiveness than you commonly find at this position. The numbers would suggest that he is possibly one of the most interesting mid-round offensive linemen in this draft, and we're not just saying that because he recognizes <a href="https://twitter.com/McGovenator60/status/690380217597194240" target="_blank">that Top Gun is a cinematic masterpiece</a>. Like his former teammate, we wouldn't be surprised if he is taken a bit higher than the 3rd to 4th round range that some are currently predicting. If he is still available in the middle rounds, Reilly and I would be quite willing to take a shot at him.<br />
<br />
<b>Joe Haeg</b>, T, North Dakota State<br />
Arm Length: <b>33.75"</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>0.476</b> Agility Score:<b> 1.221</b><br />
It's a bit harder to find all of the information we would want for a prospect that come from lower levels of competition, but Haeg is somewhat interesting, if also a bit peculiar. For a tackle, his arm length is perhaps a bit on the fringe of what we would like to see, particularly for a slightly taller tackle (6'6"). His Kangaroo Score might not look very impressive, though his results from the broad jump would produce a result of <b>0.768</b>, which is at least respectable. Then we get down to his agility results which are really quite good. For someone who is generally projected to be a mid-round pick, he might not be a terrible gamble. If we were going to guess, we would say that his best chance of success might come as a guard. His measurable traits are a much better match for that position. We probably wouldn't pursue him ourselves, unless he fell to the 5th or 6th round, but we could see how some teams might find him interesting. <br />
<br />
<b>Willie Beavers</b>, T, Western Michigan<br />
Arm Length: <b>33.5"</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>-0.069</b> Agility Score:<b> -0.234</b><br />
We don't really have anything interesting to say about Willie Beavers. We just enjoy saying his name.<br />
<br />
<b>Isaac Seumalo</b>, C, Oregon State<br />
Arm Length: <b>33"</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>-0.621</b> Agility Score:<b> 1.222</b><br />
For the most part, Seumalo's results line up pretty close to what we look for in NFL centers. His Kangaroo Score suggests that he has the sort of mediocre lower body power that we could probably accept in a center. His above average agility is fairly ideal for the position, especially his <b>4.52</b> second short shuttle time. One of the few things we might quibble over is his explosiveness, when mass isn't factored into the results of his vertical and broad jumps. His results there are a tad bit lower than what we would really like to see, though they are merely average and not outright wretched results. Still, he is one of the more experienced centers in this draft, and if he is still available in the 5th round or later, he's probably not an entirely unreasonable gamble.<br />
<br />
<b>Brandon Shell</b>, T, South Carolina<br />
Arm Length: <b>34.75"</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>1.403</b> Agility Score:<b> 0.587</b><br />
We're still trying to find more data related to Shell's time at South Carolina, but at least we now have his pro day results. His Kangaroo Score suggests that he does have the sort of lower body power and explosiveness that we like to see in an offensive tackle. His agility results, while not quite as exceptional, are still somewhat above average. Overall, he appears to be a rather good athlete. One of our concerns with Shell is that he is already 24 years old, which might somewhat limit his upside and continued development. CBS is currently projecting that he will only be a 5th or 6th round selection, and at that point in the draft we think selecting someone like Shell makes quite a bit of sense. There's minimal risk, because of the low cost of investment, but significant physical potential that compares favorably to players who have historically been successful at his position.<br />
<br />
<b>Joe Thuney,</b> G/C, North Carolina State<br />
Arm Length: <b>32.25"</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>0.142</b> Agility Score:<b> 1.049</b><br />
We haven't come across a ton of information on Thuney, but we like what we have seen so far. He seems to be another one of those oddballs that has played pretty much every position along the offensive line, which shows some versatility. Still, with that average arm length, we'd guess that his days of playing tackle are over, though his reach should be perfectly fine for an interior lineman. Fortunately, he has the sort of above average agility, that we tend to find among successful guards and centers. His short shuttle time of <b>4.52</b> seconds also meets our criteria for a center. While his lower body power is merely average compared to the entire pool of linemen, it is actually a fair bit above what you see with your normal guards or centers. When we also eliminate mass as a factor in his vertical and broad jump result, the numbers would suggest that he might also be more explosive than he is powerful. All things considered, we think he probably deserves a bit more attention than he has currently received, as CBS is still just listing him as a 6th or 7th round prospect. We wouldn't be surprised if he is selected a bit higher than his current projections. We'd probably start to give him some consideration in the 4th or 5th round. If we had any significant concerns about Thuney, it would probably stem from the fact that he is a ginger. They are the spawn of Satan, after all.<br />
<br />
<b>Jake Brendel</b>, C, UCLA<br />
Arm Length: <b>31.5"</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>-0.113</b> Agility Score:<b> 1.894</b><br />
When we saw Brendel's short shuttle time of <b>4.27</b> seconds, we instantly thought "This guy had to have been a center in college". Sure enough, that did turn out to be his position at UCLA, where he was a four year starter. While we would normally salivate over that sort of short shuttle time, and what it could mean for his potential as an NFL center, there are a few minor issues that worry us about Brendel. First of all, his arm length is potentially a bit of a problem. It is somewhat less common to see interior lineman have a high degree of success with such a limited reach, though it can happen. Secondly, he will already be turning 24 this September, which makes him a bit older than we would really like him to be. Still, people seem to be suggesting that he is someone who would only be selected at the very end of the draft, and if that is true, we think he could be a interesting lottery ticket sort of pick.<br />
<br />
<b>Halapoulivaati Vaitai</b>, T, TCU<br />
Arm Length: <b>34.25"</b> Kangaroo Score: <b>1.547</b> Agility Score: <b>-1.476</b><br />
We really don't want to try to pronounce that name. Regardless, what we have here appears to be a specimen that is pure power and explosiveness, with absolutely no grace. It's true, that his pro day numbers did produce an improved agility result of <b>0.593</b>, but we find this to be highly suspicious. If it is accurate, he would appear to be a fairly interesting prospect. The really interesting thing is that his Kangaroo score is probably underestimating his lower body power, due to some significant differences between his vertical jump and his broad jump. If we just looked at his broad jump results, his score would be <b>1.850</b>, which is a bit unusual. With these sorts of results, we would suspect that he could be a real liability in pass protection (depending on how we view his agility score), but he might be useful as a run blocker. We almost certainly wouldn't pursue him, but as a prospect who is only projected to be a 7th round to UDFA type of acquisition, we think some team will try to find a use for him. He could be somewhat interesting.<br />
<br />
<br />Sidney Mussburgerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03104367326238874951noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9104858724022491504.post-55782723139805674602016-03-07T13:37:00.000-05:002016-08-28T19:06:15.187-04:00Kangaroo Court: The 2016 Defensive TacklesI guess it's time to start poking and prodding at this year's crop of defensive tackles, <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2015/03/kangaroo-court-2015-defensive-tackles.html" target="_blank">much like we did last year</a>. While we're gradually adjusting our approach to how we pick apart these players, things will largely appear fairly similar to how we have done things in the past.<br />
<br />
While examining this year's defensive linemen, we've been forced to ask ourselves some rather difficult questions, that perhaps fall outside the normal realm of draft analysis. While most of these players will carry some amount of hype, and have their fair share of supporters, we're still just looking for a more objective method of weighing how exceptional they might really be. Exactly how fearsome are most of these draft prospects, and how can we really determine whether we are all being duped? As far as we can tell, there was only one way to answer this question.<br />
<br />
We needed to figure out how many defensive tackles Reilly could eat over the course of a single year.<br />
<br />
Now, this might seem like a slightly unusual question to ask. After all, we don't know if Reilly has a taste for long pig. All we can really say for sure is, he does seem to have a strong desire to eat the mailman. While the ferocity he shows to these civil servants is mainly due to his paranoid belief that the government is watching us through our mail slots, I can't dismiss the possibility that Reilly also might be somewhat feral. Whether he is more intimidating than a defensive tackle, however, is something that we have never actually solved.<br />
<br />
Okay, so we still have to tackle the mathematical details of our little mystery, but this should be a fairly simple problem to solve. Because of his sensitive stomach, and his demands to be treated like royalty, Reilly already gets a not insubstantial amount of meat in his diet. On average, he goes through about 3.5 pounds of baked chicken per week (pre-cooked weight). That adds up to 182 pounds of chicken per year. I was rather impressed by this result, but this number still doesn't quite get us to our solution.<br />
<br />
Perhaps more interesting, is what happens when we look at Reilly's impact on the world's chicken population. According to the Google-tubes, an average chicken weighs about 5.8 pounds. Of that weight, only about 50-60% is actual meat, with the rest being bones and blood for your Santeria rituals. This means that over the course of a year, Reilly is responsible for the slaughter of somewhere around 52-62 chickens. Entire families are getting wiped out to appease my four-legged fiend, and so far, he has shown no signs of remorse.<br />
<br />
We also found that a typical human body is about 40% muscle and 15% fat,
which gives us a combined total of 55% consumable product (we're
surprisingly similar to chicken, it turns out). The extent to which NFL players diverge from these average results is difficult to judge, as the NFL doesn't seem to feel that identifying the nutritional value of draft prospects is worth incorporating into the combine. Regardless, if most of my friends
are around 170 pounds (maybe we are being generous), they would yield about 93.5 pounds of consumable
goods. So, we now know that, if necessary, Reilly could dispose of about 2 of my friend's bodies, over the course of a single year These are probably useful things to know.<br />
<br />
But wait, we seem to be forgetting something! By my rough estimate, about 80% of Reilly's diet is still made up of kibble. What if we eliminated that, and put him on an all flesh diet? Suddenly, we would have Reilly consuming 910 pounds of meat in a year. That works out to 261-313 chickens. Additionally, if a 300 pound defensive tackle would yield about about 165 pounds of man-kibble, that means Reilly could eat about 5.5 defensive tackles per year. If we had a large enough freezer, Reilly could devour an entire Aaron Donald every 2.1 months. Or, he could pick DeSean Jackson's bones clean in just about 38.7 days. If Reilly felt jealous of the time I spent socializing with friends, he could quickly dispose of 9.7 of them over the next year (a good thing to remind them of, if they should ever ask me to help them move furniture)..<br />
<br />
Suddenly, we seem to find ourselves in a position where the big scary defensive linemen aren't nearly as intimidating as they once seemed. That an arthritic 13 year old dog could wreak this sort of havoc is sort of an eye opener. How many of these prancing fat men, in their brightly colored spandex outfits, could claim that they were capable of something so terrifying? I really don't think a single one of these supposed tough guys could consume nearly half a ton of human flesh, which clearly means that Reilly must be significantly more intimidating than any of them. The logic here is indisputable. The thought that I go to sleep each night with such a potentially deranged predator lurking by my side, suddenly feels a bit unnerving.<br />
<br />
We are, however, intimidated by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takeru_Kobayashi" target="_blank">Takeru Kobayashi</a>. That guy could probably pose a legitimate challenge to Reilly.<br />
<br />
Okay. Now that we have that settled, let's get back to our examination of this year's crop of future disappointments. <br />
<br />
As always, I will include the player's <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-kangaroo-score.html"><b>Kangaroo Score</b></a> (our measure of lower body power), and the <b>Agility Score</b>
(which comes from their short shuttle drill and 3-cone drill). Each
score is given in the form of how many standard deviations that a player
is above, or below, the average result for someone in their position
group. If you want to, you can also read the post on <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2013/07/athleticism-and-defensive-tackle.html" target="_blank"><b>Athleticism and the Defensive Tackle</b></a>,
to see why we think these traits might have an impact on a player's
likelihood of succeeding. Based on the role we expect a player to play,
and the type of defense we expect them to be in (3-4 vs 4-3), we will
sometimes shift the degree to which we value one attribute over
another. I will also list the average number of tackles for a loss
(TFL)
that a player had in their last two years in college, just to provide
some rough measure of how disruptive they were.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>This list will continue to be modified/updated as new data and
prospects come to my attention. </b><b>I won't list every prospect
here, but will just focus on the ones that I think are interesting for
one reason or another. Last updated: </b>3/29/2016<br />
<br />
<br />
<span class="postbody"><b>Joey Bosa</b>, DE, Ohio State</span><br />
<span class="postbody">Kangaroo Score: <b>-0.269</b> Agility Score: <b>2.331</b> TFL: <b>18.5 </b></span><br />
We'll end up discussing Joey Bosa a bit more thoroughly when we get to our post on outside pass rushers, but for now we just wanted to consider the possibility of turning him into a 3-4 defensive end. It's just an idea we found a bit entertaining. Because we are comparing him to a much heavier group of athletes, his scores will come out quite a bit differently here. The first problem we run into is that Bosa would probably need to bulk up by about 20 pounds to play the 3-4 defensive end position, which might require going to the all cheeseburger diet that we sometimes recommend. Since we could probably expect him to take about a year to gain this weight, you'd probably end up squandering about 20% of his rookie contract just waiting for him to fatten up, which would obviously be quite a waste. Adding bulk wouldn't have any effect on his Kangaroo Score, which is just mediocre, but it probably would reduce his agility to some degree. Fortunately his agility results suggest he could give up some ground here, and still remain significantly above average. While his lower body power is lower than what we want to see for this position, his explosiveness is about <b>1.610</b> standard deviations above average (relative to this group of players), when his vertical and broad jumps aren't adjusted to account for his weight. Unfortunately, that too would probably drop a fair bit, if he bulked up. We still suspect that Bosa <i>could </i>play this position, in theory, but probably only at a rather mediocre level. Without the advantage of a higher degree of power or explosive power, we suspect he would get buried in the running game, while simultaneously having his potential as a pass rusher greatly reduced. I guess this little thought experiment didn't turn out to be as interesting as we originally thought it would. This sort of position switch is increasingly striking us as a rather risky idea. <br />
<br />
<span class="postbody"><b>DeForest Buckner</b>, DE/DT, Oregon</span><br />
<span class="postbody">Kangaroo Score: <b>0.398</b> Agility Score: <b>0.661</b> TFL: <b>15 </b></span><br />
Last year, we were a little bit critical of <b>Arik Armstead</b>, Buckner's former teammate at Oregon. The hype for Armstead seemed to revolve around his combine results, and overlook his lack of production, as well as the possibility that he wasn't even the best defensive lineman on his own team. Despite those concerns, Armstead was still selected with the 17th overall pick. Now we get to look at the player that we suspected was the real star of the show at Oregon. While Buckner's Kangaroo Score is a tad lower than Armstead's result of <b>0.896</b>, both exhibit at least reasonable lower body power. Because of some minor differences in Buckner's broad jump, versus his vertical, this result might be a slight underestimate. If we look at Buckner's non-weight adjusted jumps, he produced a more impressive result of <b>1.089</b>, suggesting that he might have more of an explosive burst than pure raw power. When it came to agility, Buckner slightly outperformed Armstead, whose result were a still respectable <b>0.412</b>. In the end, neither of them produced what we consider mind-blowing results at the combine, but they still fell into a fairly acceptable range. The main difference between them is in the way that Buckner dominated his team's statistical production, especially in his final season, while Armstead produced rather pathetic results in his time at Oregon. While we could complain that Buckner's stats might have been padded by a higher percentage of assisted tackles than we would like to see, that is probably nitpicking. When Reilly went to watch the clips of Buckner's games, he came away with the impression that Buckner generally looked quite solid and respectable, even if he wasn't necessarily a consistently overwhelming force. Reilly also suggested that Buckner's effectiveness as a pass rusher seemed to improve significantly when he lined up inside, where he was able to target offensive guards who tend to be less physically gifted, and probably struggled a bit more against more powerful offensive tackles. In the end, it seems obvious that Buckner is destined to become a 3-4 defensive end, where we suspect he will probably turn out to be a good player, even if we aren't confident that he is a lock to become someone who terrifies opponents. His strengths seem to significantly outweigh his weaknesses, and he appears to be one of the safer prospects among this year's defensive linemen, and is most likely worth a 1st round pick.<br />
<br />
<span class="postbody"><b>A'Shawn Robinson</b>, DT, Alabama</span><br />
<span class="postbody">Kangaroo Score: <b>-0.682</b> Agility Score: <b>-0.494</b> TFL: <b>7 </b></span><br />
It almost feels as if Alabama is running the most pointless and uninspired cloning program in the entire world. This year we have A'shawn. Next year it will be B'Shawn, who will quickly be followed by C'Shawn and D'Shawn. Alabama seems to have an endless stream of these sorts of guys. While we're sure that somebody has an explanation for why Robinson is
considered a 1st round prospect, this information currently eludes us. Undoubtedly, all of the clones in this product line will be touted as potential 1st round draft picks, since little seems to stand in the way of the Alabama hype machine. From our perspective, this is a prospect with no discernible athletic
advantages, and statistical production that was at best mediocre. The
only positive spin we can put on this is that Robinson is one of the
younger defensive tackles in this draft, so maybe people feel he hasn't
hit his peak yet. We would avoid him completely.<br />
<br />
<span class="postbody"><b>Andrew Billings</b>, DT/NT, Baylor</span><br />
<span class="postbody">Kangaroo Score: <b>0.358</b> Agility Score: <b>-1.104</b> TFL: <b>13.75</b></span><br />
Reilly and I have sort of been rooting for Billings. For a prospect who will only be turning 20 this March, his statistical production was gradually becoming fairly impressive. The problem is, while his numbers in college were good, we wouldn't say that they had quite reached the level that merited a 1st round pick. If he had stayed in school for another year it is quite possible that a more physically matured Billings would have reached our production targets, but who knows? Then you factor in his combine results, which were a bit murky and erratic. The main thing in his favor was the result from his broad jump, which was <b>1.300</b> standard deviations above average, and showed the type of lower body power that we hope to find in a nose tackle. Based on what we have seen, he plays quite a bit like his measurables would suggest. He is stout and powerful, but probably not terribly nimble (his pro day would boost his agility score to <b>-0.497</b>). The question we always ask here is, should you really be taking run stuffing nose tackles in the first round? We had similar concerns with <b>Danny Shelton</b> last year, and the results of that pick are still bearing questionable fruit. We think Billings could possibly turn out better than Shelton, but we still tend to lean towards only using mid-round picks on this position. <br />
<br />
<span class="postbody"><b>Robert "The Defenestrator" Nkemdiche</b>, DT, Ole Miss</span><br />
<span class="postbody">Kangaroo Score: <b>0.992</b> Agility Score: <b>?</b> TFL: <b>5.5</b></span><br />
For someone who was a very highly touted high school prospect, we think it's kind of funny that his greatest accomplishment so far was falling out of a fourth story hotel window, and surviving. That's actually kind of impressive if you think about it. Maybe he was watching reruns of the Fall Guy, or maybe it was part of some elaborate religious ceremony commemorating the life of Joseph Smith. Who really knows? Oh wait...you say he was probably just stoned? Ah, okay, that probably makes more sense. Really, the thing that surprises us the most is that this would make it two years in a row that we have had idiot draft prospects leaping/falling out of windows, if we counted <b>Josh Shaw</b>. We're kind of hoping this becomes a trend. Regardless, while Nkemdiche has some impressive lower body power, and appears to be the type of athlete we often like, he really didn't accomplish much in college. At some point a player's actual performance has to live up to their hype and potential, and we don't think Nkemdiche ever did. If he was a 4th round pick, we might consider him, but the 1st round would be way too much of a gamble for someone with his history of under-performing and general idiocy.<br />
<br />
<b>Jarran Reed</b><span class="postbody">, DT, Alabama</span><span class="postbody"> </span><br />
<span class="postbody">Kangaroo Score: <b>0.029</b> Agility Score: <b>-0.470</b> TFL: <b>5.5</b></span><br />
One of our friends frequently likes to say,"You can't polish a turd, but
you can roll it in glitter". As far as we can tell, Alabama must be a
glitter factory. Reed might be moderately more athletic than his teammate A'Shawn Robinson, but we really see almost no meaningful difference between them. We almost have to wonder if Alabama has some sort of requirement that their players depart the school with the athletic ability of a tree stump. A pox upon your house, Nick Saban. Stop sending us these types of bozos.<br />
<br />
<b>Sheldon Rankins</b><span class="postbody">, NT/DT, Louisville</span><br />
<span class="postbody">Kangaroo Score: <b>1.230</b> Agility Score: <b>0.472</b> TFL: <b>13.25</b></span><br />
We've run across a number of articles that were critical of Rankins' size of 6"1" and 299 pounds. Some people have even tried to compare Rankins to <b>Aaron Donald</b> because of these superficial issues, though we don't think Rankins is nearly quick or agile enough for that to be accurate. We're leaning towards the idea that his smaller size is a bit of an illusion. Based on his Kangaroo Score, Rankins actually has fairly ideal lower body power for a nose tackle, and his <b>33.5"</b> arms are above average for someone of his height. The really interesting thing is that his Agility Score, while not a stunning result, is significantly better than what we usually find among players who could handle the nose tackle position. So, we think he could be a rather versatile player, who can hold up against the run, while also producing some occasional pressure on the quarterback. As far as the aspects of Rankins' statistical production that interest us, Rankins checks out quite well there too. For the past two seasons his results have generally been significantly above average in almost every category, despite Louisville's questionable decision to frequently line him up as a defensive end. If a team can accept the possibility that he might not be a double digit sack guy, we think Rankins will probably turn out pretty well, and is worth a 1st round pick.<br />
<br />
<b>Jonathan Bullard</b><span class="postbody">, DE/DT, Florida</span><br />
<span class="postbody">Kangaroo Score: <b>0.122</b> Agility Score: <b>0.760</b> TFL: <b>13</b></span><br />
Bullard is a mildly interesting prospect, though there seems to be some debate as to what position he will play, due to weighing in at 285 pounds. We tried running his numbers through the computer as a 4-3 defensive end (where his results come out very differently), and while there is some possibility that could work, we weren't sure it was an ideal fit. As a defensive tackle, his athletic traits are also a bit peculiar. He doesn't appear to have great lower body power, but if we remove his weight from the calculation, his explosiveness would be about <b>1.089</b> standard deviations above average. He actually has some surprising similarities to <b>Aaron Donald</b>, though Bullard is a bit less agile, and probably not quite as quick. The other big difference is that Donald had three seasons of extremely dominant college play, starting at a much younger age, while Bullard was a bit of a late bloomer with limited success prior to this past season. Because of the way he was moved around on the line, it makes it a bit difficult to judge his statistical production, compared to someone with a more fixed position. Still, we would probably say that his results were a fair bit above average in his final college season. If he was paired with a powerful nose tackle, and used as a 3 technique defensive tackle, we suspect he could turn into a useful player. Either way, we think the current suggestions that he should be taken in the late 1st to early 2nd round might set up unfair expectations of him, and could be a tad risky. If he slipped to the 3rd round, allowing a team to hedge its bets, and went to a team with a 4-3 defense that had a quality nose tackle, we think he could be an interesting pick.<br />
<br />
<b>Kenny Clark</b><span class="postbody">, DT, UCLA</span><br />
<span class="postbody">Kangaroo Score: <b>-0.239</b> Agility Score: <b>-0.076</b> TFL: <b>8.25</b></span><br />
People claim that Clark is going to be a high draft pick, but Reilly and I have no idea what to make of this. In many ways, Clark reminds us of <b>Leonard Williams</b>, who also confused us a fair bit. They both produced rather respectable stats in college, though Clark only did so for one season, versus Williams who did so for three. With both players, there was no clear sign that they possessed any sort of physical advantages in terms of measurable speed, quickness, power or agility. That raised some concerns as to how they would deal with the more physically gifted players in the NFL. It's not that there was anything wrong with them athletically. They just lacked any evidence of being exceptionally gifted. When we watched them play, both players also struck us as fairly active guys, who kept moving towards the ball, without necessarily being physically dominant. So, much like we said with Leonard Williams last year, we'll abstain from guessing what will happen with Clark. He's not necessarily someone we would want to bet on becoming a success, but he's also not someone we would bet against. All we can say is that a high draft pick might be a bit of a gamble for someone like this.<br />
<br />
<b>Vernon Butler</b><span class="postbody">, NT, Louisiana Tech</span><br />
<span class="postbody">Kangaroo Score: <b>1.974</b> Agility Score: <b>-0.557</b> TFL: <b>11.75</b></span><br />
Based on his pro day results, we've had to radically alter our opinion of Butler. At the combine, Butler produced a Kangaroo Score of just <b>0.460</b>, which is a bit underwhelming for a nose tackle. At this pro day, he boosted this result to <b>1.974</b>, which is outstanding. While we tend to be a bit dismissive of the need for high agility with
these sorts of players, we might also argue that Butler's results are a tad better
than you normally find in players his size, which could be interesting. The main problem we have with Butler relates to his statistical production. In general his results weren't bad at all, but relative to his team's defense they were a tad lower than what we would have liked to see. Yes, he arguably made more tackles for a loss than you typically see from a nose tackle, but his other results were a bit weaker. What worries us about this is that we would have expected someone with his exceptional sort of athleticism to overwhelm his opponents a bit more than he seems to have done. This is especially true when you consider the somewhat lower level of competition he faced in college. He seems to have the tools to become a star, but in the little we have seen of him, he didn't always execute quite as well as we might expect. While we are generally wary of taking nose tackles with high draft picks, we still have to admit that we can respect the enormous physical potential that Butler possesses. If he was available in the 2nd or 3rd round, we might give him some consideration, though most people seem to think he will be taken a bit higher than that.<br />
<br />
<b>Austin Johnson</b><span class="postbody">, DT/NT, Penn State</span><br />
<span class="postbody">Kangaroo Score: <b>-0.805</b> Agility Score: <b>-0.584</b> TFL: <b>10.5</b></span><br />
When we look at Johnson's statistical production relative to his team, we could argue that his results were fairly impressive, even if they were somewhat isolated to his 2015 season. Unfortunately, we're still not terribly confident about his future, or that of his teammates <b>Carl Nassib</b> and <b>Anthony Zettel</b>. Maybe part of the problem was the Penn State schedule, which was probably a bit mediocre this year. Or, maybe we're worried that Johnson just had a brief statistical surge, brought on by drinking unicorn blood? Who can really say? It looks like Johnson might have padded his stats a bit more than we would like against some of the softer teams, and became noticeably quieter against higher level competition. While he was responsible for a surprisingly high <b>8.8%</b> of his team's tackles, <b>61.5%</b> of these tackles were assists, which isn't exactly the sort of result you want to see. Then, you have the not so minor issue that his results prior to 2015 were much more humble, which makes you wonder if his performance last year was an anomaly. Finally, we have his measurable traits from the combine, which are more than just a little bit worrisome. While we could ignore his poor agility results, since we don't expect nose tackles to do well in that area, his lower body power (the dreaded Kangaroo Score), is well below what we would hope to see. We currently seem to see him listed as a potential late 1st to early 2nd round prospect, but that is way too rich for our blood. He might not be as risky a prospect as <b>Terrence Cody</b> was, but that's about as optimistic a statement as we can make about Johnson. We probably wouldn't even select him if he fell to the 7th round.<br />
<br />
<b>Adolphus Washington</b><span class="postbody">, DT, Ohio State</span><br />
<span class="postbody">Kangaroo Score: <b>-1.156</b> Agility Score: <b>-1.045</b> TFL: <b>8.75</b></span><br />
We're probably going to spend a fair bit of the off-season criticizing players from Ohio State. Somehow, it seems as if the majority of their team is going to be in this draft, and it is reasonable to suspect that the bulk of them are going to fail to amount to much once they reach the NFL. While Washington's statistical production is borderline respectable, we have to suspect that the leads his team played with created favorable circumstances for him. The talent that surrounded him at Ohio State also probably gave him a helping hand. Of course, "the talent" at Ohio State didn't help Adolphus to avoid getting arrested for solicitation of prostitution from an undercover cop. This raises an important question. Exactly how screwed up do you have to be as a college football player, in order to be unable to take advantage of the plethora of bimbos that are guided towards members of your college's sports teams? Situations like this really make you appreciate the more <a href="http://chicago.suntimes.com/sports/louisville-scandal-reveals-tricks-of-recruiting-trade/" target="_blank">progressive approach employed at Louisville</a>, which would have helped to avoid all of this embarrassment. Then we come to his rather wretched measurable traits from the combine, which cause huge concerns for us. He's supposedly viewed as a 2nd round prospect, but we'd avoid him altogether.<br />
