Bigger & Stronger

I feel compelled to do something that I don't really want to do, which is to defend Gino Gradkowski.  It's not that I think he is a good center.  He probably isn't, and most likely never will be.  In fact, all the signs were there to suggest it was a mistake for the Ravens to draft him.  Hmm, this probably doesn't sound like the opening statement of a defense of Gradkowski, but I'm building to that.

Still, despite Gino's obvious shortcomings, at some point people started making peculiar claims about him that were...well...kind of bullshit.  For some reason I keep seeing people trying to describe Gino's failures as a product of his being "undersized" or "not strong enough".  I assume that most of the people making these claims are driving Hummers to their local Sam's Club, while sucking down a Big Gulp.  Bigger isn't necessarily better, though this desire for sheer bulk seems to also be invading the minds of people who should be more sophisticated than your average internet commentators.

"We've got to get bigger in the interior of our offensive line.  That's one of the areas that I think we need to improve on."- Ozzie Newsome, at the 2014 'State of the Ravens' press conference.

While Ozzie doesn't specifically mention Gradkowski in this comment, it doesn't take a detective to figure out that the team is probably a bit concerned with how he performed last year.  Still, you have to wonder if throwing bulk at the problem will really get you the result you desire.  The Steelers have been infatuated with drafting Texas-sized offensive linemen for the last few years, and the results of this pursuit have been fairly poor.

There is also the nagging problem that referring to Gradkowski as "undersized" is probably just untrue.  Just for the hell of it, let's compare Gino to 32 other players who started a significant number of games at the center position in the 2013 season, based on how they measured up at the NFL Combine.

	Height (in inches)	Weight	Bench Press
Gino Gradkowski	74.6	300	29
Average of 32 Starting Centers	75.2	303.8	28.6

Yes, Gradkowski was a whopping 0.6 inches shorter than the average center in 2013, and a ridiculous 3.8 pounds lighter.  It's amazing that he managed to survive at all, being so helplessly undersized.  While his height makes him the 10th shortest starting center, only 9 centers (28.12%) were more than an inch taller than Gradkowski.  Similarly, as the twelfth lightest center, only 14 centers (43.75%) weighed at least 5 pounds more than Gradkowski.  The only reason I also threw in their bench press results is because of the "he isn't strong enough" argument, though this is sort of an odd issue, since I don't personally believe the bench press really matters that much, or says a lot about a player's strength.  Still, some people seem to place value in that trait, so I thought I would just toss it in there to once again show that he was also within the average range there too.

Of course, the argument could be made that this is only comparing Gradkowski to league-wide averages, and that we should really compare him to the more accomplished and celebrated centers in the league.  Okay, we can do that too.  This time we will only include players who have been selected to All-Pro/Pro Bowl teams, or have had rather long and productive careers as centers.

Player	Height (in inches)	Weight	Bench Press	HT Diff.	WT Diff.
Gino Gradkowski	74.6	300	29
Mike Pouncey	77	303	24	2.4	3
Nick Mangold	75.5	300	24	0.9	0
Maurkice Pouncey	76.4	304	25	1.8	4
Alex Mack	75.7	307	20	1.1	7
Chris Myers	76.5	300	25	1.9	0
Brad Meester	75.3	298	25	0.7	-2
Manny Ramirez	75	326	40	0.4	26
Nick Hardwick	75.4	295	27	0.8	-5
Jason Kelce	74.5	280	N/A	-0.1	-20
Ryan Kalil	74.6	299	34	0	-1
Roberto Garza	74.1	303	37	-0.5	3
John Sullivan	75.4	301	21	0.8	1
Dominic Raiola	74	307	29	-0.6	7
Max Unger	76.5	309	22	1.9	9
Scott Wells	73.7	300	31	-0.9	0
Jonathan Goodwin	75.2	318	N/A	0.6	18
AVERAGE	75.3	303.1	27.4
MEDIAN	75.35	302	25

Even amongst this rather select group of 16 centers, only 4 (25%) are more than one inch taller than Gradkowski, and only 5 (31.25%) are more than 5 pounds heavier than him.  In fact, only Manny Ramirez and Jonathan Goodwin appear to be significantly bulkier than the average, with a weight difference relative to Gradkowski of 26 and 18 pounds respectively.  While Gradkowski may indeed suck, trying to explain his issues as merely a matter of insufficient mass seems a bit overly simplistic.