<br />
<b>Chris Jones</b><span class="postbody">, DT, Mississippi State</span><br />
<span class="postbody">Kangaroo Score: <b>0.039</b> Agility Score: <b>0.396</b> TFL: <b>5.5</b></span><br />
Based upon his <a href="http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25498530/wardrobe-malfuction-results-in-most-embarrassing-40-ever-for-dt-prospect" target="_blank">entertaining 40 yard dash</a>, I wouldn't be shocked if female fans felt that Jones deserved to be a 1st round pick. When we consider the rest of his combine results, Jones looks like an exceptionally average athlete. Across the board, his numbers are pointing towards the idea that he has just average speed, power, agility and explosiveness. There's nothing necessarily bad about an average result, it just gives us fewer reasons to get excited. When we looked at his statistical production at Mississippi State, we ran into results that generally fell a bit short of what we would like to see. While we've only gotten to watch a small sample of his games, we really didn't think he looked bad at all, and sometimes wondered if the way that his team moved him around from DE to 3 technique to nose tackle might have hampered his production. In the end though, it doesn't matter too much. We still don't see an undeniable argument to suggest that a high draft pick wouldn't be a bit too risky to use on someone like Jones. If a team selected Jones in the 3rd or 4th round, we wouldn't necessarily mock them for their decision, but even at that point, we'd probably have other prospects that we preferred over Jones..<br />
<br />
<b>Bronson Kaufusi</b><span class="postbody">, DE/DT, BYU</span><br />
<span class="postbody">Kangaroo Score: <b>-0.465 </b>Agility Score: <b>2.001</b> TFL: <b>15</b></span><br />
We're just going to toss this idea out there, though we don't have any concrete evidence at this point. We think Kaufusi might be the one who threw Nkemdiche out of the window. Don't hold us to this. It's just a theory. Now, if there if one good thing about drafting a Mormon, it is that you probably don't have to worry about the player getting arrested for beating his wife (wives?) or driving his car into a tree while he is drunk. That just isn't the way they roll. If there is one bad thing about drafting a Mormon, it is trying to dig up their stats on a truly terrible college web site. Oh, and there is also the fact that these guys age like Dominican baseball players. Kaufusi could be 47 years old, as far as I can tell (or, probably somewhere around 23). We're kind of interested in Kaufusi, in the same way that we were curious about turning Joey Bosa into a 3-4 defensive end. Like Bosa, Kaufusi has the frame for that position, but without the need to add much more bulk. Also, similar to Bosa, Kaufusi's measurable traits would suggest that he would be relying on agility, rather than power, if he were to play this position. When we've seen him lined up inside, it did appear that this lack of power was frequently an obstacle for him, as he would sometimes get buried by other teams who were running the ball. Most of his stats against the run were also fairly mediocre. As a pass rusher, however, his numbers were pretty damn good, even if a fair amount of his success came against lower levels of competition. We also tried to put him into the computer as a 4-3 defensive end (which is closer to what he played at BYU), but his most exceptional traits became a bit pedestrian when compared to that group of athletes. We think Kaufusi is a very interesting prospect, but we're just not sure if there is an ideal position for him. In the end, we suspect he will wind up as a 3-4 DE, who could struggle against the run, but prove useful in nickel formations as a pass rusher. Currently, people seem to be projecting that he will be selected somewhere in the 2nd to 3rd round, but we would only consider him on the lower end of that range.<br />
<br />
<b>Sheldon Day</b><span class="postbody">, DT, Notre Dame</span><br />
<span class="postbody">Kangaroo Score: <b>-0.867 </b>Agility Score: <b>0.700</b> TFL: <b>11.5</b></span><br />
Day's combine results and statistical production sort of have us envisioning him as a very poor man's <b>Fletcher Cox</b>. Like Cox, Day's combine results seem to point towards the idea that he is rather quick and agile, but probably not terribly powerful. Unfortunately, Cox's result in both areas were still significantly better than what we see with Day. so we wouldn't say that Day's upside was nearly as impressive. While we thought that Day was a sprightly and amusing fat man to watch, he appears to play much like his measurable traits would suggest he would. Also, similar to Cox, Day's statistical production in his final college season significantly dwarfed what he had done in prior years, and their impact on their team's defense was roughly similar. While Day's effectiveness at creating disruptive plays behind the line of scrimmage went up significantly in 2015, Notre Dame also tended to be playing with much more significant leads than they have in recent seasons, which probably created favorable circumstances. We saw a similar statistical surge from his teammate, the physically unimpressive <b>Romeo Okwara,</b> this past year. That really makes us wonder if these guys were suddenly becoming quality players, or if they were both benefiting from some difficult to specify change in their environment that might be making them look better than they really should. Further compounding the problem of Day's surge in 2015, is the question of the opponents he seemed to do the best against. Of his 4 sacks this year, two came against Texas and Boston College, who were both having ridiculous struggles in pass protection all season (with respective sack rates of 11.2% and 10.1%). The other two sacks came against Temple and Massachusetts, whose team sack rates are fairly respectable (3.9% and 5.5% respectively), but are both lower tier teams that generally don't face opponents of Notre Dame's caliber. Against higher quality team's it wasn't uncommon to see Day get buried by his opponents, and for his production to drop significantly. He's probably only suitable for a team with a 4-3 defense, and if he is going to succeed he'll probably need to be surrounded with teammates who can compensate for his lack of power. We have some significant doubts about whether he will be able to succeed against the higher quality athletes in the NFL, so we probably wouldn't be willing to spend the 3rd round pick that many people seem to suggest he will cost.<br />
<br />
<b>Javon Hargrave</b><span class="postbody">, DT, South Carolina State</span><br />
<span class="postbody">Kangaroo Score: <b>1.149 </b>Agility Score: <b>-0.556</b> TFL: <b>23</b></span><br />
I guess Hargrave could be one of our oddball <b>Quayshawne Buckley</b> picks for this year. There isn't an abundance of information on him, so we can only speculate based on the little bit of data that is available. His combine numbers point towards him having fairly ideal speed, quickness and power, though he might be a bit less graceful than what we would hope to see. When we look at what he did in college, it is safe to say that he was the dominant force on his teams defense. While you could criticize the level of competition he faced, his numbers would still be impressive even if we cut them in half, and he was rather consistent over the past two seasons. Still, there are a few areas of concern that we have with Hargrave. While he was extremely disruptive behind the line of scrimmage, his numbers when he isn't shooting through the opponent's offensive line are a bit lower than we might expect. He is also 23 years old, which might raise concerns that he was pummeling younger less physically mature players. Finally, because of his somewhat smaller size (6'1" and 309#), and slightly shorter arms (32"), we would tend to suspect he would only be appealing to teams running a 4-3 defense. The upside is that we generally only see him ranked as a 4th or 5th round pick. At that point in the draft, we think taking a shot on a goofy prospect like Hargrave could be a rather appealing option. The risk versus reward ratio looks reasonable. Then again, we still think Quayshawne Buckley was probably a better prospect, and look how that has turned out so far.<br />
<br />
<b>Dean Lowry</b><span class="postbody">, DE/DT, Northwestern</span><br />
<span class="postbody">Kangaroo Score: <b>0.553 </b>Agility Score: <b>1.297</b> TFL: <b>10.75</b></span><br />
When you look at Lowry's measurables, and see that he is a hair under 6'6" and around 296#, it practically screams 3-4 defensive end. His 40 yard dash time of <b>4.88</b> seconds, as well as his 10-yard split of <b>1.70</b> seconds, were also quite encouraging results for a player of his size. Then you consider his stubby 31" tyrannosaurus arms and you start to worry a bit. We generally don't like to fret about arm length too much, but there does come a point where stumpy arms might be a legitimate problem. We also worry that outside of having a relatively high share of his team's sacks the past few seasons, the rest of his statistical production was a bit weak. Reilly seems to be leaning towards the idea that we should give up on using him as a 3-4 defensive end, and instead view him as a 3 technique defensive tackle. While his arm length issues would be less of a concern at that position, it still strikes me as a bit odd to have someone that tall playing such a position, but it might not be the worst idea. In the end, we both ended up agreeing that Lowry is probably an interesting enough athlete to merit some consideration in the 6th or 7th round.<br />
<br />
<b>Connor Wujciak</b>, DT, Boston College<br />
<span class="postbody">Kangaroo Score: <b>0.923 </b>Agility Score: <b>1.477</b> TFL: <b>5.25</b></span><br />
We were really hoping to find an unpolished gem here, since Wujciak appears to be such an excellent athlete. Sadly, our little investigation didn't turn up very much. While he's a fairly ideal physical specimen, his production in college was extremely lackluster. It was even sadder, when we saw that he was already 23 years old, which should have given him a potential advantage against his younger less physically developed opponents. As an UDFA, he might be worth bringing in, but I wouldn't expect too much from him. He kind of reminds me of the type of player that the Seahawks sometimes try to turn into offensive linemen. Such a switch wouldn't amaze me, since Wujciak does have fairly ideal physical traits for a guard.<br />
<br />
<b>Justin Zimmer</b>, DT, Ferris State<br />
<span class="postbody">Kangaroo Score: <b>1.061 </b>Agility Score: <b>1.655</b> TFL: <b>19</b></span><br />
We're not really sure what goes on at Ferris State University, but we like to think that their focus is on training young people to maintain carnival rides. Or, perhaps, it could be a film school with a very narrow focus on 1980's teen comedies. Either way, when a prospect comes from a school like this it presents some significant problems. First of all, it's hard to get all of the information that we would normally like to have. Secondly, while we don't mind trying to adjust a player's statistical production to compensate for their level of competition, Ferris State probably requires more of an adjustment than we are used to. In the end, though, it is still hard to overlook the fact that Zimmer does appear to be a rather high end athlete. He is explosive, powerful and agile. When it came to his production in college, it initially appears to be quite overwhelming, which is what you would hope to see. A player like this better be dominating his opponents at that level of competition. Unfortunately, there are a number of areas where his statistical production is probably getting inflated by things beyond just playing against bozos. His tackle numbers consistently seemed to be propped up by a much higher percentage of assisted tackles than we would really like to see. His productivity as a pass rusher also might be getting blown out of proportion a bit. Yes, his numbers in his final college season were very impressive, but prior to that we wouldn't say that his ability to disrupt plays behind the line of scrimmage was terribly shocking. We would have expected that someone with his physical gifts would have been more of a dominant force in his earlier seasons. Despite all of that nitpicking, we still think he could be a pretty interesting guy to select in the 7th round. <br />
<br />
<b>Vincent Valentine</b><span class="postbody">, NT, Nebraska</span><br />
<span class="postbody">Kangaroo Score: <b>1.218 </b>Agility Score: <b>-0.490</b> TFL: <b>5.25</b></span><br />
As far as I can tell, this guy is actually <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Valentine" target="_blank">a video game character</a>, who somehow wound up playing football at Nebraska. I'm not sure how that works, but we don't intend to explore that subject very deeply. The only reason we are including Valentine on this list, is that we are weirdly fascinated by the idea of picking up nose tackles at absolutely zero real cost. Considering that Valentine seems to be viewed as someone who might be an undrafted free agent, he falls right in the desired sweet spot of cheapness relative to physical potential. His statistical production at Nebraska was nothing to get overly excited about, though you have to view his poor results in 2015 with some open-mindedness since he appears to have been injured for much of the year. Still, that doesn't concern us too much. With nose tackles, we just want to find a large immovable blob. While his Kangaroo Score suggests that he has the sort of lower body power to fill this role, it actually might be underestimating him since there were some irregular results when balancing out his vertical jump and his broad jump. If we only focused on his broad jump, he would have a result that is <b>1.999</b> standard deviations above average for a defensive tackle, and something we find rather exciting. His agility results, while somewhat mixed, were actually fairly respectable for someone of his size. I wouldn't say that Reilly and I were terribly impressed by him, in the little we have seen, but he does rather closely resemble the athletic profile we look for in these bozos. If he can be acquired as an UDFA, he might be worth taking a look at.<br />
<br />
<b>Michael Pierce</b><span class="postbody">, NT, Samford</span><br />
<span class="postbody">Kangaroo Score: <b>1.302 </b>Agility Score: <b>?</b> TFL: <b>7</b></span><br />
This could be a very weird and interesting prospect. We had no idea who Pierce
was, and only stumbled across him while looking for the pro day results
of his teammate, <b>James Bradberry</b>. Yes, his Kangaroo Score
definitely shows the sort of lower body power we like to see in a nose
tackle, but that is still probably selling him short. When you just look at
his broad jump results, his score leaps to <b>2.846</b>, which is
absolutely insane. Whether those results are accurate, is something we are still trying to figure out. It doesn't appear that he took part in the agility
drills, but as we've said in the past, we don't really care about that
very much when it comes to nose tackles. Still, we did watch a couple
of Pierce's games, and we were kind of stunned by the way he moved.
There didn't appear to be any of the lumbering off-balance awkwardness
that you normally expect to see in a player like this. He actually
looked surprisingly nimble. There were even plays where he (sort of)
dropped into coverage, or chased a player to the sidelines, where his
relative smoothness just looked absurd. We still don't have his 10-yard
split results (which we can now say was an excellent <b>1.67</b> seconds), but his <b>4.98</b> second 40 time is also a rather excellent result for a man of his size (<b>6'0.3"</b> and <b>329#</b>).
That might help to explain the surprising range he has on the field.
When it came to his statistical production, we'd say his results were
respectable, but not out of this world. You also have to consider that
Samford plays a lot of games against lower levels of competition, so we
might have wanted his numbers to be a bit more gaudy. If there is an
area of some small concern, it is that he is a bit older than we would
really prefer, as he will be turning 24 this upcoming November.
Regardless, he is generally projected to go undrafted, which strikes us as a
potentially very questionable decision. We'd probably be tempted to
pounce on him in one of the later rounds, though we think even that
still might be getting him at a bargain price. Yup, we're developing a
bit of a man-crush on Pierce, though we have to admit that being able to acquire him cheaply is a big part of the appeal.<br />
<br />
<br />Sidney Mussburgerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03104367326238874951noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9104858724022491504.post-72288470048070173982016-02-23T16:36:00.001-05:002017-01-21T01:05:00.602-05:002016 Free Agent Dumpster DivingWe've been feeling a bit sluggish lately, and were considering the possibility of not doing a post about free agency this year. It's just not a subject that really excites either Reilly or myself. Then, we realized that we could use this as an opportunity to ridicule <b>Stephen Ross</b>, and the Dolphins in general, which picked up our spirits a little bit. After all, we don't really have much else to do until after the NFL Combine.<br />
<br />
It really struck us as a mildly interesting coincidence that two of the players who interest us the most, among this year's potential free agents, come from the same poorly run team, the humble Dolphins. The poor sorry bastards we speak of would be running back <b>Lamar Miller</b>, and wide receiver <b>Rishard Matthews</b>. Now, don't get me wrong, we're not going to suggest that vast sums of money should be spent on either of these goofballs, we just think they are oddly interesting individuals, with potentially similar issues. We've liked them both, ever since they were mere draft prospects, and we're just curious as to whether they can escape the black hole that is Miami.<br />
<br />
I guess we might as well start off with Lamar Miller, since we've already dropped him into the conversation of misused and under-appreciated players several times in the past. Watching Miller's career over the past four seasons has been more than just a little bit frustrating for us. As far as I can tell, Dolphins fans seem to be a bit divided as to how they feel about Miller, which is fine. Really, it's the attitude of the team's management that confuses us the most.<br />
<br />
Over the past few years, there seems to have been a recurring message from the team, that they wished Miller was a <a href="http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/02/11/dolphins-staffer-wants-to-see-more-physical-running-from-lamar-miller/" target="_blank">more physical runner</a>. I suppose they want a player who they can consistently pound between the tackles, which is fine. Such players do exist, and aren't that difficult to find. The problem is, Miller probably isn't really built for that. Despite weighing a reported 225 pounds, we still feel his measurable traits from the combine point towards him being an outside the tackles runner, which is they area where he seems to have thrived so far in his career. With a <b>0.071</b> <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-kangaroo-score.html" target="_blank">Kangaroo Score</a>, a <b>0.857</b> Agility Score, a 40 time of <b>4.34</b> seconds (with a <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2013/05/a-players-2nd-gear.html" target="_blank">2nd Gear Score</a> of <b>0.19</b>), his strengths seems to lean in the direction of speed and elusiveness. You could somewhat fairly say that Miller has more in common with <b>Jamaal Charles</b> than he does with <b>Adrian Peterson</b>, based on these results. Unfortunately, all the Dolphins appear to see is a fairly large bodied running back, and not the skills that Miller actually possesses. So, they keep trying to bang that square peg into a round hole. The Dolphins management are, what we call in this field of study, "idiots".<br />
<br />
Now, I'm not saying that Miller can't run the ball between the tackles, but with a player that has rather pedestrian lower body power (again, referring to the Kangaroo Score) it probably is more likely that they are going to require a respectable offensive line to consistently execute those sorts of running plays. That's probably not something the Dolphins have really provided. <br />
<br />
There are some fine stat geeks out there who have made attempts to judge an offensive line's ability to assist running backs on plays like this, but I still find this subject to be a bit murky and debatable. Instead, I thought we would just show the Dolphins sack rates over the last 5 seasons, which I realize can appear to be an entirely unrelated issue. Just bear with me here.<br />
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 161px;"><colgroup><col style="width: 48pt;" width="64"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 3547; mso-width-source: userset; width: 73pt;" width="97"></col>
</colgroup><tbody>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 48pt;" width="64"><b>Year</b></td>
<td style="width: 73pt;" width="97"><b> Sack Rate</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2015 </td>
<td align="right">7.10%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2014 </td>
<td align="right">7.17%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2013 </td>
<td align="right">8.89%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2012 </td>
<td align="right">6.83%</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2011 </td>
<td align="right">9.98%</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
While the precise extent to which an offensive line is helping or hurting a running back is a bit foggy, I think we can agree that the Dolphins O-Line has been a bit sub-par the past few seasons, when it comes to pass protection. Some might even say that they suck. Is it likely that they are significantly better as run blockers? I kind of doubt it, but the sort of athletic traits we look for in pass blockers, are also things we look at in run blockers, and I can't say that many of the players on their line have ever struck me as very interesting in either area.<br />
<br />
Let's think about some of the linemen this team employed in 2015. Even if we can accept that <b>Branden Albert</b> and <b>Mike Pouncey</b> might be above average players (though I have some minor arguments against this), the rest of their line was horribly suspect. <b>Billy Turner</b>? <b>Jason Fox</b>? The laughably horrible <b>Dallas Thomas</b> (who has allowed 16 sacks in his past 25 games)? No, for the most part these guys are bozos. It almost makes you wonder if people were too harsh with poor <b>Richie Incognito</b>, and his questionable motivational techniques. Where is the great <b>Jonathan Martin</b> now, you sensitive hippies? Oh, right, he's out of the league, because he sucked. In retrospect, it makes you wonder if the lunatic was right, even if his tactics seemed a bit absurd. <br />
<br />
Let's also consider the extent to which the team has continually tried to ignore what Miller has contributed, despite his circumstances. Miller has maintained a career rushing average of <b>4.6</b> yards, while accumulating <b>2,930</b> rushing yards, <b>887</b> receiving yards, and a combined total of <b>22</b> touchdowns. Despite that, the Dolphins have only handed the ball off to him about <b>12.8</b> times per game over the last 2 seasons. Yet, people only seem to see the lack of gaudy rushing totals, as if that was entirely his fault, and question the value of resigning him.<br />
<br />
What if we looked at the two former 1st round running backs that the Dolphins have brought in from other teams, during the past few seasons, in their attempts to find their savior. Those players would be <b>Knowshon Moreno</b> and <b>Reggie Bush</b>. Both of these players came to the Dolphins in their 6th NFL season, with varying amounts of hype, but how had their statistical performances measured up at that point in their careers, compared to what Lamar Miller has done in his first four seasons?<br />
<br />
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 360px;"><colgroup><col style="mso-width-alt: 3291; mso-width-source: userset; width: 68pt;" width="90"></col>
<col span="2" style="width: 48pt;" width="64"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 2852; mso-width-source: userset; width: 59pt;" width="78"></col>
<col style="width: 48pt;" width="64"></col>
</colgroup><tbody>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 68pt;" width="90"><b>Rushing</b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 59pt;" width="78"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><b>Player</b></td>
<td><b> Att.</b></td>
<td><b> Yards</b></td>
<td><b> Avg.</b></td>
<td><b> TD</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">R. Bush</td>
<td align="right">524</td>
<td align="right">2090</td>
<td align="right">3.98</td>
<td align="right">17</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">K. Moreno</td>
<td align="right">845</td>
<td align="right">3468</td>
<td align="right">4.10</td>
<td align="right">26</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">L. Miller</td>
<td align="right">638</td>
<td align="right">2930</td>
<td align="right">4.59</td>
<td align="right">19</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 360px;"><colgroup><col style="mso-width-alt: 3291; mso-width-source: userset; width: 68pt;" width="90"></col>
<col span="2" style="width: 48pt;" width="64"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 2852; mso-width-source: userset; width: 59pt;" width="78"></col>
<col style="width: 48pt;" width="64"></col>
</colgroup><tbody>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 68pt;" width="90"><b>Receiving</b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 59pt;" width="78"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><b>Player</b></td>
<td><b> Rec.</b></td>
<td><b> Yards</b></td>
<td><b> Avg.</b></td>
<td><b> TD</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">R. Bush</td>
<td align="right">294</td>
<td align="right">2142</td>
<td align="right">7.28</td>
<td align="right">12</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">K. Moreno</td>
<td align="right">157</td>
<td align="right">1401</td>
<td align="right">8.92</td>
<td align="right">9</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">L. Miller</td>
<td align="right">117</td>
<td align="right">887</td>
<td align="right">7.58</td>
<td align="right">3</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
Outside of the obvious disparity in opportunities, the results of these other players aren't noticeably better than those of Miller. You also have to consider that Moreno and Bush were brought to the Dolphins when they were <b>26</b>, while Miller is still just <b>24</b>. We can also point to the fact that Moreno and Bush came to the team having both missed <b>25%</b> of the their career games due to injury, while Miller has so far only been on the inactive roster for <b>4.7%</b> of his games. Yet, Moreno and Bush were brought in with some apparent intention of being utilized as starting running backs, while Miller has always been treated as if he were a step away from getting benched. Would Miller be treated differently, if he wasn't a former 4th round pick, but a 1st rounder instead? I suspect so, and that thought irritates me to a surprising degree.<br />
<br />
Look, this whole situation is a mystery to me. I just find it interesting to contemplate the lunatic ways in which the minds of NFL GMs appear to operate. Am I endorsing that the Dolphins, or anybody else should spend vast sums to acquire Lamar Miller? No, absolutely not. I just think it would be nice to see him wind up somewhere that he could be appreciated for what he is, rather than treated like a red-headed step-child.<br />
<br />
Okay, that's enough ranting on that subject. Let's move on to Rishard Matthews.<br />
<br />
I think part of what makes Matthews interesting, probably stems from my deranged fascination with Lamar Miller. There seems to be a similar mount of neglect that has been given to both players. What this potential neglect says about how the Dolphins are run, and their ability to get the best players on the field, I won't say. I just think it is a bit interesting to observe. It's sort of like watching Donald Trump run for president, oddly fascinating and disturbing at the same time.<br />
<br />
Now, when Matthews came to the league in the 2012 draft, Reilly and I probably would have ranked him somewhere in the range of our 7th or 8th highest rated receiver prospect for that year. At a whisker over six feet tall, and weighing (at the time) 217 pounds, he had a nice solid frame. In terms of speed, his forty times ranged somewhere between <b>4.54</b> seconds, and <b>4.44</b> seconds (at his pro day). So that checked out fine as well. With a <b>0.651</b> Kangaroo Score, and a <b>0.187</b> Agility Score, his other athletic traits ranged from average to slightly above average. When it came to his <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-stat-score-rats-nest-of-numbers_26.html" target="_blank">Stat Score</a> (our lazy measure of college production), he had a result of <b>0.311</b>. Matthews just kept ticking off the boxes on our checklist of requirements, even if he wasn't necessarily blowing us out of the water.<br />
<br />
He struck us as a fairly interesting prospect, that we probably would have projected to go somewhere around the 4th or 5th round. Unfortunately, he wasn't actually selected until the 7th round, which has probably hurt his ability to get playing time.<br />
<br />
Now, the interesting thing to us is how he has gradually been showing signs of progress over the last few seasons, despite getting limited playing. Let's look at some of his results.<br />
<br />
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 522px;"><colgroup><col style="width: 48pt;" width="64"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 4461; mso-width-source: userset; width: 92pt;" width="122"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 2925; mso-width-source: userset; width: 60pt;" width="80"></col>
<col span="4" style="width: 48pt;" width="64"></col>
</colgroup><tbody>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 48pt;" width="64"><b>Year</b></td>
<td style="width: 92pt;" width="122"><b>Pass Routes Run</b></td>
<td style="width: 60pt;" width="80"><b> Rec Yards</b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b> YPRR</b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b> Target%</b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b> Catch %</b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b> YPC</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2015 </td>
<td align="right">339 </td>
<td align="right">662 </td>
<td align="right">1.95</td>
<td align="right">17.4 </td>
<td align="right">72.9 </td>
<td align="right">15.4</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2014 </td>
<td align="right">111 </td>
<td align="right">135 </td>
<td align="right">1.21</td>
<td align="right">18.9 </td>
<td align="right">57.1 </td>
<td align="right">11.3</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2013 </td>
<td align="right">376 </td>
<td align="right">448 </td>
<td align="right">1.19</td>
<td align="right">16.4 </td>
<td align="right">66.1 </td>
<td align="right">10.9</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2012 </td>
<td align="right">160 </td>
<td align="right">151 </td>
<td align="right">0.94</td>
<td align="right">11.2 </td>
<td align="right">61.1 </td>
<td align="right">13.7</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<br />
While Matthews raw statistical production has never been terribly impressive, we still think he's been an interesting guy to keep an eye on. As his Catch % would suggest, he generally seems to have been a fairly reliable target, and perhaps even a bit above average. The main issue has been in getting him targets. While his Yards Per Route Run (YPRR) results in his first 3 seasons have generally only hovered around the area where we expect to find most team's 3rd or 4th receiver, they have gradually been improving.<br />
<br />
It's really his results from 2015, that make you wonder if he might be about the step up to another level. With a YPRR of <b>1.95</b>, along with a catch rate of <b>72.9%</b>, and a YPC of <b>15.4</b>, you're seeing results that are really quite impressive. I wouldn't want to get carried away with any of this, but Matthews could be developing into someone who could be a nice secondary receiver for some team. We also can't underestimate some of the things that might have been holding him back in Miami, including his quarterback, and the team's lack of investment in developing a former 7th round pick.<br />
<br />
The neat thing about all of this, is that I would tend to doubt that Matthews would cost very much to acquire. Since he hasn't crossed the sort of statistical thresholds that tend to draw the eyes of NFL GMs, and also still carries the burden of being a former low draft pick, I wouldn't expect the bidding to get too high. Maybe a contract that offers around $3 million/year, at most. His price could end up a tad higher or lower, but regardless, it would be a fairly low risk investment. If he performs well, continuing on from where he left off in 2015, your team could get a hell of a deal. If he stumbles and falls, well, the cost of dropping such a contract, and the dead money hits that would go along with it, are really quite minimal. It strikes me as a nice low risk, potentially high reward situation.<br />
<br />
I guess I'll toss in a few odds and ends types of players here as well, since I have nothing else to do while waiting for the <span class="st">psilocybin</span> to kick in.<br />
<br />
Maybe it is a product of being in Baltimore, and hearing the locals fret about the looming departure of guard <b>Kelechi Osemele</b>, but I've really been curious about the number of sites that list him as a more desirable free agent than <b>Brandon Brooks</b>. Admittedly, Reilly and I have had <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2013/05/brandon-brooks-future-star.html" target="_blank">a bit of a man-crush on Brooks</a> for quite a while, so this might be a product of our own biases. Still, we truly feel that Brooks should be the much more desirable of the two, and someone we could be tempted to spend stupid amounts of money to acquire.<br />
<br />
Assessing the performance of offensive linemen generally opens a huge
can of worms, so I'll let you judge this on your own, based on whatever
sources you trust. All I can say is, as far as we can tell, Brooks has consistently been a vastly superior guard to Osemele when it comes to pass protection. We'd also say that Brooks has been superior in terms of run blocking, though Osemele probably comes closer to narrowing the gap in this area. If you enjoy watching fat men tussle with each other (and who doesn't enjoy that), really look at these two side by side, and tell me that Brooks isn't the better player.<br />
<br />
The main thing that seems to be hurting Brooks' stock this year, were the claims that his run blocking started to slip some in the 2015 season. Personally, I have my doubts about these claims. It seems more likely to me that this perception come from the Texans having to replace <b>Arian Foster</b> with more humble talents like <b>Chris Polk</b> and <b>Alfred Blue</b>. People see the running backs getting less yardage, and for some reason they just didn't reach the conclusion that these running backs were as lame as a a three legged mule. Instead they blamed the line. Again, maybe this is all just mindless speculation on my part.<br />
<br />
There is also the question of the injury risks that come with Osemele versus Brooks. Over the past 3 seasons Osemele has missed about <b>27%</b> of his games due to injuries that seem to keep popping up. Brooks on the other hand, has only been out for <b>8.3%</b> of his team's games.<br />
<br />
If I had to throw a number out there, as to how high I would bid on Brooks, how high would I go? That's hard to say. Considering the lack of attention his looming free agent status seems to be garnering in the press, it is hard to say where things will wind up. Honestly, I think if his price remained under $7 million/year, I'd have a hard time not pursuing him. Maybe that sounds a bit high to some people. I really can't say. Personally, I think he could end up being a good deal even at a price higher than that, since I think he could end up being viewed as one of the best guards in the game today, if people were paying closer attention to Brooks.<br />
<br />
I suppose the final looming free agent prospects that I am interested in might be among the league's scattered defensive backs. I tend to hate these players, as I think they are overpaid, and inconsistent, but a team still requires that you have a few of them.<br />
<br />
I'd probably put cornerback <b>Patrick Robinson</b> at the top of the list. Robinson seems to be mainly treated with apathy, as far as I can tell, and the one year $2 million contract he played for in 2015 doesn't speak too highly of the league's attitude towards him. In my opinion, he is an above average athlete, who was probably drafted a tad higher than he should have been, leading to unfortunately high expectations. As far as I can tell, he has probably performed at a respectable level during his career, on some questionable defenses, and could be a nice bargain. We're looking for a rebound. Something in the $2-4 million/year range seems like a minimal risk to me.<br />
<br />
Then we have the somewhat dreaded cornerback <b>Josh Robinson </b>on our shopping list. We've been severely disappointed with his play so far in his career, especially since he is about as perfect an athlete as you could find for that position. Still, we think he was gradually showing signs of improvement in 2015, so a reclamation project might be tempting. I'm guessing he should be insanely cheap, maybe $1.5 million/year, so there is no real risk in seeing if his career can be revived.<br />
<br />
Finally, I will admit to a slightly strange interest in Vikings' backup safety <b>Robert Blanton</b>. On paper, he has the sorts of athletic traits we like to see at this position, a <b>1.177</b> Agility Score to go along with a <b>0.947</b> Kangaroo Score, and he seems to have performed to a respectable level in his appearances in 2014. No, he might not ever become a star, but I suspect he can be quite respectable...and cheap! Compared to someone like <b>George Iloka</b>, who will probably also hit free agency, I think Blanton could be 90% of the player for maybe 20% of the price. I mean, how much can Blanton really cost, maybe $1.5 million/year? I've probably got that under my couch cushions.<br />
<br />
I guess there might be a few more players that interest me, at the right price, such as linebacker <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2014/03/making-your-rivals-pay-vincent-rey.html" target="_blank"><b>Vincent Rey</b></a>, running back <b>Robert Turbin</b> or the perpetually ignored and forgotten defensive tackle <b>Quayshawne Buckley</b>. In the end, though, I've already spent enough time prattling about the unloved and unappreciated, which just reminds me too much of the cold inattention I receive from my ingrate parents. So, I guess I'll just pour a drink and have a good cry, much as I suspect many of these players will be doing on March 9th.<br />
<br />
<br />Sidney Mussburgerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03104367326238874951noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9104858724022491504.post-75452958510151846592016-01-28T14:54:00.000-05:002016-01-31T21:37:32.568-05:00Charles Johnson Vs. The WorldIn 1996, Chris Ofili used elephant dung in the making of his painting <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holy_Virgin_Mary" target="_blank">The Holy Virgin Mary</a> (which recently sold for $4.6 million). In 1985, Dr. Emmett Brown made a time machine out of a DeLorean (Did you know that Back To The Future is banned in China for depicting time travel?). Recently, an Australian teenager plotted to set loose <a href="http://time.com/4197800/teen-isis-plot-kangaroo-bomb/?xid=homepage" target="_blank">a kangaroo strapped with plastic explosives</a>, as part of ISIS plot to cause mayhem (Awesome? Well, we have mixed feelings). Finally, at some point in the late 1990s (For some reason I can't recall the exact date), I made a bong out of Legos.<br />
<br />
I guess what I am trying to suggest here is that people sometimes find peculiar ways to utilize the resources they have at their disposal.<br />
<br />
In a similar manner, we often have to wonder about the way that NFL teams choose to make use of the talent on their rosters. While I could rant for days about offensive linemen, and my continued faith in the neglected and potentially misunderstood <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2013/05/eric-kush.html" target="_blank"><b>Eric Kush</b></a>, that probably isn't a subject that interests many people. Instead, we will focus today on the wide receiver position, which has a bit more flash to it.<br />
<br />
Despite our attempts to try to quantify a player's abilities, and predict NFL success, we always struggle with the fact that we can't guarantee that someone will get an opportunity. We still believe that <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2013/06/darick-rogers-dead-hookers-in-his-trunk.html" target="_blank"><b>Da'Rick Rogers</b></a> was a legitimate NFL talent. The statistics that are available from his brief appearances encourage us to believe that he was a superior player to his former Tennessee teammates <b>Cordarelle Patterson</b> and <b>Justin Hunter, </b>whom we had very little faith in. Unfortunately, NFL coaches seemed to feel that Da'Rick was a bit of an asshole, a consideration our calculations don't really account for. Skill doesn't trump a winning personality, evidently.<br />
<br />
We also still believe that the Jets should have taken <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2013/05/ryan-spadolathe-lottery-ticket.html" target="_blank"><b>Ryan Spadola</b></a> (who?) a bit more seriously, rather than continuing to give opportunities to <b>Stephen Hill</b>, whom we felt was probably doomed to fail. While betting on an undrafted white wide receiver from Lehigh might seem a bit foolish, Spadola's pre-season statistics in 2013 were quite encouraging. At this point, however, he may never escape the depths of a practice squad. C'est la vie.<br />
<br />
These are things that will always be beyond our control. Still, we wanted to take another look at one of our other long-shot receivers, who is still dancing on the edge of semi-relevance. So, we thought we would turn our gaze back to the frustrating subject of Vikings' wide receiver <b>Charles Johnson</b>.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Charles Johnson Vs. Mike Wallace</b> <br />
<br />
There are limits to how much we want to criticize Vikings' wide receiver <b>Mike Wallace</b>. After all, <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2013/05/a-statistical-approach-to-drafting-wide.html" target="_blank">he was one our preferred wide receiver prospects in the 2009 NFL Draft</a>. While he has his strengths and weaknesses, we thought at the time that his chances of success were reasonably good. It's true, his salary may have eventually ballooned beyond what we feel is reasonable, but that isn't really what we are here to discuss.<br />
<br />
Instead, we are mainly interested in the complicated situation that arose when the Vikings traded for him, prior to the 2015 season. This worried us because of the way in which his arrival seemed poised to interfere with the possible continuing emergence of our other weird prospect Charles Johnson, who was starting to show some signs of life in 2014.<br />
<br />
The reason for this concern, was that both players have mostly appeared to thrive in the role of an intermediate-to-deep range receiver. Wallace wasn't likely to interfere with the short range role of someone like <b>Jarius Wright</b>. That's simply not a role where Wallace's strengths appear to lie. Instead, he was most likely to cut into the playing time for Johnson, which would sort of put a crimp in our deranged plans.<br />
<br />
What's frustrating about this, is the question of whether Wallace was really a desirable enough acquisition, at this point in his career, to deserve bumping Johnson out of the way. How much of Wallace's desirability hinged on his past successes, and reputation for being a deep threat? How much of this reputation was still justifiable?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgp3QTPQ204EbWXGwI3tRUznZtIK_5tG0NhKJHG9G7mrAcvjFVyNnYNfCPQM7qznrFM8XBxgs68wJAtlfTZOFgqkg85Pvef2GcXpGxPgnmyNCiJU5cbrYroRGRcPWYY6UtYe9IruWenJUs/s1600/YPC.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="438" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgp3QTPQ204EbWXGwI3tRUznZtIK_5tG0NhKJHG9G7mrAcvjFVyNnYNfCPQM7qznrFM8XBxgs68wJAtlfTZOFgqkg85Pvef2GcXpGxPgnmyNCiJU5cbrYroRGRcPWYY6UtYe9IruWenJUs/s640/YPC.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
While judging a receiver based on his average yards per catch (<b>YPC</b>) is a fairly stupid thing to do, it does appear a bit odd how his numbers have steadily declined in this area, especially after the 2011 season. From 2012 onward, his numbers have been, at best, rather pedestrian.<br />
<br />
We can possibly lay some of the blame for this at the feet of quarterbacks like <b>Teddy Bridgewater</b> and <b>Ryan Tannehill</b>, whom he played with from 2013-2015, but that may not explain the entire situation. Even in 2012, with <b>Roethlisberger </b>throwing the ball, Wallace's numbers already appeared to be slipping. His usefulness as a deep threat may have already been eroding.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlTEwMXJBSC0dd5nJOqM3Yxj4eDrQMLMlml0VWV3gzSFKnXYf9AxDlFtsLEi5DvIZ5B1FeJWAXM8Ngn7UDoP6QP5dse6CiCiwac8IGo4vtXRRSCPJsq89dDMLnieZALDWL3j5SSHoIIAw/s1600/YPRR.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="438" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlTEwMXJBSC0dd5nJOqM3Yxj4eDrQMLMlml0VWV3gzSFKnXYf9AxDlFtsLEi5DvIZ5B1FeJWAXM8Ngn7UDoP6QP5dse6CiCiwac8IGo4vtXRRSCPJsq89dDMLnieZALDWL3j5SSHoIIAw/s640/YPRR.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Like I said, judging a receiver based on YPC probably isn't a great idea. So, let's instead look at the above chart to see his annual Yards Per Pass Route Run (<b>YPRR</b>). Despite <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2015/10/pfft.html" target="_blank">my occasional criticisms of <b>PFF</b></a>, I think YPRR might be a reasonably useful statistic. It has its flaws, but is better than some of the alternatives. It's basically a very simple sort
of measure of a receiver's efficiency on a per play basis. A YPRR over
2, generally suggests that a player was having a rather rare and
exceptional year. A YPRR under 1, might mean that a player is really just on
the fringe of being useful.<br />
<br />
We should probably mention that we calculate YPRR slightly differently from the folks at PFF, as they throw out certain plays for mysterious unknown reasons, while we don't. Despite that, the differences in our results are very minor. I have some nagging issues with YPRR, but that's a subject for another day.<br />
<br />
Nonetheless, Wallace's numbers here would suggest that his only really exceptional years might have come in 2010 and 2011. Beyond that, he was probably playing at a level that we might associate with a team's 2nd or 3rd receiver, which still isn't a bad thing at all, as long as he is being paid in a manner that fits those expectations. Then we come to his 2015 season with the Vikings, where his numbers really went into the toilet.<br />
<br />
The question is, could we have predicted this outcome in 2015? I can't really say that this is the case. While there are issues related to the Vikings' offensive system, and the effectiveness of Teddy Bridgewater, I probably wouldn't have expected Wallace's effectiveness to plummet to this degree. Another year or two of solid but unspectacular production from Wallace probably wasn't an unrealistic thing to bet on. This sort of rapid decline was probably unforeseeable.<br />
<br />
Of course, there is the other question of whether maintaining his plateau of "good, but not great" performances, was something that the Vikings should have been investing in. By trading with the Dolphins, to acquire Wallace's services, they also had to take on his salary of <b>$9.9 million</b> for 2015 (which goes up to <b>$11.5 million</b> for 2016 and 2017). It's been quite a while since a salary of that sort was even halfway reasonable for what Wallace delivered on the field, which brings us to the real issue that interests us. Would the team have been better off continuing to give playing time to Charles Johnson (who had a <b>$510 thousand</b> salary) instead?<br />
<br />
I think comparing the statistics for these two players, prior to the 2015 season, is kind of interesting. While no individual stat can undeniably answer the question of "Who is the better player?", it may at least spark some debate over what factors the team was considering (or not considering), when they made their decision to trade for Wallace.<br />
<br />
Let's start by just examining some of their results from the 2014 season, side by side. We will include their <b>Catch %</b> (the percentage of plays in which they caught the pass, when targeted), <b>Drop % </b>(percentage of passes dropped), <b>YPC</b> (Yards Per Catch), <b>YPT </b>(Yards Per Target), <b>YPRR</b> (Yards Per Route Run) and <b>Target %</b> (percentage of passing plays they were on the field for, where they were targeted by their quarterback).<br />
<br />
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 485px;"><colgroup><col style="mso-width-alt: 3364; mso-width-source: userset; width: 69pt;" width="92"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 2523; mso-width-source: userset; width: 52pt;" width="69"></col>
<col span="4" style="width: 48pt;" width="64"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 2486; mso-width-source: userset; width: 51pt;" width="68"></col>
</colgroup><tbody>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 69pt;" width="92"><b>2014 </b></td>
<td style="width: 52pt;" width="69"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 51pt;" width="68"><b><br /></b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><b>Player</b></td>
<td><b> Catch%</b></td>
<td><b> Drop %</b></td>
<td><b> YPC</b></td>
<td><b> YPT</b></td>
<td><b> YPRR</b></td>
<td><b> Target%</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">M. Wallace</td>
<td align="right">62.03</td>
<td align="right">3.70</td>
<td align="right">12.86</td>
<td align="right">7.98</td>
<td align="right">1.60</td>
<td align="right">21.14</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">C. Johnson</td>
<td align="right">56.36</td>
<td align="right">1.81</td>
<td align="right">15.35</td>
<td align="right">8.65</td>
<td align="right">1.65</td>
<td align="right">19.09</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
While there are some differences between these two players, I feel they are at best relatively minor. When it came to Drop %, YPC, YPT and YPRR, Charles Johnson had the advantage. For Wallace, he seemed to take the lead when it came to catch rate and percentage of plays where he was targeted. Personally, we think that the difference in individual catch rate can partially be explained by the depth at which the players caught their passes, since deeper passes tend to be lower probability plays. That would perhaps work in Johnson's favor to some degree. We also have to remember that 2014 was effectively Johnson's rookie season, for whatever that is worth. Regardless, we could spin these numbers quite a bit further, but in the end, the question is fairly simple. Do you believe there was a significant amount of evidence to separate these two players?<br />
<br />
So, as we feared, Mike Wallace's 2015 arrival in Minnesota did appear to have a rather dramatic impact on Charles Johnson's playing time (just <b>94</b> passing snaps for Johnson, versus Wallace's <b>517</b>). Instead of potentially becoming the team's primary receiver, Johnson turned into a ghost, only being targeted by his team's quarterback in 6 games, and spending most of his time on the bench. This extremely limited playing time makes a direct comparison of their individual numbers in 2015 a bit more unreliable. Still, we think the statistics are worth looking at.<br />
<br />
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 485px;"><colgroup><col style="mso-width-alt: 3364; mso-width-source: userset; width: 69pt;" width="92"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 2523; mso-width-source: userset; width: 52pt;" width="69"></col>
<col span="4" style="width: 48pt;" width="64"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 2486; mso-width-source: userset; width: 51pt;" width="68"></col>
</colgroup><tbody>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 69pt;" width="92"><b>2015 </b></td>
<td style="width: 52pt;" width="69"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 51pt;" width="68"><b><br /></b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><b>Player</b></td>
<td><b> Catch%</b></td>
<td><b> Drop %</b></td>
<td><b> YPC</b></td>
<td><b> YPT</b></td>
<td><b> YPRR</b></td>
<td><b> Target%</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><b>M. Wallace</b></td>
<td align="right">57.97</td>
<td align="right">5.79</td>
<td align="right">12.07</td>
<td align="right">7.00</td>
<td align="right">0.93</td>
<td align="right">13.34</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><b>C. Johnson</b></td>
<td align="right">69.23</td>
<td align="right">0.00</td>
<td align="right">14.11</td>
<td align="right">9.76</td>
<td align="right">1.35</td>
<td align="right">13.82</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
While we can only speculate on how more playing time would have affected Johnson's numbers, for better or for worse, these results paint a peculiar picture. In every single category, Johnson appears to have been outperforming Wallace. Despite that, the team rarely felt it was worth putting Johnson on the field.<br />
<br />
None of this is meant to suggest that Johnson would have had a monstrous season if he had played more, because I don't think that is likely. Still, considering the near parity of their individual Target % results, we could somewhat reasonably propose that Johnson quite likely would have out-produced Wallace in 2015 if given an equal opportunity. In the end, Wallace finished the season with <b>40</b> receptions for <b>483</b> yards (when we include the post-season). If we extrapolate from Johnson's limited 2015 data, this might have worked out to something like <b>49.5 </b>receptions for<b> 698</b> yards if Johnson had been given a similar opportunity, and his other numbers had remained steady. Of course, this is all a bit speculative.<br />
<br />
That would work out to a possible <b>23.7%</b> improvement in receptions, and a <b>44.5%</b> improvement in receiving yards, over Wallace's 2015 results. It would have also put Johnson's productivity into a range that we consider to be slightly above average, relative to most NFL wide receivers, which is all that we are really hoping to find.<br />
<br />
Or, perhaps you think Johnson's results from his limited 2015 snaps wouldn't have remained fixed at their current position. I would actually agree with you on this. Because of the limited sample size of Johnson's snaps this year (again, just <b>94</b> passing snaps for Johnson, versus Wallace's <b>517</b>), it's very hard to say how steady his results would have remained in a larger role. Personally, I suspect Johnson's 2015 catch rate would have dropped a bit, if he had been a bigger focus of his team's offense. On the other hand, I think the rate at which Johnson was targeted probably would have risen slightly, if he was serving as his team's primary or secondary receiver, rather than their fourth or fifth option. If we just averaged out Johnson's 2014 and 2015 results, we might see him with a catch rate of <b>62.79%</b>, a target percentage of <b>16.46%</b>, and a YPC of <b>14.73</b> yards. By receiving Wallace's 517 snaps on passing plays (including the post-season), this would result in Johnson possibly generating <b>53.4</b> receptions (a <b>33.4%</b> improvement over Wallace's results) for a total of <b>787</b> yards (a <b>62.9%</b> improvement over Wallace). Again, this is just speculation, but I don't think these projections are terribly unreasonable.<br />
<br />
Or, maybe we are completely nuts. Perhaps Charles Johnson would have performed as poorly as Mike Wallace. I certainly can't see any reason to suspect that Johnson would have done any worse than Wallace, but we're open to this possibility. Johnson still would have had the advantage of costing about 1/19th of Wallace's 2015 salary, as well as retaining the 5th round draft pick that was traded to the Dolphins to acquire Wallace.<br />
<br />
I guess what I'm wondering here is, why wasn't Johnson at least worked into the rotation a bit more, considering how poorly Wallace was performing? It's seems doubtful that he could have done any worse, and most of the numbers would suggest that he might have performed better than Wallace, and at a much lower price. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Charles Johnson Vs. Stefon Diggs</b><br />
<br />
We have no ax to grind when it comes to <b>Stefon Diggs</b>, but we probably have to throw him into this discussion as well. While <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2015/04/kangaroo-court-2015-wide-receivers.html" target="_blank">Diggs didn't make the cut, when we were putting together our list of 2015 Draft prospects</a> whom we felt had a good chance of becoming successes in the NFL, we're always open to the possibility of someone slipping through the cracks and exceeding our expectations. These things happen, from time to time.<br />
<br />
While we felt that Diggs had too many risks associated with him to merit a draft pick, we can't deny that he did appear to become a productive player. He also managed to generate a fair bit of hype. So, we thought we should take a closer look at his 2015 results, in the same categories we just examined for Mike Wallace and Charles Johnson.<br />
<br />
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 485px;"><colgroup><col style="mso-width-alt: 3364; mso-width-source: userset; width: 69pt;" width="92"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 2523; mso-width-source: userset; width: 52pt;" width="69"></col>
<col span="4" style="width: 48pt;" width="64"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 2486; mso-width-source: userset; width: 51pt;" width="68"></col>
</colgroup><tbody>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 69pt;" width="92"><b>2015 </b></td>
<td style="width: 52pt;" width="69"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 51pt;" width="68"><b><br /></b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><b>Player</b></td>
<td><b> Catch%</b></td>
<td><b> Drop %</b></td>
<td><b> YPC</b></td>
<td><b> YPT</b></td>
<td><b> YPRR</b></td>
<td><b> Target%</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><b>S. Diggs</b>.</td>
<td align="right">67.46</td>
<td align="right">2.4</td>
<td align="right">13.32</td>
<td align="right">8.98</td>
<td align="right">1.65</td>
<td align="right">18.44</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
Now, just for the sake of argument, go back and compare Diggs' 2015 results to Charles Johnson's 2014 results. That way we are looking at two players, both of whom are effectively playing as rookies, and who both received a respectable amount of playing time. In the end, I think it is kind of funny how eerily similar their results actually are, with the only notable difference being their catch rate. Despite that, there seems to be a different set of expectations that some people hold about their individual futures.<br />
<br />
Let's take things a bit further though. While people seem rather optimistic about Stefon Diggs' future, there are some weird issues with his 2015 results which I think are worth commenting on. In Diggs' first four NFL games, he had <b>25</b> receptions for <b>419</b> yards, which averages out to a ridiculous <b>104.75</b> yards per game. In his next 10 games, he produced <b>31</b> receptions for <b>327</b> yards, or <b>32.7</b> yards per game. There is obviously a rather huge difference in these results, so let's look at his results from these two periods of the 2015 season.<br />
<br />
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 485px;"><colgroup><col style="mso-width-alt: 3364; mso-width-source: userset; width: 69pt;" width="92"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 2523; mso-width-source: userset; width: 52pt;" width="69"></col>
<col span="4" style="width: 48pt;" width="64"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 2486; mso-width-source: userset; width: 51pt;" width="68"></col>
</colgroup><tbody>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 69pt;" width="92"><br /></td>
<td style="width: 52pt;" width="69"><b> Catch%</b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b> Drop %</b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b> YPC</b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b> YPT</b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b> YPRR</b></td>
<td style="width: 51pt;" width="68"><b> Target%</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><b>1st 4 games</b></td>
<td align="right">69.44</td>
<td align="right">2.77</td>
<td align="right">16.76</td>
<td align="right">11.63</td>
<td align="right">3.05</td>
<td align="right">26.27</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><b>last 10 games</b></td>
<td align="right">65.95</td>
<td align="right">2.12</td>
<td align="right">10.54</td>
<td align="right">6.95</td>
<td align="right">1.04</td>
<td align="right">15.01</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
While some might argue that Diggs' numbers dropped simply because he was being targeted less frequently in those final 10 games, which is true, I don't think that necessarily explains what is happening here. After all, it is hard to explain this drop in the rate at which he was targeted, unless some other Vikings' receiver was suddenly becoming a more appealing option, or if opponents started to account for Diggs and shut him down. The other concern for me is the question of why his YPC (a <b>37.2%</b> drop) and YPT (a <b>40.3%</b> drop) have plummeted to such a ridiculous degree. <br />
<br />
So, what are we supposed to believe that the future holds for Stefon Diggs? Do we bet on him returning to the shockingly good <b>3.05 </b>YPRR we saw in his first four games? Or, do we bet on the larger sample size of his final ten games, and the rather disappointing <b>1.04</b> YPRR he displayed there? The funny thing about this is that many people seem willing to criticize Mike Wallace (deservedly so) for having a disappointing season, while ignoring the fact that for over 70% of the season Diggs' results really weren't significantly better. Despite these concerns, we wouldn't argue with the Vikings using Diggs as a starting wide receiver. After all, it's entirely possible that he was one of the team's better options. <br />
<br />
While I have no real stake in how any of this plays out, I'd have to stick to our initial hunch regarding Diggs. His numbers in college made us quite wary of him, and so far the bulk of his playing time hasn't persuaded us to change our mind about how things will turn out in the long run. Those results from his final 10 games are probably closer to what we would have expected of him. We'll have to wait and see what happens next year. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>I guess I've been rambling a bit...</b><br />
<br />
Maybe this all seems a bit pointless.<br />
<br />
Perhaps it is a bit odd that we would be focused on such a player, whom we admittedly don't
feel was likely to enter into the discussion of the league's most
productive receivers. Then again, we have some doubts that anybody was
likely to do so, playing in the Vikings offense. The team's stubborn focus on
giving <b>Adrian Peterson</b> the ball, as well as some possible issues with
Bridgewater's development, probably aren't ideal factors for a record
setting season by a receiver.<br />
<br />
While we have admittedly had some hopes in the past that Charles Johnson could emerge as the next late-round or undrafted receiver to earn comparisons to <b>Victor Cruz</b>, <b>Marques Colston</b>, <b>Wes Welker</b> or <b>Rod Smith</b>, it's entirely possible that this will never happen. Maybe Johnson will just become a good, somewhat above average receiver, which would still be an excellent outcome for a former 7th round draft pick. Maybe he won't. Who really knows?<br />
<br />
All we can really say is that whatever potential he might possess won't be discovered by having him sit on the bench, while the players ahead of him continue to under-perform. The possibility that prime years in a potentially talented player's career might be getting squandered somewhat irritates us. There's really only a small window where these players are likely to shine, after all.<br />
<br />
It would be nice to think that all the talented players eventually rise up to gain the attention of their coaches, but we have our doubts about this. For every <b>Cameron Wake</b>, who goes undrafted and gets bounced to the CFL, only to return to terrorize the NFL, there are probably numerous other players who never get their shot. The mistakes made in the NFL Draft have far reaching consequences, and those initial impressions that teams form about a player seem difficult to shake.<br />
<br />
Think about this for a second. Wouldn't we all agree that former top 10 draft selection, <b>Matt Leinart</b>, was a rather significant failure? Yet, we often seem to forget that Leinart still spent 7 seasons in the NFL. That means that for seven years, somebody was getting bumped off of a team's roster to make room for Leinart. While the player's getting cut to make room for Leinart likely wouldn't have gone on to stardom, it was still a potential missed opportunity to explore other options. It was one less chance, or 7, to look under some rock looking for talent. The only explanation for these decisions seems to have been "Well, Leinart was a former 1st round pick". He certainly didn't seem to possess any other real qualifications. This is why I sometimes hate the NFL Draft, even while I still obsess over it each year. Draft status simply matters more than it should.<br />
<br />
At this point though, my hopes are rapidly diminishing as to whether we'll ever discover the truth about Charles Johnson. For now, I'll probably just go back to playing with my Legos, or working on my plans for militarized kangaroos. It might be a more productive use of my time.<br />
<br />