Instead, let's consider another possibility.  The Ravens selected a short-armed center (31.75"), from a lower level college football program (Delaware), who had rather poor physical measurables (-0.509 Kangaroo Score, and a -0.034 Agility Score).  If you just want power, I would look to the Kangaroo Score, as I think it is an adequate predictor of such things.  More importantly, I would look to Gino's short shuttle time of 4.78 seconds, which is -0.164 standard deviations below average for an offensive lineman, and possibly the most important drill for prospective centers.  You can click here, if you crave some extensive and deranged ranting about short shuttle times and centers.  Basically, Gino Gradkowski was 5 pounds of talent in a 10 pound sack, but it wasn't his physical size that was the most likely limiting factor.

In some ways, this reminds me of the situation with Danny Watkins, though I suppose the similarities might not be obvious.  Watkins was a guard for the Eagles, selected with the 23rd overall pick in 2011.  When he was released from the team, in 2013, the Eagles' GM Howie Roseman questioned what had happened to Watkins' "innate toughness", and suggested that Watkins failed due to the pressure of being a 1st round pick, rather than admit that:

A.) Drafting a 26 year old in the first round is just a bad idea
B.) Taking this gamble for a less valuable position, such as a guard, is an even worse idea
C.) While Watkins demonstrated moderately above average agility (0.605 Agility Score), expecting him to be a powerful "enforcer" with a cripplingly low -1.306 Kangaroo Score, was a bit insane.

So, rather than just admit that the team had incorrectly evaluated Watkins' abilities, they instead suggested that Watkins failed to live up to the vast potential that they saw in him.  Potential that certainly must still exist.  They had seen it.  Therefore, it was somehow Watkins' fault, for being too psychologically frail to become the player that the team was confident Watkins was capable of becoming.   

Every draft pick is a calculated risk, but occasionally the writing is on the wall that teams are pursuing fairly outlandish hunches.  Do Gradkowski and Watkins suck?  Probably.  Should they be derided and labelled as busts?  Probably not.  They are what they are, and it isn't their fault that unreasonable expectations were placed on them.  Instead, you might as well turn your jeering attention to the men who selected them, and ask upon what evidence they based their belief in these players.  And pray.  Pray with all you heart, that when these fallible men (fallible like us all) try to correct their mistakes, they don't simply say,"We need to get bigger."

Or, perhaps these comments about size are just innocuous statements, which I shouldn't pay so much attention to.

John Harbaugh: Master of the Obvious

If you expect the worst, you'll never be disappointed.  This depressing bit of advice has been the cornerstone of my family's continued acceptance of my foolish decisions. 

“The whole O-line is disappointing right now,” Harbaugh said.

I just had a vicious laughing fit when I read this post on PFT.  While John Harbaugh isn't the one who selects the players that wind up on his team, the possibility that he expected something better from them was probably unwise.  It's all just rainbows and unicorn farts in the optimistic world of John Harbaugh.

The problem, as I see it, is the o-line reverting to their normal/predictable level of play.  Their recent post-season run, where Flacco was only sacked once in every 21 pass attempts, was an aberration.  The o-line's history had generally shown them to allow a sack once in every 15 to 16 pass attempts, and currently (through 4 games) is allowing a sack once in every 14.08 attempts.  While this still only places the Ravens' slightly below what we we would expect their average results to be, recent history has shown what happens to Flacco as the hits start to accumulate.  So far, the game in which Flacco was sacked least frequently was against the Browns, where he was only taken down once in every 16.5 attempts (itself a rather mediocre result), and not coincidentally this game produced his best passer rating of the season (94.4).

“It’s a difference between Gino and Matt with the calls,” Harbaugh said.