<br />Sidney Mussburgerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03104367326238874951noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9104858724022491504.post-50995668985176774552016-01-02T01:35:00.000-05:002016-01-02T01:35:43.836-05:00The Path of Dalton: Road House EconomicsIt's quite likely that you have made a horrible mess out of your life. It happens to most people, so you shouldn't feel too bad. Maybe you became a doctor, a lawyer, or pursued some other dead-end low wage career that has left you feeling hollow inside. You are probably wondering where it all went wrong, and the answer undoubtedly lies in having poor role models.<br />
<br />
There's really very little I can do to offer you hope. At this point, most of you are probably too far gone, but there is still a chance to save your children. Hope still exists for them, which I have discovered through a deep and insightful examination of our society's greatest artistic achievements. The subtle clues of how to live a meaningful and profitable life have been provided to us all, if only we had paid attention.<br />
<br />
Let's just take a moment to consider the 1989 Academy Award winning film <b>Road House</b>. Beyond it's obvious guidance in the fields of hair spray application and how to rip out another man's throat, there might be some very sound financial advice, just lurking beneath the surface. This advice might not be applicable to everyone, but if you yearn to breathe free, and live the unfettered life of a rambling, roaming, well-coiffed barroom bouncer, it presents some very exciting possibilities.<br />
<br />
Now, you may be thinking that you don't have what it takes for such a lifestyle. Like most modern "men", you probably have an endless stream of excuses for why you haven't reached the peak masculinity exhibited by this film's main character Dalton. Let's just give that cowardly attitude a moment of thought. Do you really believe that you are less deserving of the good things in life than an NYU philosophy student? Well, that's exactly how Dalton spent his college years, and we all know that philosophy majors are a step below McDonald's fry cooks on the socioeconomic ladder. Yet Dalton is seen tooling around town in a 1987 Mercedes 560 SEC. In 1989 that would have been a two year old car costing <b>$76,380</b> (or <b>$159,575</b> in 2015 inflation adjusted dollars). Not too shabby. How many philosophy majors do you know who have that kind of cash lying around?<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, Dalton wasn't very forthcoming on how he had managed to pull this off. Even when his doctor (dramatically re-enacted by Kelly Lynch), asked whether he had "Come up with any answers" from his philosophical studies, Dalton played coy. Whether it was modesty, or a reticence to reveal the golden path to financial success, Dalton wasn't going to confess how he had not only avoided life as a barista, but had managed to thrive. The one thing he didn't take into account, was that his every action was being recorded, and repeatedly viewed by a sleuthing internet blogger.<br />
<br />
DALTON"S SECRETS CAN NOW BE REVEALED!<br />
<br />
At the beginning of this fine documentary film, we see the owner of the 'Double Deuce' road house, trying to lure Dalton to come work at his bar. The incentives Dalton was presented with were as follows:<br />
<br />
<b>$5,000</b> in upfront cash (which we will view as a signing bonus)<br />
<b>$500</b> per night that he works.<br />
All of Dalton's medical expenses will be covered.<br />
<br />
Okay, let's ignore the $5,000 bonus (or <b>$9,570</b> in inflation adjusted dollars), and the health care coverage. That's chicken feed. If Dalton worked just 5 nights a week, 52 weeks a year, that works out to <b>$130,000</b> per year. That's in 1989 dollars. Adjusted for inflation, that would be a yearly salary of <b>$248,820</b>. Even if the government was hitting Dalton with a 40% tax rate, with some sound investments he could almost certainly retire fairly comfortably by the age of 40 (assuming he started his throat ripping career when he was just out of college). That strikes me as a fairly attainable life span for a bouncer.<br />
<br />
Based on what we know of Dalton, and his free spirited and drifting ways, his finances could really go quite a bit further. From what we are shown, he has no known family. Wandering from road house to road house, he only seems to be in town long enough to impregnate the local barmaids before moving on, making child support a non-issue. Hell, I might be able to argue that he could retire by 35, if the courts can't manage to track him down, which is easily within the time frame that I think his body could still sustain the occasional beatings.<br />
<br />
The only real question is how poorly Dalton actually handled his cash, which admittedly is something that brings us back to his purchase of the Mercedes. I'm kind of torn on this subject, because I am a strong believer in Nazi engineered vehicles, and the possibility that Dalton could have reasonably maintained that car for the next 30 years. Those cars were built like tanks. Regardless of my biases, we have no other evidence of frivolous spending, but we do know that he took residence in a barn, which he rented for just <b>$100</b> per month. So, his annual rental costs could have been a mere <b>0.92%</b> of his annual income. That's rather impressive.<br />
<br />
I would also argue that Dalton's pay, upon arriving at the 'Double Deuce', was partly due to his reputation for being able to rip a man's throat out with his bare hands. Like many legends, there were surely people who doubted the truth of this...umm...skill. By the time his employment at the 'Double Deuce' had come to an end, Dalton had demonstrated yet another throat ripping, that I suspect would have created further tales which would have circulated among the local populace. Since criminal charges didn't seem to follow this assault, I have to assume that this would only legitimize the folklore that followed Dalton, and potentially increased the demands for his services, as well as the salary he could demand. This isn't meant to be viewed as an acceptance of these practices, but merely an acknowledgment of the apparent employment qualifications that are valued in the world of hill-billy road houses. I'm not sure where salaries top out for bouncers, but I also never would have suspected that a bouncer could earn $130,000 per year. So, where do we draw the line? 5 verified throat rippings, and a salary of $500,000? It's very difficult to speculate.<br />
<br />
The more thoughtful readers of this blog may have leapt to a rather insightful conclusion, without my assistance. We have all undoubtedly heard of bartending schools, and while they have their place, I doubt any of us have seen anyone become rich from pursuing this path. But where are the bouncing schools? I've certainly never seen one. The only conclusion I can reach is that the rewards of a successful life for a bouncer are so great, that the path to this life has become rather secretive. It's sort of like that island in the Caribbean where topless super-models go to engage in dwarf tossing. You don't hear about it, because you're not traveling in the right social circles. The one percenters have no interest in letting the plebs in on their fun. Still, we have to assume that some sort of bouncing school exists, or that there is an apprenticeship program in place.(as exhibited by Dalton's mentor Wade Garret, whose real life is portrayed by Sam Elluitt).<br />
<br />
All I can really say is that you should probably stop saving for your children's college fund. Maybe put them in some Krav Maga classes, and encourage them to start picking fights at a young age. Save a few bucks, but still manage to reap the rewards further down the road. It seems like a winning plan to me.<br />
<br />
Or, I might be a little drunk.Sidney Mussburgerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03104367326238874951noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9104858724022491504.post-53847319160050721952015-11-22T10:57:00.001-05:002015-11-22T10:57:54.950-05:00Flacco: Making It Rain CorrectionsIn <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2015/11/flacco-making-it-rain_20.html" target="_blank">our most recent post</a>, we were looking at the potential ways that a contract renegotiation with <b>Joe Flacco</b> could play out. We presented 3 different scenarios, which had outcomes that covered Flacco taking a reduced salary to stay with the Ravens, and two possibilities under which it would appear to be favorable for Flacco to force his way off of the team, in order to sign a contract with someone else. Unfortunately, we had a massive brain-fart when we were doing some of the math that compared the money that Flacco would pocket under these different scenarios.<br />
<br />
When comparing the "new money" Flacco would receive in Scenario 2 to Scenario 1, and then comparing the same funds in Scenario 3 to Scenario 1, we repeatedly made the same mistake. We idiotically forgot that the bonus money would be in Flacco's pocket from day one of signing any of these new contracts. In the initial posting, we were just summing his cumulative annual salary, over a 2 year span, a 3 year span and a 4 years span, without remembering that this bonus money would be his from the very beginning. This was very stupid of us.<br />
<br />
None of this changes the proposed contracts we were discussing, it simply alters the sections of that post which related to year to year comparisons of how much Joe will receive in these different situations. The numbers have now been corrected, and currently point even more strongly than before to Scenario 3 being the most advantageous route for Flacco and his agent to take. Over a 2 year span, Scenario 3 gives Flacco <b>49.7%</b> more cash. Over a 3 year span, Scenario 3 gives him <b>33.3%</b> more cash. Even in year 4, which Flacco possibly wouldn't reach in the Scenario 1 contract that has him staying with the Ravens, Flacco would be receiving <b>15.5%</b> more cash by going with Scenario 3. <br />
<br />
We apologize for being morons, but we were on a bit of a caffeine high when we wrote that post.<br />
<br />
<br />Sidney Mussburgerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03104367326238874951noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9104858724022491504.post-59838618759389590342015-11-20T15:35:00.000-05:002017-01-21T01:30:01.190-05:00Flacco: Making It RainFor anyone who has followed the history of the Baltimore Ravens, it is difficult to not have some appreciation for the contributions of <b>Joe Flacco</b>. Whatever your opinions of him may be, it is hard to deny that prior to his arrival the quarterbacking in Baltimore could best be described as pathetic.<br />
<br />
While local fans probably are a bit too biased towards defending him, and outsiders might underrate him, Reilly and I both agreed that it was important to try to resign him back in 2013. Of course, Reilly and I also tend to be a bit cheap, but we figured retaining Flacco was still a manageable task. Well, at least until the Ravens won the Super Bowl, and our initial reaction was something along the lines of "Shit! They're probably going to pay this idiot $20 million per year now."<br />
<br />
Yup, it is fair to say that the contract Flacco received scared the hell out of us. Unfortunately, many of the locals only looked at his cap hit in the first 3 years of the contract, and downplayed the significance of what was looming in the future. These optimists are the sort of people who you want to have buying you Christmas gifts on their credit card, or perhaps the market targeted for adjustable rate mortgages. .<br />
<br />
Admittedly, our views on a quarterback's worth probably don't align with those of
many other people. Based on comparing Flacco to his peers (those who aren't
operating under the terms of a rookie contract), we think it is obvious that this current contract
significantly overpaid him. When looking at passer rating, touchdown to
interception ratios or <a href="http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2013/10/introducing-anya-differential.html" target="_blank"><b>A/NYA</b></a>, the best estimate of Flacco's value that we could arrive at was a contract which offered <b>$15.5 million</b> per year. In some categories, our estimates were even lower. Regardless, the market has spoken, and our worthless opinions on this subject don't really matter anymore.<br />
<br />
This doesn't mean we don't like Flacco. We do. He's a perfectly respectable quarterback, and far from the only player we feel is being paid too much. It just means we would have drawn a different line as to how far we were willing to go to retain him. Some will say that it is unfair to judge Flacco based purely on his statistical performance, and pin some of the blame for his typically middling output on the talent that surrounds him, or perhaps on his coaches. That is fine, and possibly even true. All we are saying is that paying Ferrari money, for a quarterback that you drive like a Honda, is kind of a difficult position to defend.<br />
<br />
The likelihood that his current contract is at least somewhat hindering the team from achieving success on the field, seems to be reasonably likely. As one individual consumes an ever increasing percentage of the team's cap space, it also becomes more imperative than ever that the team compensate through improved drafting. We've mentioned before how we think this is also <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2014/07/what-is-petard-anyway_15.html" target="_blank">an area where the Ravens have actually been in decline over the past several years</a>. Combining these salary issues, along with a reduced ability to find cheap young talent, probably explains a fair bit about what has gone wrong with the Ravens 2016 season.<br />
<br />
That the Flacco contract was also significantly back-loaded, and gave
Joe a ton of leverage on future (current) negotiations was largely
overlooked in the past. Now, the general consensus seems to be that the Ravens will
be forced to renegotiate this contract, prior to the start of the 2016
season, in order to free up cap space, and we have some serious
doubts/concerns about how this will proceed.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Like the backseat of a Volkswagen?</b><br />
<br />
It is pretty much impossible to accurately guess what a renegotiated contract with Flacco will really look like. The numbers can be moved around in an almost endless number of ways. Still, we thought it might be fun to look at some of the complications that could arise in this situation. We thought we would start by simply laying out the terms of the contract, for the 3 years that still remain on it.<br />
<br />
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 512px;"><colgroup><col style="width: 48pt;" width="64"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 3730; mso-width-source: userset; width: 77pt;" width="102"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 3584; mso-width-source: userset; width: 74pt;" width="98"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 3072; mso-width-source: userset; width: 63pt;" width="84"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 3657; mso-width-source: userset; width: 75pt;" width="100"></col>
<col style="width: 48pt;" width="64"></col>
</colgroup><tbody>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 48pt;" width="64"><b> Year</b></td>
<td style="width: 77pt;" width="102"><b> Base Salary</b></td>
<td style="width: 74pt;" width="98"><b> Guaranteed</b></td>
<td style="width: 63pt;" width="84"><b> Cap Hit</b></td>
<td style="width: 75pt;" width="100"><b> Dead Money</b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b> Age</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" class="xl23" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2016</td>
<td align="right" class="xl24">$18 </td>
<td align="right" class="xl25">$10.55 </td>
<td align="right" class="xl25">$28.55 </td>
<td align="right" class="xl25">$25.85 </td>
<td align="right">31</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" class="xl23" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2017</td>
<td align="right" class="xl25">$20.60 </td>
<td align="right" class="xl25">$10.55 </td>
<td align="right" class="xl25">$31.15 </td>
<td align="right" class="xl25">$15.30 </td>
<td align="right">32</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" class="xl23" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2018</td>
<td align="right" class="xl24">$20 </td>
<td align="right" class="xl25">$4.75 </td>
<td align="right" class="xl25">$24.75 </td>
<td align="right" class="xl25">$4.75 </td>
<td align="right">33</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
*If it isn't perfectly obvious, all these numbers are in millions of dollars.<br />
<br />
While there is a significant amount of remaining guaranteed money (<b>$25.85 million</b> in total) that is already prorated over these remaining 3 years, that is really only relevant to the Ravens, and the people who manage the team's cap. From Flacco's perspective, this money is already in his pocket, and like most NFL players has probably been squandered on strippers, cocaine and the upkeep of illegitimate children. Granted, I am partially basing this assumption solely on what would happen if I was handed several millions of dollars, while still in my twenties. Now, regardless of what some people may think, Flacco has little reason to let this past guaranteed money factor into his thoughts on future negotiations. He/I/We have future baby-mamas we want to support, and that is all about future earnings.<br />
<br />
The only thing that Flacco should be concerned with is preserving as much of the future base salary payments, that this contract originally "promised" to him. While the Ravens have obvious motivations to lower Joe's cap hit, especially in the 2016 and 2017 seasons, the only theoretical leverage they have is the threat of cutting Joe, or perhaps begging. For the most part, this threat of being cut is completely preposterous, and it will be interesting to see how seriously Flacco and his agent view any of this.<br />
<br />
For <b>2016</b>, with a dead money hit of <b>$25.85 million</b>, the leverage is obviously tilted in Flacco's favor. That means he has every reason to expect to retain the <b>$18 million</b> base salary from that year, at least in some renegotiated form. There is almost no real savings for the team if they cut Flacco, and even if they did, they would still need to find a replacement for him. Again, I will say that begging for mercy is the Ravens' best option here.<br />
<br />
For <b>2017</b>, things become slightly more interesting. The balance between Flacco's cap hit of <b>$31.15 million</b>, versus the dead money hit of <b>$15.3 million</b> is a curious situation. Sure, the Ravens would save <b>$15.85 million</b> by cutting Joe at this point, but they would again need to address the quarterback position, which is something they have historically been dreadful at. Who really holds the leverage in this year might be a bit debatable, though we suspect that Flacco would win this game of chicken. We'd probably continue to bet on Joe retaining his claim on the <b>$20.6 million</b> in base salary from this year, at least in a renegotiated form.<br />
<br />
For <b>2018</b>, Flacco pretty much loses all the leverage he might have formerly possessed, as cutting him with a <b>$4.75 million</b> dead money hit would be laughably easy for the team to absorb. So, we're going to assume that Flacco has no real expectation of retaining the <b>$20 million</b> in base salary for this year, and it won't really factor into any of the negotiations.<br />
<br />
Okey-dokey, it's time to start fiddling with the numbers. First, we'll throw out the suggestion that Flacco will reduce his 2016 base salary by <b>$15 million</b>. We will then propose that he reduce his 2017 base salary by <b>$16.6 million</b>. Since we think Flacco has enough leverage to expect to have earned this money, these won't be real reductions in pay, but the money will be converted into guaranteed money, which will be prorated over the length of his contract. That would total <b>$31.6 million</b> in new guaranteed money. Yes, it already sounds insane.<br />
<br />
We're going to ignore the possibility of putting this money into
future "option bonuses", since we don't think they would necessarily do
either side any favors in this negotiation. Flacco, in particular,
would probably be the party most likely to get screwed over by such bonuses,
and we see no compelling reason for him to accept that form of payment,
at least with the leverage he currently possesses.<br />
<br />
Since his current contract only has 3 years remaining on it, prorating this <b>$31.6 millio</b>n is a bit of a problem, as that would work out to <b>$10.53 million</b> in guaranteed money per year. That means the team would want to add some more years to Flacco's contract, to allow them to account for this money over a longer period of time (though it would actually go into Flacco's pocket the day he signed his new contract). The number of years to be added to Flacco's contract is unknowable, but since guaranteed money can only be distributed over a maximum of 5 years, we'll pretend that they will only try to add 2 years to the new contract. <br />
<br />
That brings up another complication. By adding to the number of years that Flacco would be obligated to serve the Ravens, he would probably expect an additional signing bonus, which adds even more guaranteed money to this new contract. Based on what we are seeing with his peers, who have performed to a similar level, we're going to guess that this would come out to a signing bonus of about <b>$4 million</b> per year that is added to Flacco's original contract, or <b>$8 million</b> in total. While we find this situation a bit ridiculous, there are actually a number of reasons why we think this could still be a very low estimate, but we'll explain those reasons a bit further on.<br />
<br />
Okay, so we now have some sort of basic theory about Flacco agreeing to a 2 year extension, which will take him through the <b>2020</b> season, at which point he would be 35 years old. We also have an estimate of <b>$39.6 million</b> dollars in guaranteed money (<b>$31.6 million</b> from redistributed base salary he was likely to earn, and <b>$8 million</b> in signing bonuses for the extension). This works out to <b>$7.92 million</b> in new guaranteed money per year, over the course of this 5 year contract. That makes determining Flacco's numbers for 2016 and 2017 fairly straightforward. From 2018 onward, we'll just insert a base salary that maintains a fairly steady rate of pay, with some consideration given to Flacco's average annual "new money" payments. Here's what it looks like so far.<br />
<br />
<b>Scenario 1</b><br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 577px;"><colgroup><col style="mso-width-alt: 2121; mso-width-source: userset; width: 44pt;" width="58"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 3730; mso-width-source: userset; width: 77pt;" width="102"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 3584; mso-width-source: userset; width: 74pt;" width="98"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 3072; mso-width-source: userset; width: 63pt;" width="84"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 3108; mso-width-source: userset; width: 64pt;" width="85"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 3547; mso-width-source: userset; width: 73pt;" width="97"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 1938; mso-width-source: userset; width: 40pt;" width="53"></col>
</colgroup><tbody>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 44pt;" width="58"><b> Year</b></td>
<td style="width: 77pt;" width="102"><b> Base Salary</b></td>
<td style="width: 74pt;" width="98"><b> Old Guar.</b></td>
<td style="width: 63pt;" width="84"><b> New Guar.</b></td>
<td style="width: 64pt;" width="85"><b> Cap Hit</b></td>
<td style="width: 73pt;" width="97"><b> Dead Money</b></td>
<td style="width: 40pt;" width="53"><b> Age</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2016</td>
<td align="right">$3</td>
<td align="right">$10.55</td>
<td align="right">$7.92</td>
<td align="right">$21.47</td>
<td align="right">$65.45</td>
<td align="right">31</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2017</td>
<td align="right">$4</td>
<td align="right">$10.55</td>
<td align="right">$7.92</td>
<td align="right">$22.47</td>
<td align="right">$46.98</td>
<td align="right">32</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2018</td>
<td align="right">$11</td>
<td align="right">$4.75</td>
<td align="right">$7.92</td>
<td align="right">$23.67</td>
<td align="right">$28.51</td>
<td align="right">33</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2019</td>
<td align="right">$15</td>
<td><br /></td>
<td align="right">$7.92</td>
<td align="right">$22.92</td>
<td align="right">$15.84</td>
<td align="right">34</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2020</td>
<td align="right">$15</td>
<td><br /></td>
<td align="right">$7.92</td>
<td align="right">$22.92</td>
<td align="right">$7.92</td>
<td align="right">35</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
*Once again, all these numbers are in millions of dollars.<br />
<br />
Now, this is all just bullshit speculation on our part, and we will happily admit that predicting how Flacco's contract will be renegotiated is a bit of a fool's errand. There are many ways in which the numbers can be moved around, and depending on your proximity to Baltimore, you might find these numbers ridiculous for different reasons. To some, the concept of Flacco carrying an average annual cap hit of <b>$22.69 million</b> will seem outrageous. To others, proposing that Flacco will be given <b>$39.6 million</b> in guaranteed money will be the sticking point. Your perception/tolerance of these figures will invariably be affected by whether you were born with one of Ozzie Newsome's mind control implants.<br />
<br />
From the Ravens' perspective, this proposal would give them some significant cap relief. In 2016, it would save them <b>$7.08 million</b> in cap space. In 2017, it would save them <b>$8.68 million</b> in cap space. From that point onward, Flacco's numbers would remain fairly stable (if still outrageous), and not present the likelihood of giving Joe such a ridiculous amount of leverage in the future. In theory, the Ravens could escape this contract just prior to the 2019 season, albeit with some minor discomfort.<br />
<br />
The real problem, from our perspective, is that this might be an overly optimistic best case scenario. We think Flacco could actually push for significantly more money, if he chose to do so. The leverage he possesses over the Ravens shouldn't be underestimated.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Suitor Number 2</b><br />
<br />
Let's explore how things could all go terribly wrong for the Ravens.<br />
<br />
Many fans seem to support the idea that Flacco will reduce his base salary to a lower level in order to "take one for the team", or some other sort of deranged nonsense. The idea here is that by reducing his demands, the team will have more money to spend on other players, allowing Joe to perform better, and making his remaining years more enjoyable. We recall hearing that unicorns and rainbows are somehow involved in all of this, but we can't swear to that.<br />
<br />
What people seem to be forgetting is that this is the same guy who supposedly turned down a deal, prior to his Super Bowl winning season, that would have <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/sports/football/ravens-to-pay-for-joe-flaccos-exquisite-timing.html?pagewanted=all" target="_blank">offered him <b>$16 million per year</b></a>, in order to bet on himself. Joe clearly won that bet, and we wouldn't put it past him or <b>Joe Linta</b> (his agent), to do so again.<br />
<br />
Despite the generally accepted idea that Flacco's contract will be renegotiated this off-season, we really don't think he has much incentive to do so. The Ravens have almost nothing they can threaten him with, and he could easily tell them to piss off, with no real consequences. Now, prior to the 2017 season, he might be more amenable to discussing his contract, but even then, he still retains a great deal of power in these negotiations. Leverage, not team spirit/loyalty, should be what determines the outcome of this situation.<br />
<br />
So, let's pretend that the Ravens open negotiations with Joe prior to 2016. Let's also pretend that the Ravens are in full kamikaze mode, and refuse to accept that Joe has all the leverage, and actually do decide to cut him. This is extremely unlikely, but let's roll with this lunacy.<br />
<br />
This allows us to speculate on what Flacco could draw as a free agent, which is an additional source of leverage he has over the Ravens. For this imaginary scenario, we will propose that another team would be willing to offer the 31 year old Flacco a 5 year contract worth <b>$80 million</b> in total. We'll also speculate that the guaranteed portion of this contract would be <b>$44.8 million</b>, since this would be <b>56%</b> of the total contract, and relatively in line with the percentages we see being given to quarterbacks who are similar to Flacco. We'll also pretend that the distribution of funds is perfectly flat over the course of these 5 years. This is what such a contract might look like.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Scenario 2</b><br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 507px;"><colgroup><col style="mso-width-alt: 2121; mso-width-source: userset; width: 44pt;" width="58"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 3730; mso-width-source: userset; width: 77pt;" width="102"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 3584; mso-width-source: userset; width: 74pt;" width="98"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 3072; mso-width-source: userset; width: 63pt;" width="84"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 3584; mso-width-source: userset; width: 74pt;" width="98"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 2450; mso-width-source: userset; width: 50pt;" width="67"></col>
</colgroup><tbody>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 44pt;" width="58"><b> Year</b></td>
<td style="width: 77pt;" width="102"><b> Base Salary</b></td>
<td style="width: 74pt;" width="98"><b> Guaranteed</b></td>
<td style="width: 63pt;" width="84"><b> Cap Hit</b></td>
<td style="width: 74pt;" width="98"><b> Dead Money</b></td>
<td style="width: 50pt;" width="67"><b> Age</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2016</td>
<td align="right">$7.04</td>
<td align="right">$8.96</td>
<td align="right">$16</td>
<td align="right">$44.8</td>
<td align="right">31</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2017</td>
<td align="right">$7.04</td>
<td align="right">$8.96</td>
<td align="right">$16</td>
<td align="right">$35.84</td>
<td align="right">32</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2018</td>
<td align="right">$7.04</td>
<td align="right">$8.96</td>
<td align="right">$16</td>
<td align="right">$26.88</td>
<td align="right">33</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2019</td>
<td align="right">$7.04</td>
<td align="right">$8.96</td>
<td align="right">$16</td>
<td align="right">$17.92</td>
<td align="right">34</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2020</td>
<td align="right">$7.04</td>
<td align="right">$8.96</td>
<td align="right">$16</td>
<td align="right">$8.96</td>
<td align="right">35</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
Whatever your opinions are of Flacco's abilities as a quarterback, it would be hard to imagine that this wouldn't be a tempting contract to a number of teams. This imaginary team would be acquiring Flacco for a lower price than what is currently being paid to the likes of piddly old <b>Alex Smith</b>.<br />
<br />
It would also present Flacco with some very interesting incentives to depart Baltimore, or at least use the option of departing as leverage. Despite appearing to be a smaller contract than the previous one we put up in Scenario 1, because of the lower annual cap hits, this actually pays Flacco more actual money. Let's compare what Joe would be pocketing in "future earnings" with these two different situations.<br />
<br />
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 448px;"><colgroup><col style="mso-width-alt: 3072; mso-width-source: userset; width: 63pt;" width="84"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 3364; mso-width-source: userset; width: 69pt;" width="92"></col>
<col span="2" style="width: 48pt;" width="64"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 2925; mso-width-source: userset; width: 60pt;" width="80"></col>
<col style="width: 48pt;" width="64"></col>
</colgroup><tbody>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 63pt;" width="84"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 69pt;" width="92"><b> Scenario 2</b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 60pt;" width="80"><b> Scenario 1</b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><b><br /></b></td>
<td><b> Total</b></td>
<td><b> Avg.</b></td>
<td><b><br /></b></td>
<td><b> Total</b></td>
<td><b> Avg.</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2 yr Income</td>
<td align="right">$58.8</td>
<td align="right">$29.4</td>
<td><br /></td>
<td align="right">$46.6</td>
<td align="right">$23.3</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">3 yr Income</td>
<td align="right">$65.9</td>
<td align="right">$21.9</td>
<td><br /></td>
<td align="right">$57.6</td>
<td align="right">$19.2</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">4 yr Income</td>
<td align="right">$72.9</td>
<td align="right">$18.2</td>
<td><br /></td>
<td align="right">$72.6</td>
<td align="right">$18.1</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
In the first 2 years of these contracts, Scenario 2 (which has Joe leave Baltimore for a new team) would give Flacco <b>$12.2 million</b> in additional earnings, compared to what he would receive in Scenario 1. In the First 3 years, Scenario 2 would give Flacco <b>$8.3 million</b> in additional earnings over the contract in Scenario 1. It isn't until we get 4 years into these two contracts that the gap really closes, with just a margin of <b>$100,000</b> to separate them.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, things are still significantly more complicated than that. While Scenario 1 seems to close the gap after 4 years, this is unlikely to be the case in reality. In Scenario 1 (where he stays with the Ravens), Flacco's cap hit of <b>$22.92 million</b>, versus his dead money hit of <b>$15.84 million, </b>gives the Raven's some incentive to force Flacco into another renegotiation. The Ravens would have some leverage here, since they could save <b>$7.08 million</b> by cutting Flacco prior to his 2019 season.<br />
<br />
Scenario 2 doesn't present such problems for Flacco. He would almost certainly receive every penny promised to him through the first four years of this contract, as it would actually cost this new team <b>$1.92 million</b> more to cut him than keep him at this point in time.<br />
<br />
Compared to the contract in <b>Scenario 1</b>, Joe actually maintains more leverage in this contract over a longer period of time. He additionally makes more money per year, and would theoretically be on a team with more cap space, allowing him to be surrounded by more high priced free agents than the Ravens would be able to provide. <br />
<br />
Ah, but this becomes even more complicated. As we said before, we think it would be borderline suicidal for the Ravens to cut Flacco prior to the 2016 season, even if Flacco refused to renegotiate. In 2017, however, there is a slightly increased (but still unlikely) possibility that releasing him would be doable. If Flacco forced his way off the Ravens' roster in 2017 by still refusing to renegotiate, he could pocket the 2016 <b>$18 million</b> in base salary from his current contract, and then pursue the very same free agent contract we proposed in Scenario 2. Suddenly his overall earnings would gain an additional boost, making departing the Ravens an even more appealing option.<br />
<br />
<b>Scenario 3</b><br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 507px;"><colgroup><col style="mso-width-alt: 2121; mso-width-source: userset; width: 44pt;" width="58"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 3730; mso-width-source: userset; width: 77pt;" width="102"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 3584; mso-width-source: userset; width: 74pt;" width="98"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 3072; mso-width-source: userset; width: 63pt;" width="84"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 3584; mso-width-source: userset; width: 74pt;" width="98"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 2450; mso-width-source: userset; width: 50pt;" width="67"></col>
</colgroup><tbody>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 44pt;" width="58"><b> Year</b></td>
<td style="width: 77pt;" width="102"><b> Base Salary</b></td>
<td style="width: 74pt;" width="98"><b> Guaranteed</b></td>
<td style="width: 63pt;" width="84"><b> Cap Hit</b></td>
<td style="width: 74pt;" width="98"><b> Dead Money</b></td>
<td style="width: 50pt;" width="67"><b> Age</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2016</td>
<td align="right" class="xl24">*$18 </td>
<td align="right" class="xl25">*$10.55 </td>
<td align="right" class="xl25">*$28.55 </td>
<td align="right" class="xl25">*$25.85 </td>
<td align="right">31</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2017</td>
<td align="right">$7.04</td>
<td align="right">$8.96</td>
<td align="right">$16</td>
<td align="right">$44.8</td>
<td align="right">32</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2018</td>
<td align="right">$7.04</td>
<td align="right">$8.96</td>
<td align="right">$16</td>
<td align="right">$35.84</td>
<td align="right">33</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2019</td>
<td align="right">$7.04</td>
<td align="right">$8.96</td>
<td align="right">$16</td>
<td align="right">$26.88</td>
<td align="right">34</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2020</td>
<td align="right">$7.04</td>
<td align="right">$8.96</td>
<td align="right">$16</td>
<td align="right">$17.92</td>
<td align="right">35</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2021</td>
<td align="right">$7.04</td>
<td align="right">$8.96</td>
<td align="right">$16</td>
<td align="right">$8.96</td>
<td align="right">36</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
*Just remember, in Scenario 3, the 2016 base salary is still being paid by the Ravens, rather than Flacco's "new team".<br />
<br />
<br />
Let's also again compare how Flacco's earnings compare under these two scenarios, with the "free agent" Scenario 3 receiving the benefit of this additional <b>$18 million</b> from 2016.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 448px;"><colgroup><col style="mso-width-alt: 3072; mso-width-source: userset; width: 63pt;" width="84"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 3364; mso-width-source: userset; width: 69pt;" width="92"></col>
<col span="2" style="width: 48pt;" width="64"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 2925; mso-width-source: userset; width: 60pt;" width="80"></col>
<col style="width: 48pt;" width="64"></col>
</colgroup><tbody>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 63pt;" width="84"><br /></td>
<td style="width: 69pt;" width="92"><b> Scenario 3</b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 60pt;" width="80"><b> Scenario 1</b></td>
<td style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><br /></td>
<td><b> Total</b></td>
<td><b> Avg.</b></td>
<td><b><br /></b></td>
<td><b> Total</b></td>
<td><b> Avg.</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2 yr Income</td>
<td align="right">$69.8</td>
<td align="right">$34.9</td>
<td><br /></td>
<td align="right">$46.6</td>
<td align="right">$23.3</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">3 yr Income</td>
<td align="right">$76.8</td>
<td align="right">$26.6</td>
<td><br /></td>
<td align="right">$57.6</td>
<td align="right">$19.2</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">4 yr Income</td>
<td align="right">$83.9</td>
<td align="right">$20.9</td>
<td><br /></td>
<td align="right">$72.6</td>
<td align="right">$18.1</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">5 yr Income</td>
<td align="right">$98</td>
<td align="right">$18.1</td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
Now, departing the Ravens after 2016, rather than prior to it, Scenario 3 becomes an even more appealing option. In the first 2 years of Scenario 3, Flacco would receive <b>$23.2</b> million more than he would by staying with the Ravens' Scenario 1 offer. Over the first 3 years, Scenario 3 would pay Flacco <b>$19.2 million</b> more than Scenario 1. Over the first 4 years, Scenario 3 would pay Flacco <b>$11.3 million</b> more than Scenario 1, but then we get back to the question of how likely Flacco is to actually reach year 4 in Scenario 1, without being forced to renegotiate. Under these terms, Flacco would also almost certainly reach year 5 of Scenario 3, which is incredibly unlikely in Scenario 1.<br />
<br />
So, Scenario 3 seems like the best option for Flacco. It nets him more guaranteed money, and more leverage, over a greater period of time. It also puts him on a team that has more cap space, or at least one less burdened by their quarterback's annual cap hit. This also probably gives Joe a better chance of actually winning games in the future, which probably has some modest value to a professional athlete.<br />
<br />
We also shouldn't forget that we are only proposing a fictional free agent contract that pays a mere <b>$16 million</b> per year, to illustrate how cheap it could be for a rival to lure Joe away from the Ravens. It seems quite likely that another team (perhaps the Texans, Browns or Rams) would be willing to pay more per year than the humble amount we are currently suggesting. If that is so, it only further strengthens Flacco's motivations to not renegotiate, and to try to get out of Baltimore. Or, at the very least, it allows Flacco apply significant additional pressure to the Ravens, even beyond his looming cap hit numbers.<br />
<br />
Regardless of how you may view all of this, you have to admit one thing. Whatever Flacco's actual value is, if the Ravens are possibly going to be willing to spend around <b>$22.69 million</b> per year to retain him, it seems reasonable to suggest that some other quarterback needy team would be willing to pay <b>70.5%</b> of that price, which is what our proposed <b>$16 million</b> per year contract works out to. If someone else is willing to pay that much, the Ravens should in theory lose this negotiation, as well as their quarterback. Or, possibly, the Ravens will end up paying a price that nobody else in the league feels it is worth paying for Flacco's services.<br />
<br />
Either possibility could be a bit depressing.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>The Ravens only have themselves to blame. </b><br />
<br />
Of course, all of this is just spit-balling. We really have no idea how this will all work out. Maybe Joe will take a more significant reduction in salary than we think he should. Reilly and I certainly have no stake in how any of this unfolds. Joe isn't going to give us a 10% cut of his new contract, and the Ravens definitely don't take our calls. All we're saying is that we would try to force Joe Flacco out of Baltimore, if we were his agent. We're cruel and heartless bastards. The benefits of leaving seem to outweigh the benefits of sticking around, and we see no reason to believe that Flacco should make his decision based on sentiment or generosity (which is all a bunch of hippie drivel). <br />
<br />
If Joe chose to take this path, we certainly couldn't judge him harshly for it, or call him greedy. It would merely be the result of a poorly structured contract, which gave the player way too much leverage, which is entirely the fault of team management. Some will say that the Ravens were "forced" to resign Flacco, after the team won the Super Bowl in 2012. We would just say that any decision you feel "forced" to make has a much higher likelihood of being a bad one.<br />
<br />
We'll find out soon enough just how bad their next decision will be. <br />
<br />
<br />Sidney Mussburgerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03104367326238874951noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9104858724022491504.post-83220719866516859512015-10-05T20:24:00.000-04:002015-10-05T20:24:02.567-04:00PFFt...In general, Reilly and I don't have any great expectation that the subjects which interest us will be seen as particularly fascinating to other people. For this reason, we tend to be cautious about what topics we bring up, even if it frustrates us a bit. No, we probably shouldn't discus our collection of ear wax. Likewise, our fears about the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNDaOFQ6g2I" target="_blank">Nazis who live on the dark side of the moon</a>, is something we tend to keep to ourselves. We could also discuss our belief that slugs are at the top of the food chain (go ahead, name one person who has survived a slug attack), but we don't mention this very often. Sometimes, we just suspect that the issues we want to explore might
cross certain lines, and we'd prefer to avoid stirring up a kerfuffle. Today,
perhaps foolishly, we decided to pursue one of those unfortunate
subjects that draws our interest.<br />
<br />
The topic we want to examine this time is PFF (<a href="https://www.profootballfocus.com/?tab=by_position&season=2009&pos=HB&stype=r&runpass=&teamid=-1&numsnaps=25&numgames=1" target="_blank">Pro Football Focus</a>). Now, to be perfectly clear, we generally like PFF (sort of), and appreciate the statistical data they provide to the football geeks of the world. Being critical of what they do makes us feel a bit uncomfortable, particularly since they are a well established site ($$$), while we rely on the prognostications of a dog (-$$$). Even if we don't always agree with PFF, at least they're trying to apply clearly stated and measurable standards to their analysis of football, and this matters to us. Geek on geek crime is not something we want to engage in, particularly since analysis of the NFL still hasn't really emerged as something that the football world has strongly embraced yet. Still, despite some wariness, there are some concerns we have with PFF, that we felt we should discuss.<br />
<br />
For those amongst you who aren't familiar with PFF, they run a site that accumulates data from NFL games, and attempt to analyze what all this raw information supposedly means. It is an attempt to give us a better understanding of the game, something we feel is rather important, or at least interesting. Reilly and I frequently agree with their assessments of particular players, and often make references to them. Admittedly, we are more likely to quote PFF when they agree with us, and ignore them when they don't. That's just the sort of unreliable assholes we are. Regardless, the information they compile is greatly appreciated by many of the NFL numbers geeks of the world, as it is a challenging task to assemble such quantities of data, and is beyond the means of individuals such as ourselves.<br />
<br />
Where we sometimes run into problems with PFF, is in their analysis of these mountains of data. Different positions require different sorts of examinations, since productivity for a defensive lineman is obviously different than it would be for a wide receiver. So, based on these different sets of criteria, PFF assigns "grades" in the areas they feel are relevant to the position in question. The grades themselves are fairly meaningless on their own, and merely a tool for directly comparing players within a given position group. These numerical grades, either positive or negative, are also highlighted in either green (good!), or red (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nApazedQ7-E" target="_blank">FIRE BAD!</a>), to give the casual observer a sense as to whether a particular player is performing at an above average level (or not). This leads to an incredibly simple way of appraising players, though we suspect it is probably a bit too simple...and frequently a bit idiotic.<br />
<br />
These grades, and this sort of analysis, is extremely results oriented. Getting a sack, is better than not getting a sack. Catching the ball, is better than not catching the ball. This is all fairly obvious. While Reilly and I certainly don't want to downplay the importance of actual results, sometimes things get lost in these sorts of examinations. Sometimes the results fail to convey <b>why</b> a player was able to perform well. Sometimes we miss out on the context, which might better explain what is really happening. <br />
<br />
I suppose our primary question/criticism is very simple, though its validity depends on what you believe should be the main goal of people who analyze the NFL. Do we want to know who produced the best numbers? Or, do we want to know who the best player is, even if their environment isn't exactly helping them out? PFF might be able to answer the first question, at least to some degree. The second question is vastly more complicated, and is the topic we want to take a look at today.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Flip a coin: Mediocrity or Star</b><br />
<br />
Let's consider the subject of offensive lineman. We ramble a lot about offensive linemen around here, and I think that our fascination stems from how boring a subject this probably is to most people. Plus, fat guys in tight outfits are kind of funny.<br />
<br />
When examining the performance of offensive lineman, PFF's criteria is fairly simple and easy to understand. The method for grading these players comes mainly from two separate areas, their run blocking grade and their pass blocking grade. For now, to keep things simple, we're just going to discuss how the pass blocking grade works...or doesn't.<br />
<br />
Essentially, PFF simply tallies up the number of total pass attempts that a lineman was on the field for, and calculates what percentage of the time this lineman managed to keep their quarterback from being sacked. This percentage is referred to as the player's <b>Pass Blocking Efficiency</b>, and superficially it seems to make some sort of sense. Dead quarterback = bad. Living quarterback = good. Refer to PFF's handy red or green color code if you still need further clarification.<br />
<br />
Now, let's talk about truth with a capital "T". While Reilly and I are inclined to believe in the merits of examining NFL players based on their measured athletic ability, and statistical production, there are limitations to how much you want to trust such things. Very simple statistics can suggest that there is an argument to be made that a player might be pretty good. They don't necessarily always reveal the complete truth though, and sometimes you need to dig a bit deeper. Do I really believe that the player who allowed the fewest sacks, is in fact the best pass blocker? Or, do I think these outcomes can be influenced by numerous complicated factors?<br />
<br />
Let's use two players, <b>Ryan Clady</b> and <b>Orlando Franklin</b>, to provide an example of how the value of this sort of data can become a bit murky.<br />
<br />
In <b>2011</b>, Ryan Clady was rated as PFF's <b>40th</b> ranked offensive tackle (among tackles who played for 50% of their team's total snaps), when it came to pass blocking. Since there are 32 teams, each with 2 starting tackles per team (for a total of <b>64</b>...yes, we know you could do the math), that would mean Clady was viewed by PFF as being a somewhat below average tackle in 2011. Then, in <b>2012</b>, Ryan Clady was strangely ranked as the league's <b>4th</b> best tackle (again, when compared to tackles who played for 50% of their team's total snaps), when it came to pass blocking. That's a fairly remarkable rise in the rankings, going from the 40th slot, to the 4th, in just a year's time. What exactly happened here?<br />
<br />
Now, let's look at Orlando Franklin, who played at the opposite tackle position from Clady, for the Denver Broncos. In <b>2011</b>, Franklin's pass blocking had him ranked as PFF's <b>41st</b> rated offensive tackle, just one slot shy of where we found his teammate Ryan Clady in that year. Just like with Ryan Clady, this rating would seem to suggest that Franklin performed like a somewhat below average tackle in 2011. Then, in the following year, <b>2012</b>, Franklin's pass blocking performance had him ranked as PFF's <b>8th</b> rated offensive tackle. Again, Franklin's rating for this year was just a tad behind where we found Ryan Clady had surged to, and near the top of the league. That all seems a bit peculiar, doesn't it? <br />
<br />
Though some people may disagree, Reilly and I tend to think that a player is what he is. The "talent" of a player should be somewhat fixed. Though experience may lead to improvement, and injury can make one decline, it seems unlikely that what a player is doing from year to year would radically change, even if the outcome from his efforts might vary significantly. Yet, PFF seems to be suggesting that both of these tackles, playing on the same team at the same time, went from performing at a below average level to suddenly being among the top players at their position, at the same time, over the course of just one year.<br />
<br />
What exactly is PFF telling us about these players, and is there any way to figure out why there opinion changed so radically? Is PFF telling us anything about the quality of these players, or merely pointing towards the circumstances they might have struggled with? <br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6UCkugXn4Y" target="_blank"><b>The sleeper must awaken!</b></a><br />
<br />
Of course, there is a pretty obvious answer as to why PFF's opinion of these players shifted so dramatically in just one year. Something very significant happened in 2012 for the Denver Broncos, which likely benefited every player on the team's offense. This was the arrival of that scrappy, unknown quarterback <b>Peyton Manning</b>, who came to replace the heaven-sent <b>Tim Tebow</b>. Ryan Clady and Orlando Franklin probably didn't change what they were doing at all, from 2011 to 2012. It seems more likely that it was the perception of their performance that changed, now that they were protecting a <strike>competent</strike> different quarterback.<br />
<br />
Let's consider what the sack rate has been for quarterbacks in Denver, both before and after Manning's arrival. Below, we will list these sack rates (the percentage of passing plays by the team that resulted in a sack), along with the name of the team's primary quarterback in each year. We're also including the rate at which the team's quarterback was hurried, even though we personally place much less value on this, and think it is a statistic of questionable worth.<br />
<br />
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 350px;"><colgroup><col style="width: 48pt;" width="64"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 2816; mso-width-source: userset; width: 58pt;" width="77"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 2962; mso-width-source: userset; width: 61pt;" width="81"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 4681; mso-width-source: userset; width: 96pt;" width="128"></col>
</colgroup><tbody>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 48pt;" width="64"><b>Broncos</b></td>
<td style="width: 58pt;" width="77"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 61pt;" width="81"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 96pt;" width="128"><b><br /></b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><b> Year</b></td>
<td><b> Sack %</b></td>
<td><b> Hurry %</b></td>
<td><b> Primary QB</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2007</td>
<td align="right">5.15</td>
<td align="right">21.74</td>
<td> J.Cutler</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2008</td>
<td align="right">2.05</td>
<td align="right">21.77</td>
<td> J.Cutler</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2009</td>
<td align="right">5.58</td>
<td align="right">23.11</td>
<td> K.Orton</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2010</td>
<td align="right">5.69</td>
<td align="right">25.68</td>
<td> K.Orton</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2011</td>
<td align="right">7.14</td>
<td align="right">34.96</td>
<td> T. Tebow</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2012</td>
<td align="right">3.13</td>
<td align="right">11.39</td>
<td> P. Manning</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2013</td>
<td align="right">2.31</td>
<td align="right">17.18</td>
<td> P. Manning</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2014</td>
<td align="right">2.09</td>
<td align="right">14.82</td>
<td> P. Manning</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
So, in the years from 2007 to 2011, Broncos' quarterbacks were getting sacked on average about <b>5.12%</b> of the time. Those would arguably be fairly average results for an NFL team. Only Jay Cutler's 2008 season was a significant improvement in this area (<b>2.05%</b>), and this fluky season probably contributed a great deal towards people's inflated opinion of him, and fed into to the Bears' eagerness to trade for Cutler. Tebow's 2011 season, was clearly fairly horrible, with a <b>7.14%</b> sack rate. From 2012 through the 2014 season, the Manning led Broncos had a sack rate that averaged <b>2.51%</b>, or about half the average rate of sacks prior to his arrival, or <b>2.84</b> times better than it was in Tebow's 2011 season.<br />
<br />
That sort of shift could clearly influence people's opinion of how the Broncos offensive line was performing, but how likely is it that a quarterback can really have that sort of effect on a team's sack rate? Well, let's take a look at what happened to the Indianapolis Colts, both before and after Manning's departure.<br />
<br />
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 350px;"><colgroup><col style="width: 48pt;" width="64"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 2816; mso-width-source: userset; width: 58pt;" width="77"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 2962; mso-width-source: userset; width: 61pt;" width="81"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 4681; mso-width-source: userset; width: 96pt;" width="128"></col>
</colgroup><tbody>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 48pt;" width="64"><b>Colts</b></td>
<td style="width: 58pt;" width="77"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 61pt;" width="81"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 96pt;" width="128"><b><br /></b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><b> Year</b></td>
<td><b> Sack %</b></td>
<td><b> Hurry %</b></td>
<td><b> Primary QB</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2007</td>
<td align="right">2.99</td>
<td align="right">29.76</td>
<td> P. Manning</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2008</td>
<td align="right">2.33</td>
<td align="right">25.29</td>
<td> P. Manning</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2009</td>
<td align="right">1.79</td>
<td align="right">19.46</td>
<td> P. Manning</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2010</td>
<td align="right">2.16</td>
<td align="right">22.09</td>
<td> P. Manning</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2011</td>
<td align="right">5.82</td>
<td align="right">21.16</td>
<td> Painter/Orlovsky</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2012</td>
<td align="right">5.13</td>
<td align="right">29.93</td>
<td> A. Luck</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2013</td>
<td align="right">5.05</td>
<td align="right">25.25</td>
<td> A. Luck</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2014</td>
<td align="right">3.36</td>
<td align="right">22.69</td>
<td> A. Luck</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
In the years from 2007 to 2010, the chart above shows that the Manning led Colts averaged a sack on <b>2.31%</b> of their passing plays. That's roughly the same sack rate that we saw for Manning in Denver, and a fairly ridiculous result. In the years from 2011 through 2014, after Manning's departure, the Colts have averaged a sack on <b>4.84%</b> of their passing plays, which again is about twice the rate of the Manning led years. That's not a terrible result, but it is also quite similar to how the pre-Manning era in Broncos performed. While Andrew Luck may be improving in this area, based on his 2014 sack rate of <b>3.36%</b>, it is difficult to say whether his results will ever reach Manning's level in this area.<br />
<br />
Admittedly, having Manning change teams gave us a somewhat rare opportunity to examine the degree to which these sorts of peculiar and positive effects are transferable, from one team to another. Great players often spend the majority of their career in one city, which makes dissecting their real impact complicated. Dropping them into a different environment, is often the closest we can really get to having a control group. The only other way we get to test these sorts of things is when someone is injured.<br />
<br />
That brings us to <b>Tom Brady</b>, and the time he missed the 2008 season due to a leg injury, and we witnessed the emergence of <b>Matt Cassel</b>. We'll leave out the 'hurry' statistics this time.<br />
<br />
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 286px;"><colgroup><col style="mso-width-alt: 2816; mso-width-source: userset; width: 58pt;" width="77"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 2962; mso-width-source: userset; width: 61pt;" width="81"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 4681; mso-width-source: userset; width: 96pt;" width="128"></col>
</colgroup><tbody>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 58pt;" width="77"><b>Patriots</b></td>
<td style="width: 61pt;" width="81"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="width: 96pt;" width="128"><b><br /></b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><b> Year</b></td>
<td><b> Sack %</b></td>
<td><b> Primary QB</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2007</td>
<td align="right">2.81</td>
<td> T. Brady</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2008</td>
<td align="right">7.93</td>
<td> M. Cassel</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td align="right" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">2009</td>
<td align="right">2.95</td>
<td> T. Brady</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Now, I suspect everyone will recall the 2008 Patriots season, and I suspect everyone will also recall the degree to which people scrutinized the way Matt Cassel filled in for the injured Tom Brady. For the most part, people seemed to feel that Cassel filled in somewhat admirably for Brady, and in this atmosphere of deranged optimism the Chiefs traded <b>Mike Vrabel</b> and a high 2nd round draft pick to acquire Cassel. They would also quickly give Cassel a $62 million contract extension. What was overlooked in all of this lunacy was the precipitous drop in sack rate that occurred during Cassel's time under center for the Patriots. The Patriots were getting their QB sacked <b>2.82</b> times as often in 2008, while Cassel was under center, as they were in 2007. When Brady would return in 2009, the sack rate would magically go back to very much the same place it was prior to his injury. There was clearly something missing with Cassel, that Brady seemed to possess.<br />
<br />
The real question here is, do you think the Patriots offensive line was performing exceptionally in 2007, suddenly decided to tank in 2008, and then miraculously got their shit together in 2009?<br />
<br />
Now, admittedly, using Peyton Manning and Tom Brady as an example of how a quarterback can influence a team's sack rate, can cause people to jump to some weird conclusions. These guys are clearly rather peculiar players, and their influence over this aspect of the game is a bit unusual. We're obviously not trying to suggest that all 'elite' (uggh, the "e"
word) quarterbacks have this sort of effect on the results of their
offensive line. They don't. From quarterback to quarterback, the
ability to influence a team's sack rate can be wildly different. For instance, we suspect that <b>Alex Smith</b> kind of makes offensive linemen look terrible, whether in San Francisco or in Kansas City, though that might be a subject for another day.. Without putting
each player into a different environment, or having a method of
establishing a control group, it's difficult to really pin down the
precise degree to which one player influences the outcome of another.<br />
<br />
Still, we do know that that this sort of influence from the QB position happens, even if we can't always perfectly measure it.<br />
<br />
So, does it seem as if the person playing quarterback might have a
fairly stunning influence on the public's perception of how the offensive line is
performing? Does it seem likely that transitioning from Tim Tebow to Peyton Manning, was probably the key factor in how the performance of these Ryan Clady and Orlando Franklin was perceived by PFF? It certainly seems that way to us. It really makes us
wonder to what extent we should take PFF's grades for many of
these things seriously, when their evaluation of a player seems like it could shift with the wind. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Context is a bitch. </b><br />
<br />
In this particular case, we were only discussing how an offensive lineman's pass blocking efficiency can be influenced by the person he is protecting. The context of the situation does appear to matter, and this is something PFF frequently glosses over, or outright ignores. Unfortunately, this lack of context is an issue that arises at nearly every position one can discuss.<br />
<br />
When examining pass rushers, PFF brings out their <b>Pass Rushing Efficiency</b> grades, which are effectively the same thing as the Pass Blocking Efficiency grades, only turned on their head. It becomes a simple calculation of how often a player was sent after the QB, and what percentage of the time this resulted in a sack (or a hurry). Now, should a lone pass rusher be evaluated solely on the rate at which he gets to the quarterback, with no consideration given to how his teammates might affect his results? Maybe a defensive end who gets 8 sacks, on a team that only produced 30 sacks in total, is more impressive than a similar player who produced twelve on a team that had 39 total sacks? Maybe these two players are effectively the same? Maybe it's not simply the rate at which sacks are produced by a player, but the degree to which a team's pass rush can come from multiple players, versus one isolated and therefore easily blocked individual? <br />
<br />
Is a wide receiver going to perform better when playing with one of the
league's top quarterbacks? Could having a viable receiving threat on
the other side of the field influence a receivers' ability to perform? <br />
<br />
Context...context...context. It always matters, and yet frequently gets ignored by PFF, because it is probably the most difficult part of examining the NFL, and also perhaps the most meaningful question that needs to be solved. Identifying how and why a player produces results, should get us closer to understanding who is actually contributing the most, rather than who is merely producing numbers.<br />
<br />
If
Player X performs to the PFF standard one day, they will be graded
well.