Harbaugh then proceeds to drop a fair bit of the blame on poor Gino Gradkowski, whom many seem to feel has been a significant drop off in talent from his predecessor Matt Birk.  Being expected to follow a Hall of Famers' career isn't an enviable position to be in, but this current situation also seems like it should have been a fairly predictable outcome.  The computer still thinks that A.Q. Shipley should be starting center, though it is entirely possible that the Ravens are waiting to see if recent draft pick Ryan Jensen might be the answer, when he returns from his injury.  While Jensen's measurables aren't quite as strong as Shipley's, Jensen's short shuttle time of 4.56 seconds is much more in line with what the computer expects from a center prospect, at least compared to Gradkowski's time of 4.78 seconds.  On the other hand, the Ravens' management could stick their fingers in their ears and say, "Naaa-naaa!  We can't hear you.!", while continuing to start Gradkowski.

Despite that bit of negativity, I actually think Flacco has been playing about as well as can be expected, considering the horrible pass protection, lack of running game, and questionable receiving corps.  That might seem odd to say about someone who currently has thrown more interceptions (7) than touchdowns (5), while having a 69.4 passer rating, but he hasn't looked nearly as discombobulated as I would expect, considering the situation he has been put into.  Still, it probably is fair to wonder if paying Flacco as if he is the equivalent of 3.5 Steve Austins, really makes much sense (he's worth maybe 2 Jaime Sommers in my opinion).  This idea that any QB, who is about to become a free agent, automatically becomes the highest paid player in the league is hilarious.  You're either viewed as a bum, who the team lets go of, or a 21 million dollar man, and there is almost no middle ground.  Remember all of that talk about how it was Cam Cameron holding Flacco back, and how things would be different with Jim Caldwell?  In the end, you kind of have to wonder if it is worth buying into a small sample size, like last year's playoffs, as a way of making your decisions.

Speaking of the poor situation surrounding Flacco, a recent quote about Ed Dickson provided even more entertainment for me:

“The stats kind of speak for themselves as you’re alluding to. He’s not the same player right now than he was then (2 years prior) obviously,” Harbaugh said

The player that Ed Dickson was 2 years ago is kind of an illusion.  Even in his most productive year (2011) Dickson had a habit of dropping passes.  Ed Dickson was a player who benefited from his draft position to get on the field ahead of Dennis Pitta, who was almost certainly the superior player.  While Ed Dickson was selected with the 6th pick of the 3rd round, in 2010, Pitta was taken with 16th pick of the 4th round, again in 2010.  So, why was Dickson selected ahead of Pitta, and given an earlier chance to play?  Well, that is difficult to answer, but the popular opinion seems to have always been that Dickson was a better athlete, while Pitta was a more reliable but less physically gifted player.  Is any of this actually true though?

	Height	Weight	40-yard	10-yard	Bench	Vert.	Sh. Sht.	3-Cone	Br. Jmp
Dennis Pitta	6' 4.5"	246	4.68	1.63	27	34"	4.17	6.72	113"
Ed Dickson	6' 4.2"	249	4.59	1.64	25	34"	4.59	7.32	122"

While Ed Dickson did better than Dennis Pitta in the 40 yard dash and the broad jump, Pitta bested Dickson in the agility drills.  While we could debate the value of speed versus agility (I would obviously prefer a player to have both), I don't think it is unreasonable to say that the physical advantage of one over another, isn't really as big as some people might have made them out to be.  On the other hand, what they accomplished with these abilities while in college was staggeringly different.

Dennis Pitta	Rec.	Yards	YPC	TD	% of Off.	% of TD
2009	62	829	13.4	8	14.92	23.52
2008	83	1083	13	6	18.73	17.14
2007	59	813	13.8	5	14.12	19.23
Ed Dickson	Rec.	Yards	YPC	TD	% of Off.	% of TD
2009	42	551	13.1	6	10.28	37.5
2008	35	508	14.5	3	8.05	15
2007	43	453	10.5	3	7.45	11.53

While Pitta's stats are somewhat gaudy in terms of his receiving yardage, I am more interested in the percentage of his teams' offense that he was responsible for, which gives us some idea of how much the opposing defenses probably focused on stopping him.  In this area, Pitta clearly establishes that he was a much more vital target for his team, with his results averaging out to about 15.92% over his three years, compared to just 8.59% for Ed Dickson.  I know a lot of people will probably choose to disregard this, but it is something I tend to put a lot of faith in.  Beyond that, we can see that Dickson never really outperformed Pitta in any area during their time in college, except for the percentage of team receiving TDs in his senior year, which is a much flukier sort of stat.