If Player X perform poorly in the next game out, they will get a poor
grade. If Player X has a bunch of lovely green grades, with positive
numbers,
will that trend continue when he is placed on another team? PFF can't/won't
say, because their goal clearly isn't to predict the future. PFF are
basically like weathermen, who can only tell you if it rained
yesterday. Of course this approach doesn't really answer our real question, what is the
true nature of Player X? Is he essentially good, or a bum? <br />
<br />
Interestingly, we think PFF has placed themselves in a
position where they will never have to admit that they are wrong. The complex soup of the NFL, and the way teams assemble their rosters, can make pursuing the answers to particular questions very difficult. That may be where the true genius of PFF really lies. Rarely, if ever, do I see them say "according the this statistic, we feel that this player is the best at their position". Instead, they frequently just list players in order, according to their grades in a particular area, and let you come to the conclusion "Hey, this guy must be the best!". PFF's pretty numbers may nudge you in a particular direction, but you wind up at this conclusion all on your own.<br />
<br />
Maybe PFF is misleading. I don't know, and I'm not sure I would really want to say anything about that. All I can say is that the degree to which PFF's statistics are being taken for gospel (at least by some people), might be a bit premature, and it makes me a bit uncomfortable. It's particularly worrisome when I see some fans, reporters and game day announcers, discussing PFF grades without really digging into the subject itself, or questioning what the numbers are based upon. Don't get me wrong. PFF does have valuable information buried in their numbers, but people need to really analyze them, and question what the data means, rather than blindly trusting PFF's interpretation of the facts.<br />
<br />
There's also a certain utility in these statistics, which can be destructive. Even when the numbers are possibly flawed, or being applied incorrectly, they can be used to intimidate others, and end debates. The analysis of what is really going on in football is still so clearly in its infancy, that silencing discussion would seem to be unfortunate, and counterproductive to our real goals. <br />
<br />
I suppose Reilly and I were also motivated to broach this subject because of a recent announcement made by PFF, about how they will be conducting their business in the future. Going forward, it appears PFF will no longer provide access to their raw data (a useful tool to many of us geeks), and instead only deliver their processed and pasteurized grades for players (pretty much worthless). So, they will continue to provide their analysis of the data, while removing access to the data upon which their judgment is based from the eyes of the public. As a friend pointed out upon hearing this announcement, they will effectively be charging people for the sort of "Overall Grades" that you find in the Madden video games. Added context, or second guessing their interpretation of the data, clearly aren't something PFF is interested in.<br />
<br />
As they also mention in this announcement, this new (inferior) form of data they will be providing, will be the same as the data that they provide to 19 NFL teams. If it doesn't worry you that NFL teams could potentially be making decisions based on the grades that PFF has been providing, well, welcome to the new NFL. Personally, I'm a bit annoyed about where this is all leading.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Sidney Mussburgerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03104367326238874951noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9104858724022491504.post-48069383531152180682015-09-09T12:58:00.000-04:002015-09-09T12:58:16.894-04:00Jackson Jeffcoat vs. Trent MurphyThis might be a subject that is only interesting to me and Reilly. That's probably pretty typical of the stuff we write about around here. Nevertheless, we're really fascinated by the competition that is quietly occurring between Redskins' outside linebackers <b>Jackson Jeffcoat</b> and <b>Trent Murphy</b>.<br />
<br />
Part of what draws our attention to this subject <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2014/03/kangaroo-court-2014-des-3-4-olbs.html" target="_blank">goes back to the 2014 NFL Draft</a>. As always, we plugged each player's available data into the computer, and it gave us our projected draft grades for where we would have been willing to select each of them. We ended up assigning 3rd round draft grades to both of Murphy and Jeffcoat, and
actually found that we had to parse the data a bit more thoroughly to
really distinguish one player from the other.<br />
<br />
Athletically, they both measured up as remarkably similar players. They both fell into our category of <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2013/07/high-agility-pass-rushers.html" target="_blank"><b>High Agility Pass Rushers</b></a>, which is a group that tends to be a bit less likely to achieve stardom, but a group that you still can't ignore completely. Weird and wonderful outcomes do occasionally show up with these sorts of players. Perhaps even more interesting, at least for this comparison, this is also a category of pass rushers that <b>Junior Galette</b> also falls into, and he is the player whom they would both be competing to fill in for. When it came to their statistical production in college, Muprhy and Jeffcoat also fell into somewhat similar categories, once we adjusted the results for college games missed due to injuries. It still remained a bit difficult to predict who was likely to have a better NFL career.<br />
<br />
In the end, we ended up examining their collegiate statistical production even more thoroughly. We tried to factor in their age, the degree to which their respective teams might be relying on them, and the advantages they might have had when it came to their team playing with a lead. We also compared these factors to many of the players from the past, who have gone on the become obvious successes in the NFL. This added approach became something that interested us, and is something we've started to quietly apply to other players, though it's still something we are fiddling with.<br />
<br />
We came to the conclusion that if we had to bet on one of these players, we would have to put our money down on Jackson Jeffcoat. We also started to feel just a tad nervous about the quality of the 3rd round grade we had for Trent Murphy.<br />
<br />
<b>Where their paths sadly diverged.</b><br />
<br />
Trent Murphy would go on to be selected in the 2nd round (47th overall pick), by the Washington Redskins, just a bit higher than where the computer suggested that he should be considered. Jackson Jeffcoat, to many people's surprise, would wind up not being selected at all.<br />
<br />
It's still not entirely clear why nobody selected Jeffcoat, as he was generally discussed as a fairly popular prospect. I don't really recall any discussion of unfortunate 'off the field issues', that often explain these kinds of occurrences. The only possible explanation I have heard is that Jeffcoat had dealt with some injury issues in college. The severity and long term impact of these injuries was difficult to judge. Still, even if that was the issue, we would have expected someone to select him with a late round pick. It was all a bit of a mystery.<br />
<br />
Regardless, after being picked up as an undrafted free agent by the Seahawks, we kept our eye on Jeffcoat, but is was all for nothing. The team released him after the 2014 preseason, which wasn't encouraging. Shortly thereafter, the Redskins would pick him up, assigning Jeffcoat to their practice squad. That's when things became <b>very</b> interesting to us.<br />
<br />
Suddenly, we had these two peculiar prospects, whom we had previously directly compared to each other, playing on the same team, and competing at the same position. It was truly a moment of dork-tastic joy for us. <br />
<br />
<b>So, what happened?</b><br />
<br />
Well, not much.<br />
<br />
As you would expect, the player whom the Redskins had invested a high draft pick in (Murphy), had a clear advantage, and saw actual playing time much earlier in the 2014 season. Until week 16, Jeffcoat would only be on the field for 1 single snap. For week 16 and 17, however, we got to see a very brief glimpse of what Jeffcoat might be capable of doing, if given a chance.<br />
<br />
Despite the advantages or disadvantages that each player might have possessed, I though we would put up their statistical production from 2014, including their number of games played/started, as well as their total snaps played.<br />
<br />
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 523px;"><colgroup><col style="mso-width-alt: 3547; mso-width-source: userset; width: 73pt;" width="97"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 1938; mso-width-source: userset; width: 40pt;" width="53"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 1755; mso-width-source: userset; width: 36pt;" width="48"></col>
<col span="3" style="width: 48pt;" width="64"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 1792; mso-width-source: userset; width: 37pt;" width="49"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 1572; mso-width-source: userset; width: 32pt;" width="43"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 1499; mso-width-source: userset; width: 31pt;" width="41"></col>
</colgroup><tbody>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td class="xl22" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 73pt;" width="97"><b>2014
Season</b></td>
<td class="xl22" style="width: 40pt;" width="53"><b><br /></b></td>
<td class="xl22" style="width: 36pt;" width="48"><b><br /></b></td>
<td class="xl22" style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
<td class="xl22" style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
<td class="xl22" style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
<td class="xl22" style="width: 37pt;" width="49"><b><br /></b></td>
<td class="xl22" style="width: 32pt;" width="43"><b><br /></b></td>
<td class="xl22" style="width: 31pt;" width="41"><b><br /></b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td class="xl22" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><b>Player</b></td>
<td class="xl22"><b> GP</b></td>
<td class="xl22"><b> GS</b></td>
<td class="xl22"><b> Snaps</b></td>
<td class="xl22"><b> Tackles</b></td>
<td class="xl22"><b> Sacks</b></td>
<td class="xl22"><b> PDef</b></td>
<td class="xl22"><b> Int.</b></td>
<td class="xl22"><b> FF</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td class="xl22" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">T. Murphy</td>
<td align="right">16</td>
<td align="right">8</td>
<td align="right">595</td>
<td align="right">32</td>
<td align="right">2.5</td>
<td align="right">1</td>
<td align="right">0</td>
<td align="right">2</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td class="xl22" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">J. Jeffcoat</td>
<td align="right">3</td>
<td align="right">1</td>
<td align="right">118</td>
<td align="right">5</td>
<td align="right">1</td>
<td align="right">1</td>
<td align="right">1</td>
<td align="right">0</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
Now, it is admittedly a bit difficult to really compare the performance of these two players based solely on this limited snapshot of their results. Murphy started 8 times as many games, and was on the field for about 5 times as many snaps as Jeffcoat. Even attempting to compare a player based solely on their stat sheets is something that would likely just lead to arguments, though I think most of us would agree that we prefer to see players producing measurable results.<br />
<br />
I also have no interest in condemning or criticizing Trent Murphy. That's not our goal here. Based solely on his statistical production, I would say that Murphy produced respectable/tolerable enough results for a rookie outside linebacker, even if I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that he set the world on fire with his play.<br />
<br />
What does interest me, is what happens if we try to extrapolate Jackson Jeffcoat's results over a full 16 game season, and compare this to Trent Murphy"s results. This would also be a highly questionable thing to do, since the sample size for Jeffcoat in 2014 was <b>very</b> small, and could lead to some extremely debatable conclusions. Despite all of that, I am intrigued by an undrafted player who can come off the bench, and produce a sack and an interception, even in very limited playing time. There are generally good reasons to be doubtful about the prospects of most undrafted players, or players who have fallen into a backup role. Yet when Jeffcoat was finally allowed on the field, he did seem to make his presence known, at least to some extent.<br />
<br />
Of course, sacks and interceptions tend to be flashy plays, that frequently have too much emphasis placed on them, especially in the confines of the small sample size we are looking at here. So, we'll try not to get carried away with our irrational optimism.<br />
<br />
<b>Looking towards the 2015 season.</b><br />
<br />
That leads us to what happened in the 2015 NFL preseason, that brief window in which we get to see some of the less talked about players, as they compete to be noticed. Once again, Reilly and I found ourselves drawn to what might be happening between Murphy and Jeffcoat, and we were encouraged by what we saw.<br />
<br />
Let's take a look at the results for each of these two players through 4 preseason games. This time we'll leave out the games started/played stat, since it is a bit meaningless in the preseason. <br />
<br />
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 445px;"><colgroup><col style="mso-width-alt: 4388; mso-width-source: userset; width: 90pt;" width="120"></col>
<col span="3" style="width: 48pt;" width="64"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 1792; mso-width-source: userset; width: 37pt;" width="49"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 1572; mso-width-source: userset; width: 32pt;" width="43"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 1499; mso-width-source: userset; width: 31pt;" width="41"></col>
</colgroup><tbody>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td class="xl24" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 90pt;" width="120"><b>2015
Preseason</b></td>
<td class="xl24" style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
<td class="xl24" style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
<td class="xl24" style="width: 48pt;" width="64"><b><br /></b></td>
<td class="xl24" style="width: 37pt;" width="49"><b><br /></b></td>
<td class="xl24" style="width: 32pt;" width="43"><b><br /></b></td>
<td class="xl24" style="width: 31pt;" width="41"><b><br /></b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td class="xl24" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><b>Player</b></td>
<td class="xl24"><b>Snaps</b></td>
<td class="xl24"><b> Tackles</b></td>
<td class="xl24"><b> Sacks</b></td>
<td class="xl24"><b> PDef</b></td>
<td class="xl24"><b> Int.</b></td>
<td class="xl24"><b> FF</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td class="xl24" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">T. Murphy</td>
<td><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> 84</span></td>
<td align="right">3 </td>
<td align="right">0 </td>
<td align="right">1 </td>
<td align="right">0 </td>
<td align="right">0</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td class="xl24" height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">J. Jeffcoat</td>
<td><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> 89</span></td>
<td align="right">7 </td>
<td align="right">4 </td>
<td align="right">1 </td>
<td align="right">1 </td>
<td align="right">1</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
When given an opportunity to play in an almost identical number of snaps, Jeffcoat really made a rather good impression. The number of high impact plays he was involved in actually strikes me as fairly stunning, particularly since this wasn't just the product of merely one good game. In every single preseason game, Jeffcoat managed to get to the quarterback for a sack, which we still feel is the primary purpose for this type of outside linebacker. The additional interception and forced fumble, are just nice added bonuses.<br />
<br />
We could also talk about their tackle numbers, though most people don't seem to be interested in the statistical geekery that surrounds that subject. This is where we get into the discussion of "stops", which relates to where a tackle was made on the field, which determines whether it was a true victory for the defense, as opposed to a more meaningless down the field type of tackle. Of Jackson's 7 credited tackles, 6 were considered to be stops by <a href="https://www.profootballfocus.com/" target="_blank">PFF</a>, which works out to <b>85.7%</b>. In Trent Murphy's 3 credited tackles, PFF only viewed 1 to be a successful stop, which is just <b>33.3%</b>.<br />
<br />
Again, none of this is meant to be a judgment of Murphy. There's plenty of room to debate how these results come about in preseason games, especially with how these players are rotated onto the field. The degree to which they faced comparable levels of talent from their opposition, based on this rotation, is hard to say. We're really just interested in the differences in how these two player's are currently being perceived by the public, and by their own team.<br />
<br />
<b>We don't believe in hope.</b><br />
<br />
I suppose the reason we really find this comparison interesting stems from the way we hear people discussing these two players. Through the preseason, it was largely assumed that Trent Murphy's starting role with the team was secure. Jackson Jeffcoat, on the other hand, was being mentioned in numerous articles that discussed whether he was "on the bubble", and someone who might not even make the team's roster at all (though he eventually did make the team). I have to admit that I find this to be incredibly bizarre. Is there any explanation for this, beyond the favoritism that is shown towards players with a higher draft status? I really don't know, though I have my suspicions. <br />
<br />
In the limited time that these two players had to demonstrate their skills and potential impact, it would seem to me that one of them (Jeffcoat) made the debate very interesting. Murphy, on the other hand, seems to be getting a lot of goodwill faith placed in him, despite making a relatively unexceptional impact, at least so far. I realize that some people will say that what went on in the team's practices probably played just as important a role in how the Redskins viewed these players. Unfortunately, that sort of falls into the realm of "coaches have an eye for talent", which makes me a tad nervous. After all, I come from a magical place where people once heralded Kyle Boller as a potential savior. Basing decisions off of measurable results just makes me more comfortable. In that area, Jeffcoat is, at the very least, very intriguing.<br />
<br />
While I wouldn't consider myself an advocate for making Jeffcoat an immediate starter, based merely off of these relatively small samples, the idea that the team could have potentially cut him in favor of Murphy strikes me as a bit peculiar. At the very least, you would think rotating both of these players onto the field, until a clear victor emerges might be the sensible thing to do. I also don't really see it as presenting much real risk to the team. Still, I sort of doubt that this will happen. Teams seem to have a strong belief in the hierarchy and value of draft status, and shaking off labels such as 'starter" or 'backup' is only done with much difficulty. It is unfortunate.<br />
<br />
While I can't say that we are optimistic about the possibility of a true, honest and open competition ever occurring between these players, we are curious as to how it will all play out.<br />
<br />Sidney Mussburgerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03104367326238874951noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9104858724022491504.post-14603887240721187062015-06-16T13:42:00.000-04:002016-10-15T21:08:21.452-04:00I Was Bored: The Amp & PreampI've been feeling very, very bored. It hasn't helped, that Reilly has been a bit grumpy with me lately, and hasn't seen fit to discuss his thoughts on the steroid fueled sociopaths which normally are the topics of our mindless prattling. Reilly's silence has left a bit of a void in my life. So, I thought I would briefly branch off into a different subject that interests me.<br />
<br />
Over the years, I've gradually had to accept the idea that most of the subjects that draw my attention are rather tedious, pointless, and perhaps less than ideal for maintaining my mental stability. My OCD tends to steer me in directions that probably serve no practical or useful purpose, yet I can spend a ridiculous amount of time trying to better understand the subjects that pique my curiosity. I have an unfortunately large number of these sorts of hobbies, and while they are all superficially quite different, I think they are all united by an underlying need to drive myself crazy. <br />
<br />
One of these areas of obsessiveness is the subject of somewhat exotic home stereo equipment. I think this fascination all started when I was a wee lad, and a friend of mine dragged me around to some of the more bizarre shops in my town, exposing me to the dreaded realm of the audiofools. It's a strange world, that is heavily driven by outrageous marketing, targeted at fart-sniffing jazz aficionados who think that Citroen makes respectable automobiles. Almost certainly, 90% of it is pure bullshit, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzNTptFf9EU" target="_blank">but the remaining 10% can be quite nifty</a>. Like many of the things that interest me, there are frequent uses of the saying "it is more of an art, than a science", when describing why one piece of equipment was supposedly better than another. That's an attitude that always irritates me, and probably launched me in a rather questionable direction, trying to better understand how these gadgets actually work.<br />
<br />
After building an impractical number of speakers, fiddling with the design of crossovers, and discovering an irrational love of soldering, it seemed like it was time to add some new and unnecessary complications to my life. I thought I would start mucking about with amplifiers. In retrospect, this all seems a bit foolish, since I only own one CD, which is just a collection of Hawaiian crooner Don Ho's greatest hits, but sometimes you <b><i>really </i></b>need <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t45DKmtzTHo" target="_blank">Tiny Bubbles</a> to sound its absolute best. Yes, this song is constantly playing on repeat at my house. It is absolute perfection.<br />
<br />
For one of my more recent projects, I was really feeling drawn to the idea of building an amplifier that used lateral MOSFETs in the output stage. Santa Claus probably finds himself perpetually bombarded with children expressing their passion and desire for lateral MOSFET transistors. They really make an ideal stocking stuffer. While these output devices have their strengths and weaknesses, I have to admit that my main reason for going in this direction was that the available supply of these types of transistors is gradually becoming more and more difficult to get a hold of, so there was no time like the present to build something that utilized them. When hospitals stop administering electro-shock therapy, I'll probably be the first in line to experience that too, before the opportunity is gone. That's just how I operate.<br />
<br />
Since Rod Elliott (<a href="http://sound.westhost.com/articles.htm" target="_blank">ESP</a>)
offers PCBs for his P101, which is designed around a lateral MOSFET output stage, this
simplified things quite a bit. After fiddling with his design in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPICE" target="_blank">SPICE</a>,
the design of his boards seemed to be capable of providing good
results, and appeared to offer the ability to make additional modifications further down the road. So, another adventure began, to build a simple class AB two channel amplifier. (Sorry for the quality of the pictures, but photography isn't one of my skills).<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrtTPo2UJRERgm2AddYCpLkbpQGhweIP4JkKXP3Teoeu-8Ox0lI20lYdfnQSF6t5YD8mvav0Lu1j2YTvr6hodjqfo0vBIqgLmLugCMQkaimKlCNN5bm-4aaAMpdOZRxBu2KorZQkd-0a4/s1600/ampanglefrontb.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrtTPo2UJRERgm2AddYCpLkbpQGhweIP4JkKXP3Teoeu-8Ox0lI20lYdfnQSF6t5YD8mvav0Lu1j2YTvr6hodjqfo0vBIqgLmLugCMQkaimKlCNN5bm-4aaAMpdOZRxBu2KorZQkd-0a4/s640/ampanglefrontb.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
Okey-dokey, let's talk about some of the technical nonsense that will probably only interest maybe 3 people (that's probably optimistic). The power supply in this amp consists of an 800 VA toroidal transformer, with 40 volt AC secondaries. This gets fed through dual rectifiers, followed by a capacitor bank that has 27,200 μF of capacitance per rail, after which it is putting out about 57 volts +/- DC. Some people like to get excited about truly obscene amounts of capacitance in their power supplies, but I haven't been convinced of the benefits of this so far, and feel the amount of capacitance here is already more than adequate. It's biased to about 30 mA, though I occasionally screw with this for no apparent reason. The DC offset on each channel is about 4-8 mV.<br />
<br />
As things currently stand, it should be putting out about 130 watts/channel into an 8 ohm speaker, with a fair bit more available into 4 ohm speakers, somewhat depending on the amp's ability to remain cool. So far, overheating has never been an issue, and it has only gotten slightly warm even after a fair bit of abuse. That amount of wattage may not sound like much after browsing the aisles at Best Buy, but I can comfortably say that the typical Marantz, Sony, Denon or Yamaha receiver that claims to put out 100 watts per channel is in fact probably only putting out about 1/3 to 1/2 of their claimed power in reality. Plus, this amp has the advantage of being heavy enough to be used as a rather deadly projectile, if that is ever required.<br />
<br />
Actually, if we are going to talk about overkill, the transformer in this amp is way more powerful than is really necessary. The only reason why I did this is because I plan to eventually add more output transistors, for more current carrying capability. At this point, there are four Exicon lateral MOSFETS per channel. but I'm contemplating doubling that in the near future. It won't have a significant effect on total output power into 8 ohms, but it will increase the amps ability to deal with extremely low impedance speakers, not that it currently has run into any problems in this area. These plans for possible, and largely unnecessary upgrades, are also why the heat sinks are a bit larger than they probably need to be. Because of the size of this transformer, the amplifier also requires a soft start circuit (also from ESP), which is powered by a separate 10 VA transformer which is tucked away in the corner, in order to avoid tripping the circuit breaker in the basement. There is also a separate circuit for protecting the speakers from any accidental 'Oopsies!', that is mounted on the rear wall of the case.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4Sez5aniZqtP_Zl8OgwrKTBM6ttn3heNar20Zkgr4QRQRumQXGVQI3ezicyTIFR9zPEGSY2FBZf_mBmcjGm1m-Ugl2oA24k9rt3q6RaTNWNKYrXaRBgSWgPYHFUUm4T0pjwno2WqGyRA/s1600/ampoversideb.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4Sez5aniZqtP_Zl8OgwrKTBM6ttn3heNar20Zkgr4QRQRumQXGVQI3ezicyTIFR9zPEGSY2FBZf_mBmcjGm1m-Ugl2oA24k9rt3q6RaTNWNKYrXaRBgSWgPYHFUUm4T0pjwno2WqGyRA/s640/ampoversideb.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
While there is a passive volume control built into the amp (which was
ripped out of an old Marantz receiver which I brilliantly blew up while doing some
tinkering), this can be bypassed by a couple of toggle switches (because toggle switches are cool!). This
allows me to have the option of controlling the amp with a separate
preamp, which leads us to.... <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyZsdrHLVzcAM4HEGqFzebROs2GG_qXZ__ep7jUFe9RIJ7UvBEXWdHrf2QVttT3H7A6cTS3UpCLSfaGwpB83mfPlU9vEwdZqCu4nCIzclkPGL0pUgQrjSKY2pVJsngIm3_S_Okvb1MV-Y/s1600/preampupfront1b.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyZsdrHLVzcAM4HEGqFzebROs2GG_qXZ__ep7jUFe9RIJ7UvBEXWdHrf2QVttT3H7A6cTS3UpCLSfaGwpB83mfPlU9vEwdZqCu4nCIzclkPGL0pUgQrjSKY2pVJsngIm3_S_Okvb1MV-Y/s640/preampupfront1b.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
There really isn't much to say about the preamp. It's an extremely simple P-88 (again, a design of Mr. Elliott's), that revolves around two Texas Instruments OPA2134 op-amps, with DIP switches to adjust the level of gain that the devices produce. The preamp will also adjust balance, and switch between 4 different pairs of RCA inputs, though I put these in with the intention that they can be reassigned for other purposes later down the road.<br />
<br />
The power supply is a simple 30 VA transformer, with 9,400 μF per rail, and held to a steady 15 volts DC +/- by LM317/337 voltage regulators (mounted on adorably tiny heat sinks). Again, it's very simple, while simultaneously being significantly more than is required in almost every conceivable way. While there's a fair bit of space left inside of the case, some of that should eventually get filled with additional pointless gadgetry, most likely a tuner. Yes, I set this space aside for future bouts of boredom.<br />
<br />
The volume control is a 10k logarithmic dual gang potentiometer made by PEC. Most people will say that dual gang logarithmic pots can be troublesome, because of potential matching errors between the two channels. I can't really disagree with this, because it did have some annoying irregularities when I first tested it. Still, after a fair bit of tinkering, I managed to get the output of the left and right channel matched to within 3%, which is about as good as I think I could realistically hope for, at least without building a stepped attenuator.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHMnq88yyj3MmKGQLKsJUV6PPpvDF4kvgXkYRNozc4MSv3EFlD-LpT5g65ohDeY272CX1gX2e7rCtBNoc_bhTiwQYNJ5IVL_zRSXxl03DwX3X5PwFlTIx8OXKRxi9E6M6MhiMgPIJY74M/s1600/preoverlsideb.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHMnq88yyj3MmKGQLKsJUV6PPpvDF4kvgXkYRNozc4MSv3EFlD-LpT5g65ohDeY272CX1gX2e7rCtBNoc_bhTiwQYNJ5IVL_zRSXxl03DwX3X5PwFlTIx8OXKRxi9E6M6MhiMgPIJY74M/s640/preoverlsideb.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
With both the amplifier and the preamplifer, the main body of their cases are made of <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390444868204578063091931357384" target="_blank">ipe wood</a>, which was left over from work on my father's deck. If you have never worked with this type of wood, it is just about one of the hardest woods you are likely to encounter, and is nearly indestructible. One of the advantages of this is that I didn't need to seal the wood in any way, in order to protect it. Compared to the amp, I probably gave slightly more thought to the woodworking in the preamp, and joined that together with 3/32" finger joints. Honestly, the cases took significantly more time to construct than the actual electronics, even without any serious attempt at making them particularly attractive (though I do like their appearance). Some of the other odds and ends, such as the knobs, were made from random bits of oak, walnut, or cherry. If a random bit of wood was lying around from an old project, I tossed it in there.<br />
<br />
The lids for both cases were made of 0.220" thick polycarbonate sheets, primarily because I thought it would be a shame to hide the guts away from view. While drilling the holes in this, in order to provide some ventilation, I quickly discovered what an exciting material this really is, particularly when it explodes, sending dense pieces of high velocity shrapnel flying in unpredictable directions. You live and learn...hopefully.<br />
<br />
I can also say that my local community contributed something to these projects, even if they are currently unaware of having done so....<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAdGaWNWZJFBO45D4_iDnwcACa9GOtCW7sH-rNcZmJoP1eTlHOLL6UxSali-n7fA6nAYjlXNLsQXpwZi3MaSQofnFbO4Mmbi_iPKroi5TMqoC2d_8z4FekubCBOCAK5JRyB2BiDP_FdEk/s1600/preampbottomangb.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAdGaWNWZJFBO45D4_iDnwcACa9GOtCW7sH-rNcZmJoP1eTlHOLL6UxSali-n7fA6nAYjlXNLsQXpwZi3MaSQofnFbO4Mmbi_iPKroi5TMqoC2d_8z4FekubCBOCAK5JRyB2BiDP_FdEk/s640/preampbottomangb.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Yes, the aluminum sheeting used for the base in the amp and preamp came from a nearby roadwork sign that read "Speed Hump Ahead". I ran across it one night while walking Reilly, and thought that the thickness of the metal was perfectly suited for the project, promptly liberated it, and cut it down into smaller pieces. So, some of your tax dollars may have gone into something that actually works, which I think is probably a more positive outcome than you can normally expect.<br />
<br />
Was it all worth the effort? Hmm, that's a bit debatable. None of this is a particularly sensible way to spend your time when you really think about it. On the other hand, these sorts of projects tend to be surprisingly inexpensive, and the real cost tends to come in the number of hours you spend trapped in your basement/torture chamber. Since I tend to spend a lot of time down there anyway, that wasn't a huge inconvenience.<br />
<br />
How well do they perform? I'd say that I am quite happy with them, not that this will stop me from tampering with them in the future. The preamp performs flawlessly, though that's not surprising since it's job isn't terribly challenging. As for the amp, it reminds me somewhat of my old Hafler DH-200 (which I also blew up in the past year, through an act of s̶t̶u̶p̶i̶d̶i̶t̶y̶ bold exploration, and then had to rebuild). The new amp is more powerful than the Hafler, perhaps a bit cleaner sounding, and maybe has a few more bells and whistles, but I wouldn't say that the differences are particularly shocking. I guess, in the end, I don't really subscribe to the idea that amplifiers are capable of performing magical feats of wonder, though I do think some speakers do benefit from certain types of amps. They're simply devices for providing increased levels of voltage and current, hopefully without introducing noise (they aren't made with unicorn blood). This amplifier does that rather well.<br />
<br />
At this point, one of the next projects is probably going to be to
throw together another two channel amp based on the Texas Instruments
LM4780. That should end up putting out about 120 watts/channel into a 4
ohm speaker, and about half of that into an 8 ohm speaker. That would
be quite a bit less power than my other amps, but still perfectly
reasonable for most purposes. I'm not sure why I would need to construct this, but I suppose I've interpreted my current
failure to electrocute myself as a sign from above that I need to try
harder.<br />
<br />
While I'd say that these kinds of projects can probably outperform much of the equipment that can be found on store shelves, the extent to which that would matter to most people is probably miniscule. Still, as hobbies go, it's not a bad way to distract yourself. If there is a real benefit to doing these sorts of things, it probably lies in one of two areas. For one, if my house is ever burglarized, none of my electronics will probably be deemed to be worth stealing. Secondly, there is a reasonable possibility that something I constructed could live on after I have died, and eventually burn down some stranger's home, which is a thought that I find oddly amusing.<br />
<br />
<br />Sidney Mussburgerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03104367326238874951noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9104858724022491504.post-43489437561195118202015-05-15T15:07:00.000-04:002015-06-09T12:59:03.901-04:00The 2015 Ozzie Newsome ChallengeBecause of some annoying distractions at home, and the unpleasant realities of everyday life, Reilly and I have been a bit slow updating the bloooooog after the draft. I also have to admit that this year's draft struck us as one of the most boring ones in recent memory, which somewhat diminished our enthusiasm. There just weren't many prospects, or much wildly unexpected bits of drama, that caused us to feel overly excited this year. All of this combined to make us want to spend the past couple weeks taking a long nap.<br />
<br />
Still, it is time to post the results from this year's <b>Ozzie Newsome Challenge</b>, <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-2014-ozzie-newsome-challenge.html" target="_blank">just like we have done in the past</a>. This is where we set ourselves up for failure and ridicule, and reveal the degree to which Reilly and I might actually be idiots. I have to admit that I have rather strong doubts about whether our picks for this year will produce the sort of immediate results that Ozzie's early selections will probably offer. This year's crop of Kangaroos might just require a little more patience. This also might have been a good year to switch the title of this post to the <b>Doug Whaley Challenge</b>, or perhaps the <b>David Gettleman Challenge</b>. Regardless, with a little luck, I suspect our players will end up performing rather well, if they are given an opportunity, though some of the teams our players landed with were possibly less than ideal. <br />
<br />
Reilly and I are feeling slightly intimidated by the selections that the Ravens made with their first 3 picks. The path to early playing time is much clearer for some of Ozzie's early selections, which should give him a bit of an advantage. While we have some concerns about these prospects individually, what they might offer in combination could be more interesting than the sum of their parts. We can't be too critical of the <b>Breshad Perriman</b> pick, because the computer did think he presented a reasonable likelihood of becoming at least an average wide receiver. While we still think he has some potentially significant flaws which would have worried us, as an immediate drop in replacement for the departed <b>Torrey Smith</b> he should do fine. The Ravens' use of the Pass Interference Offense seems likely to continue. Whether Perriman will end up justifying his selection in the 1st round, and whether he will become the sort of receiver that makes the team want to commit to him when it is time for a 2nd contract, is a very different question. <br />
<br />
With <b>Maxx Williams</b>, we had very different concerns. Athletically he was a very average/unimpressive prospect, which isn't something we generally like to bet on. On the other hand, his production in college was reasonably impressive, and he does appear to possess some reliable hands. In the end though, he just didn't check off enough boxes to make us feel incredibly confident of an exceptional outcome. We do think Williams should benefit from the Ravens sending Perriman deep, leaving a fairly wide open area underneath, where he should be able to produce respectable results, even if we wouldn't bet on him being spectacular. Our main gripe with Williams related to the question of whether he was likely to outperform some of the TEs that could have been acquired in free agency, as well as the question of how high of a ceiling he might possess. When we looked at tight end production in 2014 (adjusting the data a bit to account for missed games), the average starting tight end produced about <b>586</b> receiving yards and <b>4.4</b> TDs. Even the rather affordable former Ravens' tight end, <b>Owen Daniels</b>, was on pace for <b>562</b> yards and <b>4.2</b> TDs, if we adjust things for the one game he missed. In 2005, only 9 tight ends appeared to reach or surpass that yardage mark, while in 2014 there could have been as many as 16 (again, when adjusted for missed games). It seems to be easier than ever for players at this position to put up seemingly impressive numbers. Unfortunately, I think this all sort of devalues what would have been seen as a rather good year for a tight end a decade ago, and raises the standards for what we should expect from such a relatively high pick like Maxx Williams. So, yes, we wouldn't be shocked if Williams is productive, but will he be exceptional, or able to justify a 2nd round pick? It seems debatable, though we certainly wouldn't expect him to become a bust.<br />
<br />
The interesting thing with these first two picks, is that it largely tosses the Ravens' repeated claims of taking the 'best player available' into the garbage bin, though these sorts of claims are almost always nonsense. These were clearly selections based on need.<br />
<br />
Then we come to the selection of <b>Carl Davis</b>, whom we also selected for Team Kangaroo. When we were discussing defensive tackles, we said that if he fell to the 3rd round we would probably be interested in selecting him, though we were somewhat surprised that it actually worked out this way. We think the Ravens probably made a rather solid pick here. Unfortunately, from the 4th round onwards, the rest of the team's selections struck us as highly questionable, except for some minor interest we might have in <b>Javorius Allen</b>. The rest of their late round picks seem destined to become forgettable bozos, though most people don't seem to care about squandering late round selections as much as we probably do. With almost all of these late round picks there was no clear argument for why the team would have desired these players at all. If given a chance to compete, I'd probably have to bet on their undrafted free agent acquisition <b>DeAndre Carter</b> to outperform all of the Ravens' picks from the 4th round or later, though the obstacles to this outcome are significant. because of biases related to draft status.<br />
<br />
If we were only concerned with making this a silly game of one-upping the Ravens, we could have simply chosen to mirror their selections for the first 3 rounds. It would have pretty much eliminated the bulk of the risk for us, as those were the only picks they made that the computer felt had a reasonable chance of performing to a respectable level. That tactic struck us as a bit boring and cowardly. It also would have reduced the fun of presenting more of an entertaining 'What if....." scenario, even if this increased our chances of looking stupid. Maybe things will work out for us, or maybe they won't. Like I said, I do expect the Ravens have a reasonably good shot at getting some immediate results from some of their top picks. So, perhaps this year we should set our sights on hopefully just doing better than some of the other NFL teams. It shouldn't be that hard, since there were certainly some very questionable decisions being made in this year's draft.<br />
<br />
Now, on to our results for this year.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 467px;"><colgroup><col style="mso-width-alt: 3218; mso-width-source: userset; width: 66pt;" width="88"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 6838; mso-width-source: userset; width: 140pt;" width="187"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 7021; mso-width-source: userset; width: 144pt;" width="192"></col>
</colgroup><tbody>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 66pt;" width="88"><br /></td>
<td style="width: 140pt;" width="187"><b>Team Kangaroo</b></td>
<td style="width: 144pt;" width="192"><b>Team Ozzie</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><b>Round 1</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Pick #26</td>
<td>Jake Fisher, OT</td>
<td>Breshad Perriman, WR</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><b>Round 2</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Pick #55</td>
<td><b>We Don't Trade Up</b></td>
<td>Maxx Williams, TE</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Pick #58</td>
<td>Trey Flowers, DE</td>
<td><b>Ravens Traded Up</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><b>Round 3</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Pick #90</td>
<td>Carl Davis, DT</td>
<td>Carl Davis, DT</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><b>Round 4</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Pick#122</td>
<td>Tre McBride, WR</td>
<td>Za'Darius Smith, DE</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Pick #125</td>
<td>Mark Glowinski, OG</td>
<td>Javorius Allen, RB</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Pick #136</td>
<td>Cedric Thompson, FS/SS</td>
<td>Tray Walker, CB</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><b>Round 5</b></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Pick #158</td>
<td>Rakeem Nunez-Roches, DT</td>
<td><b>Ravens Traded Up</b></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Pick #171</td>
<td>Darryl Roberts, CB</td>
<td>Nick Boyle, TE</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Pick #176</td>
<td>Quayshawne Buckley, DT</td>
<td>Robert Myers, OG</td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"><b>Round 6</b></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">
<td height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;">Pick #204</td>
<td>Austin Reiter, C</td>
<td>Darren Waller, WR</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<br />
The computer felt that this year's crop of defensive tackles and offensive linemen was rather interesting, so we sort of loaded up on these positions. We still think <b>Jake Fisher</b> has a rather strong likelihood of eventually outperforming several of the offensive tackles that were chosen ahead of him, including <b>Cedric Ogbuehi </b>who was also chosen by the Bengals with their 1st round pick, but we might need to wait a bit before we see him get an opportunity to play. <b>Rakeem Nunez-Roches</b> was a defensive tackle that we liked a fair bit, though landing in Kansas City's 3-4 defense was a bit of an unfortunate surprise. We really thought he was destined for a team that used a 4-3. Regardless, it was actually <b>Quayshawne Buckley</b> who was one of our favorite defensive tackle prospects, though he went undrafted before being picked up by the Buccaneers. It will be very interesting to see whether he can overcome the challenges that this presents, but we think he should do well if given a chance.<br />
<br />
Really, we have rather humble expectations for most of our higher draft picks. <b>Trey Flowers</b> isn't really someone we expect to become a star. We just view him as a solid run stopping defensive end. Basically, we think he is probably a much better version of what the Ravens think they have in the underwhelming <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2013/06/courtney-upshaw-he-fell-to-us.html" target="_blank"><b>Courtney Upshaw</b></a>. Flowers' selection was more a product of our lack of interest in the other prospects who were projected to be selected in that portion of that draft, rather than a sign of our outrageous enthusiasm for him. That he would actually fall to the beginning of the 4th round is probably fairly appropriate, and something we discussed as a more reasonable area of the draft in which to select someone with his skill set. So, yes, this pick will be viewed as a a bit of a reach, but we don't really care too much about that.<br />
<br />
It's really with our selections from the 4th round onwards, that we had the most fun. Buried in this odd pile of late round prospects, are the players we actually probably enjoyed the most. Obviously, the odds of success in that portion of the draft are rather long. The role that draft status has on a player's ability to get on the field is huge, and generally dwarfs any consideration of actual ability. Despite that, if someone we chose is going to emerge as a star, we suspect they might come from this oddball group. Whether a player gets an opportunity to compete can be tough to predict, so we just have to hope for the best.<br />
<br />
If there is one peculiar regret we had this year, it wasn't with the occasional reaches we made with our selections. That sort of thing is inevitable, since we never really can tell where players will be selected. No, the issue that still stings a bit was that we missed the opportunity to select cornerback <b>Craig Mager</b>. There were only a small handful of corners we really desired in this year's draft class, and Mager was one that we were very interested in acquiring. We seriously considered selecting <b>Byron Jones</b> or <b>Eric Rowe</b> in the 1st round, but at the end of the day we generally just don't place that much value on defensive backs. So, we had been planning to grab Mager in the 3rd or 4th round, where many people projected he would still be available. That the Chargers chose him before our selection in the 3rd round really caught us off guard, and somewhat screwed with our overall strategy for the draft. It's hard to say whether he will become a quality player or not, but we like the potential value and upside he would have presented as a mid-round pick.<br />
<br />
We also chose to pass on selecting <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2015/04/jake-waters-foundling.html" target="_blank"><b>Jake Waters</b></a>, though we still think he is a rather interesting QB prospect. It wasn't because of a lack of interest that we didn't select him, but more a lack of confidence in the idea that any other team would choose him, or give him an opportunity. So, as things turned out, Team Kangaroo could have theoretically picked him up for free as an UDFA. While we still doubt he will be given a real opportunity to compete, his signing by the Jaguars does put him into a position where his competition is highly questionable. Honestly though, if we were going to actually select a QB in this draft, it would have been difficult to pass on the more conventionally acceptable <b>Brett Hundley</b>, who slid all the way to the 5th round. At that price, his upside significantly outweighs his risks, and it remains a bit of a mystery why he was allowed to fall that far.<br />
<br />
Since we feel a bit more pessimistic about this year's crop of players (even beyond our own selections), and have no control over how they are utilized or the opportunities they will be given, we're feeling much more inclined to cross our fingers and pray for some positive outcomes. Despite that, we wanted to carry over last year's idea of having a theme song for this draft, and we think we've found just the right tune to capture our sense of confidence.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JW3pagAL0oE?rel=0" width="480"></iframe>
<br />
<br />
<br />
Oh well, I guess all we can do now is sit back and see what happens.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Sidney Mussburgerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03104367326238874951noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9104858724022491504.post-47380441444349047492015-04-30T00:57:00.000-04:002015-04-30T00:57:36.694-04:00Year Two: Wahnsinn Und BlödheitWell, we seem to have made it through another year, and the bloooog's anniversary has magically landed on the most holy of holy days. <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2014/04/year-one-escapade-in-blathering.html" target="_blank">Last year</a>, we listed some of the search queries that had brought people into our dark corner of the internet, and I thought we would continue the tradition. Here are some of my personal favorites from this past year.<br />
<br />
<br />
1. midget kangaroo<br />
2. spandex guys<br />
3. chub chasers<br />
4. chubby chasers 2<br />
5. What is a petard?<br />
6. women chubby chasers (there is definitely a theme emerging here)<br />
7. mindless meditation <br />
8. drunk giraffe picture<br />
9. miniature wife<br />
10. 8.75 x 40 (how mysterious!) <br />
<br />
Hmm, you people really are fascinating. I suppose this is an improvement over last year's collection of search queries where people were seeking information on dead prostitutes. Still, there is a continuing not so subtle sexual theme to many of your searches, but at least the girls your are seeking now appear to be alive...and possibly very well fed. Really, I am shocked and horrified that people would use the internet for such deviant purposes.<br />
<br />
We're probably going to be fairly busy for the next couple days, but I sort of feel like I should be making a speech, or at least make some sort of mildly amusing statement on this grand occasion. Unfortunately, I am already deeply into the alcohol and cookies regimen that will sustain me for the next 72 hours. It may sound unhealthy, but I can assure you it is the diet of champions. This sort of binging inevitably results in a kind of zen like state that improves our powers of draft prognostication, or at the very least will provide an excuse for some of our more stupid decisions. It might sound like an unhealthy way to live, but it is really the only way to make it through the 3 day coma that is the NFL Draft. 3 DAYS OF SLOTH! 3 DAYS OF SLOTH! 3 DAYS OF SLOTH! I can't see how this won't provide NFL GMs some slight advantage in our upcoming battle.<br />
<br />
Still, there is one thing I would like request, as a sort of birthday gift. While I know our circle of readers is extremely small (I prefer to think of you as elite), I still wonder who some of you are. In particular, I have always wondered who one regular visitor is, that Google informs me comes from Abu Dhabi. It's not that the rest of you aren't interesting as well, but come on, Abu Dhabi? There has to be a story to this guy. Either way, it would be interesting to hear who some of you bozos are, and how your life went so terribly wrong that you wound up here. Of course, if you prefer to remain anonymous and are concerned that a visit to the comment section might reveal that you are indeed a chubby chaser, I would completely understand. Just realize that this is a safe place, and we won't pass any judgements about you...unless you are the guy searching for drunk giraffe pictures. That's just weird.<br />
Sidney Mussburgerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03104367326238874951noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9104858724022491504.post-23090007860906494972015-04-28T13:48:00.001-04:002015-04-28T13:48:28.074-04:00More Last Minute ThoughtsI have to admit that I am impressed with the degree to which our local citizenry is showing excitement over the upcoming NFL Draft. Wait a second...there's a riot going on? Hmm, I might be losing touch with what is going on in the rest of the world.<br />
<br />
<b>Constant Doubts And Reshuffling Of the Board</b><br />
<br />
During the past two seasons, when we have posted our <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-2015-little-big-board.html" target="_blank"><b>Little Big Board</b></a>, we've mentioned how we are constantly reshuffling how we rank these players, right up until the last second. Doubts and paranoia creep into our empty heads, and eat at our brains like a worm in an apple. This year in particular, we have some nagging concerns.<br />
<br />
We're not really that worried about who we will select in the 1st round. Finding an acceptable player here should be pretty simple. We're also not very worried about rounds 4 through 7. There are enough appealing oddballs in this class, so we should be able to grab a handful of players we like during that portion of the draft. The area that is causing us some annoyance, is in the 2nd and 3rd round area. We're not feeling too excited about our likely options here.<br />
<br />
This has led to a fair bit of squabbling between me and Reilly. I've been leaning towards taking a more conservative approach to this area of the draft. Basically, we could take a couple reasonably solid prospects, even if they don't really excite us. We could aim for someone like <b>Trey Flowers</b>, who we don't expect will become a star, but should be fairly solid. There are quite a few players we could look at as similar, somewhat less stellar options. Or, maybe one of the players we really like will slip in the draft, allowing us to get someone we really want at a nicely discounted price.<br />
<br />
Reilly, on the other hand, has been arguing in favor of taking a much more aggressive approach in these two rounds. He wants to say "screw it" to the conventional wisdom, and just reach for some of the players we actually desire, even if they are generally projected to be available later in the draft. He would have us bump up some of the players we listed as targets for later rounds, by about a round, in order to give us some 2nd and 3rd round options we would find more satisfying.<br />
<br />
I have to admit that I'm starting to agree with him, though I might want to wait and see how things look after the 1st round before committing to this. Would we be willing to select someone like <b>Tre McBride</b> in the 2nd round? Maybe. We certainly think he is an interesting player, though the possibility of getting him in the 3rd round is obviously more appealing. Would we be willing to take someone like <b>Craig Mager</b> or <b>Mark Glowinski</b> in the 3rd, even though most people would probably view this as a bit of a reach? Hmm, yes, that probably wouldn't bother us as much as you might think. At the end of the day, we just like some of the prospects who we have rated for selection in later rounds, quite a bit more than some of the players we have listed for selection in the front half of the draft. Still, I really feel like trying to try to wait it out, and let our prospects fall to us, rather than chasing them.<br />
<br />
I also can't deny that dealing with Reilly's wrath, if I oppose him, has got me feeling quite terrified. So, I might crumble under the pressure of his constant badgering. We'll see what happens.<br />
<br />
<b>My Opponent</b><br />
<br />
The more you look at the information that is available, the more it appears that the Ravens are going to target a running back and a cornerback, with some fairly high draft picks. The team has been interviewing a lot of the top prospects at these two positions, and that probably says a lot about what their intentions might be.<br />
<br />
I wouldn't criticize them for making a move at the cornerback position, depending on who they actually select. They need some more depth at that position, and there are some very interesting prospects in this year's class.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, I just don't get what the point would be in selecting a running back. Yes, the likelihood that a highly drafted running back can produce immediate and obvious results is undeniable. They do tend to produce numbers. Still, I lean towards the idea that even a mediocre offensive or defensive lineman is probably a rarer and more valuable asset than an above average running back. A running back would probably produce the sort of superficial results that would make it appear to be a successful draft pick, but it would strike us as a weak move. I just think they should aim for rarer commodities, rather than addressing a position where you can probably manufacture similar rushing results by other means.<br />
<br />