So, why exactly was Dickson given 19 starts in his first 2 years, while Pitta was only given 2?  I have no idea.  All we can say is that it eventually became clear to the team that only one of these players could reliably be counted on to catch the ball, and it just happened to be the player that probably should have been the preferred target from the beginning.  Much like the Gino Gradkowski situation, I often have my doubts about whether teams actually put the best players on the field.  Too often it feels as if teams are hesitant to switch things up, even on a limited basis, preferring to stick with the guys they picked come hell or high water.  Of course, these sorts of complaints on my part are sort of like pissing into the wind.

If there is a positive side to all of this, it is that most teams are in equally bad positions.  There are probably only 3 or 4 teams in the NFL that are worth being scared of at this point, so the Ravens probably won't have to pay too steep of a price for some of their decisions.  They will most likely manage to bumble their way to somewhat mediocre results as the season progresses.  I'll just continue to expect the worst, and if things somehow turn out well, I'll be pleasantly surprised.  I anxiously await John Harbaugh's next great revelation, when it occurs to him that NFL head coaches are vastly overpaid.

Ravens trade for center A.Q. Shipley

Ozzie Newsome does a lot of things that confuse the hell out of me.  This trade isn't one of them.  It was just reported on PFT that the Ravens have traded a conditional 2014 draft pick to the Colts for center A.Q. Shipley.  Here is why this is a very interesting move, even if it requires admitting that drafting Gino Gradkowski last year was probably stupid.

The strongest indicator I have found for success at the center position is dominance in the short shuttle drill.  Hopefullym the player would also have a good Vertical Kangaroo Score, but that is a secondary concern.  You can look at what I wrote regarding Eric Kush, or my post on the short shuttle times of starting NFL centers,  to see a rather extensive list of well known centers that illustrate this trend.  Here is how Mr. Shipley compares with Gino Gradkowski, and Eric Kush.

Player                              Short Shuttle Score    Vert. Kang. Score         3-Cone Score

A.Q. Shipley	1.698	0.450	1.121
Eric Kush	1.943	0.154	1.334
Gino Gradkowski	-0.164	-0.400	0.095

Shipley is very comparable to Kush, who I consider to be the physical model of what a center should be.  Shipley appears to be a wee bit more explosive, while Kush is a tad more nimble.  All in all, it balances out fairly evenly between the two of them.  Shipley had a better bench press, at 33 repetitions, than Kush's 25, though the value of this is debatable.  Kush has a 33 3/8" inch arm length (which is average to above average), while Shipley's are reportedly rather short (supposedly 29.75").  Gradkowski, at least on paper, appears to be in the mediocrity/bozo category. 

On the one hand I think this is probably a very good move by the Ravens.  Still, I always have to nitpick.  If they wanted a center, they could have had Kush for a mere 6th round draft pick this year.  Kush has the advantage of being younger than the 26 year old Shipley, and not needing to be signed to a new contract for at least 4 years.  Shipley would be in line for a new contract after the 2014 season.  I don't know how things will play out, but it will be interesting to see which player emerges as the superior talent, though I expect Kush might need a year or two to adapt to the level of competition.

The bigger concern, from my perspective, is what this means about Gino Gradkowski.  I thought he was a stupid pick the second the Ravens turned in the draft card with his name on it.  So, at the very least, the Ravens will have squandered that fourth round pick, if he is already being replaced.  I suppose that part of the story will get lost in the shuffle, as long as Shipley turns out to be decent, though it probably shouldn't.

Still, this could be one of the best moves that the Ravens have made this offseason.  I'd put it right up there with the Brandon Williams draft pick, which I also loved.  Some people are saying that Shipley is just there for depth, but I obviously think he will become the starter, and possibly a good one at that.  Well done, Ozzie.