I also kind of wonder if the Ravens might be considering the possibility of trading up, though I'm not sure if I would support that idea either. If the 2nd and 3rd rounds are going to be the minefield of fairly mediocre talent that I previously stated that we expect them to be, maybe the Ravens would be willing to part with the picks they have in this part of the draft. If they traded away their 2nd round pick, they could theoretically move their 1st round pick up to somewhere around the 16th pick. I don't really like that option, but it wouldn't surprise me if they did this. If they did this, I suspect it would be part of an attempt to target a wide receiver. A more interesting option might be trading away their 3rd round pick, to raise their 2nd round pick to something in the area of 44th selection. Considering how many draft picks the team has this year, I would almost bet on them doing something like this.<br />
<br />
<b>More Dead Hookers In The Trunk</b><br />
<br />
I saw that James Todd made some <a href="http://rotoviz.com/2015/04/bayes-theorem-nfl-draft-something-nothing/" target="_blank">brief mention of this already</a>, but I wanted to add some of my own hopes and prayers. Has anybody been paying anybody been paying attention to the Chiefs wide receivers? Outside of the recent <b>Jeremy Maclin</b> signing, there really isn't much standing between <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2013/06/darick-rogers-dead-hookers-in-his-trunk.html" target="_blank"><b>Da'Rick Rogers</b></a> and potential stardom, other than his own personality defects (a seemingly insurmountable obstacle). Are we really supposed to take <b>Jason Avant</b>, <b>Junior Hemingway</b>, or <b>Armon Binns</b> seriously? I think not. Yes, they have <b>Albert Wilson</b>, and he is a player we have some respect for <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2014/04/kangaroo-court-2014-wide-receivers.html" target="_blank">based on last year's list of receivers that the computer found interesting</a>, but we still wouldn't say that his ceiling is probably that high.<br />
<br />
Reiily and I are having a hard time letting go of our love for Rogers, though we have to admit that the NFL keeps kicking us in the teeth over this one. We get it, he might be an asshole. Is that really such a big deal? Aren't most of these guys morons? At least Da'Rick appears to have some real talent, so we'd really like to see the Chiefs get through the draft without selecting a serious challenger to Da'Rick's possible ascendance. Whatever his issues may be, we still think he's probably a better player than at least 90% of this year's wide receiver prospects.<br />
<br />
Yeah, I don't really expect to ever hear from Rogers again, but I can hope.<br />
<br />
<b>I'm probably mentally imbalanced.</b><br />
<br />
Our interest in what the Chiefs will do, seems to have several peculiar angles.<br />
<br />
It's probably a bad sign that almost nothing fascinated me more during free agency than seeing <b>Rodney Hudson</b> signed by the Raiders. While his 5 year, $44.5 million deal was a bit astounding, that didn't matter much to me. Honestly, I have serious doubts about whether Hudson is a particularly good center, but if teams want to spend their money this way, that's not going to impact my life. No, Reilly and I don't particularly care about Hudson very much, one way or another.<br />
<br />
The only reason this matters to us, is that it suddenly opens up a path for <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2013/05/eric-kush.html" target="_blank"><b>Eric Kush</b></a> to become the starting center for the Kansas City Chiefs. That interests us very much, because <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2014/08/yoyodyne-future-begins-tomorrow.html" target="_blank">we've been waiting for this day for the past couple years</a>, and genuinely think he could turn out to be a special player. That really has to be a sign of sickness, when you are obsessively watching the career of another team's backup center, who was drafted in the 6th round. That's just how we roll, and I doubt there is a medication designed for this particular sort of disorder.<br />
<br />
Now, we're stuck waiting for the outcome of the draft, hoping that the Chiefs won't select any centers (or wide receivers). We particularly don't want them to select a center with a pick in the first couple of rounds, because a player with that sort of draft status could easily doom Kush's chances of getting the opportunity we so desperately want him to receive. As we've probably said a million times, draft status probably matters just as much as actual ability, and Kush probably only has the latter of these two attributes. Actually, we'd probably say that draft status might matter more than ability. So, while you are all praying for your teams to strike gold in the 1st round, say a little prayer for this weird center prospect. Otherwise, I'm going to have to spend the next year complaining about some center that nobody appears to care about.<br />
<br />
<br />Sidney Mussburgerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03104367326238874951noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9104858724022491504.post-4121154881123786092015-04-22T14:21:00.001-04:002015-04-22T14:21:09.551-04:00The 2015 Little Big BoardWell, we're down to the last week before the 2015 NFL Draft, so that means we are busy preparing for our annual game of delusional egomania, the <b>Ozzie Newsome Challenge</b>. For this year's <b>Little Big Board</b>, we've narrowed down our preferred draft targets to 56 prospects, <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-2014-little-big-board.html" target="_blank">which is coincidentally the same number that we had last year</a>. It's just like before, only different.<br />
<br />
The hardest part of this annual process, is the challenge of coming to some sort of agreement with Reilly over who we should include in the final list. In the end, Reilly probably wins in most of our arguments over which prospects to consider, but we do tend reach a common ground fairly frequently. It's almost as if we have developed some sort of mind meld, making it very difficult to tell us apart from one another.<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgV3iJJiHivEHhoHyghwfq0CzDsULTvD63iPChW7YpUi4tZ90aG87zOSU4iDXkwkTGpeThLCqr09ncmQq_z9tvaFTD3Yg14xYEU56_KZI_zqV-BRzM8xQ4JX32t8Q9zSluclNPMx7rZ_MM/s1600/reillytron.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgV3iJJiHivEHhoHyghwfq0CzDsULTvD63iPChW7YpUi4tZ90aG87zOSU4iDXkwkTGpeThLCqr09ncmQq_z9tvaFTD3Yg14xYEU56_KZI_zqV-BRzM8xQ4JX32t8Q9zSluclNPMx7rZ_MM/s1600/reillytron.JPG" height="300" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">We're sort of like a very poor man's Voltron.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
We're never really satisfied with any list we end up making, and keep wanting to rearrange things. As we have done in the past, we've left out some prospects we might be interested in, simply because we felt it was incredibly unlikely that they would fall to a point in the draft that we would be comfortable/capable of selecting them. We also end up having to include a fair number of 'filler' players, who we might not really want, simply because we want to have some fallback options. Regardless, this is where we are at for now, though we'll undoubtedly change our minds in the next five minutes.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>1st Round</b><br />
Jake Fisher, OT, Oregon* <br />
Eric Kendricks, ILB, UCLA* <br />
Byron Jones, CB, Connecticut* <br />
Eric Rowe, CB, Utah* <br />
DeVante Parker, WR, Louisville <br />
Cameron Erving, OT/OG/C, Florida <br />
<br />
<b>2nd Round</b><br />
Kevin Johnson, CB, Wake Forest <br />
Preston Smith DE, Mississippi St. <br />
Stephone Anthony, ILB, Clemson<br />
Ali Marpet, OG, Hobart <br />
Trey Flowers, DE, Arkansas<br />
Xavier Cooper, DT, Memphis <br />
T.J. Clemmings, OT/OG, Pittsburgh <br />
<br />
<b>3rd Round</b> <br />
Tre McBride, WR, William & Mary* <br />
Grady Jarrett, DT, Clemson <br />
Carl Davis, DT/NT, Iowa<br />
Rakeem Nunez-Roches, DT, Southern Miss.* <br />
Henry Anderson, DT/DE, Stanford <br />
Adrian Amos, FS, Penn State <br />
<br />
<b>4th Round</b><br />
Mark Glowinski, OG, West Virginia* <br />
Mitch Morse, OG/C, Missouri <br />
Ben Heeney, ILB, Kansas <br />
Craig Mager, CB, Texas State* <br />
Cedric Thompson, SS/FS, Minnesota* <br />
Darryl Roberts, CB, Marshall <br />
Quayshawne Buckley, DT, Idaho* <br />
Clayton Geathers, SS, UCF<br />
Steven Nelson, CB, Oregon State <br />
Ibraheim Campbell, SS, Northwestern <br />
Alex Carter, CB/S, Stanford<br />
<br />
<b>5th Round</b><br />
Jake Ryan, LB, Michigan <br />
Austin Reiter, C, USF* <br />
Bobby McCain, CB, Memphis <br />
Justin Coleman, CB, Tennessee<br />
Kyle Emanuel, DE/OLB North Dakota State<br />
Corey Grant, RB, Auburn <br />
Shaq Riddick, DE/OLB, West Virginia <br />
Davis Tull, DE/OLB, Chattanooga <br />
Casey Pierce, TE, Kent State<br />
<br />
<b>6th Round</b><br />
DeAndre Carter, WR, Sacremento St.* <br />
Geremy Davis, WR, Connecticut <br />
Jake Waters, QB, Kansas State* <br />
Brian Suite, FS, Utah St. <br />
Jordan Hicks, LB, Texas <br />
Louis Trinca-Pasat, DT, Iowa<br />
Jarvis Harrison, OG, Texas A&M <br />
Terrell Watson, RB, Azusa Pacific<br />
<br />
<b>7th Round</b><br />
Dreamius Smith, RB, West Virginia<b> </b> <br />
Brian Parker, TE, Albany <br />
Micheal Liedtke, OG, Illinois State <br />
Ryan Murphy, SS, Oregon State <br />
Brian Mihalik, DT/OT, Boston College<br />
Kristjan Sokoli, DT, Buffalo <br />
Laurence Gibson, OT, Virginia Tech<br />
Frank Clark, DE/OLB, Michigan<br />
Cameron Ontko, LB/SS, Cal Poly <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
We actually had a fairly difficult time cobbling together our shopping list for this year. Part of the problem was that we don't think this year's crop of players is really that exceptional, which makes it difficult to feel comfortable with using a high draft pick on many of the prospects. As we roll through the upcoming week, we'll probably reshuffle this list a fair bit, and maybe add some new names, but for now we're just trying to make up our mind as to how we would use up our 10 draft picks. <br />
<br />
Since we have to weigh our own opinions against the general perception of where players are likely to be selected, this forces us to elevate many prospects higher than where we feel they probably deserve to be selected. This is a very tricky problem. On the one hand, we don't have a problem with the idea that the hive mind is probably a fairly accurate predictor of where players will be chosen. It tends to be reasonably accurate from year to year, particularly in the first few rounds. Perhaps even more important than selecting a player based on their abilities, we are really forced to take the 'popularity contest' aspect of the draft into consideration. So, when we are picking, we aren't necessarily trying to choose the best player, as much as we are trying to choose the best player who we think won't be available at our next pick. That's a very different sort of problem to solve, and it causes us a great deal of annoyance.<br />
<br />
After all, when most people are projecting that Florida State defensive tackle, <b>Eddie Goldman</b>, is going to be a 1st round pick, this creates some confusion for us. We don't think he's the least bit interesting, but we sort of have to embrace the lunacy that suggests he is highly regarded, though we wouldn't take him even if he fell to the 7th round. Honestly, we think here is likely to be a much higher bust rate this year among the players projected to be taken in the first two rounds, at least relative to an average draft. So, is the public's perception of the draft off the mark this year? Or, are teams really going to be taking a lot of potentially foolish gambles? It's hard to say, but we have to approach this as if a lot of madness is going to unfold, and adjust our rankings accordingly.<br />
<br />
The plan, so far, is to play things a bit safe in the first 3 rounds. Then, from the 4th round on, we're probably going to start pursuing a lot of prospects who frequently aren't even projected to be drafted. It will be interesting to see how this works out. Either way, it all start with the 1st round, so here are some of the options we are currently considering.<br />
<br />
<b>The Boring And Conservative Pick, Jake Fisher</b><br />
Among the players who will likely be available at the 26th pick, Jake Fisher is probably one of the safest possible choices. The odds that he won't become at least an adequate right tackle seem fairly slim. In fact, we suspect he will probably end up becoming a better player than half of the people who will be selected before him, assuming that the general projections of where his peers will be picked is correct.<br />
<br />
The problem is that we are simply getting tired of choosing offensive linemen, and it just isn't a pressing need for Team Kangaroo. We would really prefer to aim for a different position, to help round out our roster, even if it means taking a bit more of a risk. In the end, however, we might be forced to select Fisher, simply because the odds are so strongly in his favor, relative to the other prospects who will be available when it is our turn to pick. It would be a boring pick, but slow and steady wins the race.<br />
<br />
<b>Another Cowardly Option, Eric Kendricks</b><br />
Taking an inside linebacker probably wouldn't sell a lot of tickets for Team Kangaroo, but this is a pick that wouldn't make us the least bit uncomfortable. Yes, non-pass rushing linebackers aren't a terribly valuable commodity. Yes, Kendricks is sometimes criticized for being a slightly smaller prospect than some of his peers. Yes, finding a linebacker isn't a huge pressing concern for our imaginary roster. Despite all of that, we still like him quite a bit compared to the other prospects who might be available to us at the 26th pick, and think he has a pretty good chance of becoming the best linebacker in this draft class. Choosing Kendricks might not be exciting, but he doesn't strike us as a player that would keep us up at night feeling regret over his selection.<br />
<br />
<b>The Gamble On Potential, Byron Jones & Eric Rowe</b><br />
Depending on what the Ravens choose to do, and how foolish their selection ends up being, we might be willing to do something that the computer feels is a bit riskier by choosing Jones or Rowe. We have very mixed feelings about this option.<br />
<br />
In the end, we still don't think either of these players deserve to be selected before the late 2nd or maybe 3rd round. Reilly and I view them both as potentially better gambles than last year's <b>Phillip Gaines</b> (who we also liked), who was selected in the beginning of the 3rd round, but there is still a limit on how highly we would value them. Like Gaines, Jones and Rowe are mostly interesting because of their physical potential, with some lingering concerns about their experience and the quality of the opponents they faced. We also don't generally place as much value on cornerbacks as many people do, and feel this is a bit of an overrated position.<br />
<br />
Despite all of that, this is a position that we are going to have to address at some point, and the market seems to be shifting to where we feel it is increasingly unlikely that either of these players will be available at our 2nd pick. So, we might need to reach a bit. We also can't deny that the history of how teams give starting opportunities to cornerbacks plays a role in this possible decision. If a corner isn't selected in the first 2 rounds, it can become quite a bit more unlikely that a team will demonstrate much faith in them, or give them a real opportunity. It's very frustrating.<br />
<br />
The drawback to being cautious, and passing on both of them, is that there probably won't be any other cornerbacks available who have nearly the same upside. With both of these players, it is all about potential, of which they have an abundance. They both possess an ideal combination of size, speed, power, agility and explosiveness that puts them in an excellent position to succeed. When it comes to making a play on the ball, we think Jones has the edge. We think Rowe is probably the better tackler, and of the two of them has a better shot at moving to safety, if playing at corner doesn't work out. While we're not thrilled with the way these players' draft projections are being pushed higher and higher, we'd probably be willing to take a shot on them at the end of the 1st round, if the Ravens themselves do something that we feel is overly risky.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Late Round Madness</b><br />
While we feel a fair bit of pessimism about many of the players who are projected to be high draft picks this year, we wouldn't say that this is a bad draft class. We just think it is maybe a bit average. Overall, we're not thrilled with the fact that this is the year in which we have 10 draft picks to spend, though we do think there are a fair number of interesting mid-to-late round picks that are potentially as interesting as some of the higher selections. This is where we could start to behave very recklessly.<br />
<br />
The tricky thing here is that some of the players we find to be the most interesting, might not get drafted at all. That's a huge concern for us. Should we use our late round picks on players that we expect will get drafted, even if we don't feel as strongly about them? There is a good argument for this, since those sorts of players are more likely to get an opportunity, even if they will eventually fizzle and disappear. Or, should we aim for the players that the computer believes have legitimate ability and upside, even if it doesn't appear that they are likely to get as much of a chance to play? Right now, we are kind of leaning towards the second option, even though we realize that this could severely hurt our chances of success. We would just have to hope that the players' talents eventually shine through and get them noticed in training camp.<br />
<br />
Take <b>Quayshawne Buckley</b>, for example. Most sites rank him as a player who is unlikely to be selected before the end of the draft, if he even gets selected at all. While there are some aspects to Buckley that worry us, the computer still thinks he is potentially one of the 5 most interesting defensive tackle prospects in this year's class, and is conceivably worth a 3rd or 4th round pick. If we chose him that high in the draft, it would probably be viewed as a massive reach, and a waste of draft capital. At the same time, if he is even half the player we think he could be, it would seem foolish to ignore the possibility that some other team isn't giving him greater consideration than many people might suspect. Should we just trust what the data suggests, and make the pick? Or should we count on the possibility that teams could be overlooking him? While we will try to resist the urge to do something stupid here, we can't make any promises.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2015/04/jake-waters-foundling.html" target="_blank"><b>Jake Waters</b></a> and <b>Austin Reiter</b> are some other players that fall into a similar position. Most people don't seem to expect them to get drafted at all. The computer thinks they are probably among the five most interesting prospects at their respective positions. Should we select them, or should we simply aim for a player for whom we suspect NFL teams currently have a high opinion? While I might think that players such as <b>Bryce Petty</b> and <b>Reese Dismukes, </b>who play the same positions as these less talked about prospects, will have a much greater likelihood of getting an opportunity, I don't really have any confidence that they won't be disappointments in the long run. In the end, I suspect we are going to spend a lot of our draft picks on players that don't make much sense to many people. That's why we are very fortunate that so few people actually read anything that we write. The possibility for embarrassment and criticism is greatly reduced by our insignificance.<br />
<br />
That's where things stand for now. Anybody who wants to make an argument for the inclusion of another prospect, or to promote/demote one of the players in our list, is welcome to make suggestions. This week is your final chance to convince us to change our minds, before we do something stupid. We're not feeling terribly excited about this year's draft anyway, so we're definitely open to some last minute ideas.<br />
<br />
As we suggested last year, if anybody ends up feeling like doing their own version of the Ozzie Newsome Challenge, with whatever team interests them, we'd be curious about seeing your results. So, feel free to email us the outcome, or post the results in the comments section. <br />
<br />
<br />Sidney Mussburgerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03104367326238874951noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9104858724022491504.post-79143849767877945552015-04-14T17:04:00.000-04:002015-04-14T17:04:37.860-04:00Jake Waters: The FoundlingReilly and I generally don't have much to say about quarterbacks. It's not just because this is one of the more difficult positions to predict success for. It's also because having thoughts about this subject can be rather pointless.<br />
<br />
Let's face the facts here. If a quarterback isn't selected in the first couple of rounds in the draft, they are unlikely to be treated with much respect, or given any real opportunity to compete. If a quarterback is selected in the first few rounds, mediocrity will be celebrated as a sign of potential, and actual greatness is a rare outcome. The best predictor of quarterback success, or at least playing time, is merely being an individual who was predicted for success in the first place. So, any interest I might have in Kansas State quarterback <b>Jake Waters</b> is unlikely to ever amount to anything, since he is generally viewed as a late round prospect at best.<br />
<br />
Admittedly, I've always preferred quarterbacks like <b>Kyle Orton</b>, who are generally treated like disposable bozos. Pay a guy like him about $3 million per year, toss together a quality offensive line, and watch as he performs to pretty much the same level as most of the league's average quarterbacks. But who is going to want to buy Orton jerseys, am I right? No, that approach is clearly unthinkable. We want unfulfilled promise and potential. The fans want a<b> Cutler</b>. The fans want a <b>Kaepernick</b>. The fans want a <b>Stafford</b>, <b>Dalton</b> or <b>Flacco</b>. The teams clearly don't feel much differently than the fans, and are apparently willing to shell out $14-20 million per year for these types of players. While your team could attempt to <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2013/07/nick-foles-vs-dog-murderer_23.html" target="_blank">gamble on someone in the 3rd round</a>,
and watch him perform in a perfectly respectable manner, they will inevitably proceed
to trade this player to St. Louis for a gimp and a ham sandwich. The people demand someone that they can call a 'franchise quarterback', as if this
means anything more than an individual who has financially taken your
team hostage.<br />
<br />
So, why are we still interested in Jake Waters, when we don't really expect that he will ever play? Well, I guess that is because Reilly and I have been playing around with some potentially foolish ideas about what relates to success at the quarterback position. Instead of looking for players who were 'winners', who led talented teams to great success, we decided to look for something different. We didn't care about championships. We didn't care about prestigious college programs. We went looking for the guy who kept getting knocked down, and kept getting up again. I mean this quite literally.<br />
<br />
I'm not sure what you can say about a player who goes through college rarely getting hit by his opponents. Maybe they possess some great ability for sensing oncoming pressure, and compensating for it, like <b>Peyton Manning</b>. That's an interesting possibility, and something we're going to discuss in the future, but for the most part we think this is a fairly rare and difficult trait to measure. The other possibility, is that a player has just never had to deal with adversity, which could be a problem. So, we went on a search for quarterbacks who were knocked on their ass fairly frequently, and ran some regressions to see how this affected their overall passing performance. Again and again, this kept leading us back to Jake Waters.<br />
<br />
In 2013, Waters was sacked on <b>8.12%</b> of his passing attempts, which is a rather high result compared to most of the players who will be selected ahead of him. Despite that, he still completed <b>61.2%</b> of his passes, for an impressive YPA of <b>9.5</b>, and a touchdown to interception ratio of <b>2:1</b>. Yes, his interception rate was a bit higher than we would like, at <b>3.46%</b>, but this was his first season starting as an FBS quarterback. In 2014, that interception rate would drop to a much more impressive <b>1.76%</b>, so he did appear to be making progress, even though he was still getting sacked on <b>7.24%</b> of his passing attempts. Waters would similarly improve his completion percentage in this season to <b>66%</b> as well as boosting his touchdown to interception ratio to a hair over <b>3:1</b>. Whether it was do to a slight improvement in the frequency with which he was getting hit, or just a product of added experience, he appeared to be making significant progress. Imagine what his results could have been if Waters was only getting sacked 5 or 6 percent of the time, like many of this years more hyped prospects.<br />
<br />
Maybe the credit for Waters improvement from 2013 to 2014 should go to Kansas States' offensive line. Maybe Waters is overly dependent on the protection he receives from his linemen. It's a possibility, though we really saw almost no significant statistical correlation between Waters game to game passing efficiency and the rate at which he was getting sacked. Either way, the majority of the league's quarterbacks are somewhat dependent on getting good protection, and improving a team's offensive line <a href="http://occamskangaroo.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-lbtmy-line.html" target="_blank">shouldn't be a terribly difficult obstacle to overcome</a>, even though many organizations seem to neglect doing so. In fact, simply avoiding a negative correlation between a player's passing efficiency, and their sack rate, could be more of a positive than you might suspect. The only real correlation we could find between Waters good games, and his bad ones, was that he occasionally threw more interceptions when his team faced a significantly superior opponent Even then, his failures rarely outweighed his successes. In 2014, he only had two games where his touchdown to interception ration dipped to <b>2:1 </b>or worse, and these games were against Auburn and West Virginia, though only the Auburn game would probably have been viewed by most people as a poor performance.<br />
<br />
Of course, people always seem to want to come back to a more subjective evaluation of a players abilities, rather than just relying on the numbers a player brings with them. It's hard to say what real value there is in this, since this approach more often than not produces 1st round picks like <b>Johnny Manziel</b>, <b>Blaine Gabbert</b>, <b>E.J. Manuel</b>, <b>Christian Ponder</b> and <b>Brandon Weeden</b>. Clearly, somebody watched these guys play, and had a high opinion of them, for all of the good that accomplished. Still, I will say that Waters was arguably one of the most enjoyable quarterbacks I have watched this season. All I will say, is that I think there is a vaguely <b>Tony Romo</b>-ish improvisational vibe to Waters' play. Of course, my opinion isn't really worth anything, so maybe you should watch him play for yourself and make up your own mind.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/laweh5rvnY8?rel=0" width="640"></iframe>
<br />
<br />
<br />
Do I think that Waters is going to become a <b>Peyton Manning</b>, <b>Aaron Rodgers</b> or <b>Tom Brady</b>? No, I'm not a complete idiot. I also don't think whatever quarterback your team might select in the first round is likely to become that caliber of player either. The question for me is whether I think Waters can be a respectably average NFL quarterback, who might even end up surprising people. To that I would say yes, I think Waters could be capable of doing this, if he is given a chance...which almost certainly won't happen. At just 6'1" tall, and about 210 pounds, NFL teams are most likely going to ignore Waters. They would much rather select someone who is probably inferior, but conforms to the 6'5" and 230 pound mold, even if that player is absolutely wretched at actually throwing the ball.<br />
<br />
In the end, if events unfold the way they have in the past, the majority of this year's highly drafted quarterbacks will end up becoming serious disappointments. That won't stop them from starting a lot of games, signing lucrative second contracts, and lingering around the league for a decade. That's just the way things are, and always has been. So, I'll just be sitting here, waiting for the possibility of glimpsing Waters in the 4th quarter of some preseason game, because that may be the last we ever see of him. Meanwhile, we can all enjoy the eventual evolution of<b> </b>either the<b> </b><a href="http://www.tomahawknation.com/2014/4/30/5668004/jameis-winston-arrested-shoplifting-crab-legs-publix" target="_blank">Crab Thief</a>, Chip Kelly's love child, or Brett Hundley along their inevitable path towards becoming a mere journeyman quarterback. It's bound to happen to at least one of them.<br />
<br />Sidney Mussburgerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03104367326238874951noreply@blogger.com0