I feel like a lot of my posts may come across as overly negative, making me the Grinch of the NFL Draft. Then again, history has shown that about 75% of the players do turn out be worth very little (damn it, there I go again). So, I thought I would list some more players from this most recent draft that the computer suggests might have a better than decent chance of turning out to be successes.
While I may have doubts about some of these players, I think they all have interesting stories or characteristics that will make it worthwhile to keep an eye on their progress. I tried to focus more on the oddballs, since high draft picks get plenty of attention already, unless I thought a highly regarded player was particularly interesting. I also probably leaned a bit more towards players who I thought presented good value relative to where they were selected. Obviously, I have to leave a lot of names off of this list, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the computer and I disliked such unmentioned players. I had to make some weird judgment calls about who I would include here.
When I make a reference to a player's Agility Score, Kangaroo Score, or some other athletic measurement, it should be noted that these scores can't be compared to the results for players at different positions. These scores only show how many standard deviations that a player is above or below average compared to others in his same position group. References to the Stat Score may also come up, but this relates only to wide receivers.
Pick #4, Lane Johnson, OT, Philadelphia Eagles - To some extent, it felt as if the press kind of dismissed Johnson as a guy who just "works out well", and felt he didn't belong in the same company as Eric Fisher, and Luke Joeckel. With a Kangaroo Score of 1.482, and an Agility Score of 1.381, it is true that his numbers do appear to be too good to be true. While I like Fisher, who also did well (but not as well), and to some extent Joeckel, the truth is that Johnson does more closely match the physical ideal standards for an offensive left tackle. Tackles with Johnson's rare athletic ability rarely fail, and even if he should fail to become a star, having a near guarantee of at least becoming a decent journeyman type, is worth a lot in my eyes. People often say that such players are boom or bust types, but this attitude that he appears "too good to be true, therefore it must not be true" is just peculiar. I think the floor for Johnson is actually quite high, and well worth the risk for where he was selected. Plus, he enjoys tormenting the press with made up stories about wrestling bears, which is another point in his favor.
Pick #13, Sheldon Richardson, DT, New York Jets - Again, some people seemed to think it was a reach to take Richardson earlier than Star Lotulelei, or Sharrif Floyd. The computer feels that the Jets actually made the correct choice here (at least if you are determined to take a defensive tackle). Athletically, Richardson was the superior prospect, with a 0.612 Kangaroo Score, and a 0.652 Agility Score. Lotulelei fell more into the average range (0.199 Kangaroo, and -0.038 Agility), and Floyd performed rather poorly (-0.930 Kangaroo, and 0.133 Agility). Richardson also averaged 9.25 tackles for a loss in his last two years, compared to Lotulelei's 9.5, and Floyd's 9.75, making them all fairly comparable in this area. Overall, Richardson's numbers put him in good, but not necessarily great company. Historically, defensive tackles who can jump over 30 inches, do over 30 repetitions on the bench press, and averaged 10 or more tackles for a loss, almost never fail (though they may turn out to be just average), and Richardson mostly meets these criteria (32", 30 repetitions, and 9.25 avg. TFL). I might need to post a list of people who fall into this weird group at some point.
Pick #22, Desmond Trufant, CB, Miami Dolphins - In the eyes of the computer, Trufant more closely fit the ideal physical mold of a successful CB than the other top prospects, Xavier Rhodes and Dee Milliner. His Ht/Spd Score (measuring his 40 time relative to his height) was a very good 0.732 standard deviations above average. His Agility Score was a truly excellent 1.463. While he slightly lagged behind the other prospects in creating turnovers in college, his numbers were still in the average range (6 total INTs, 3 FF). Will he end up being the top corner from this class? I don't know. At the very least, I would expect him to be a solid reliable player, which is more than I can say about some of the other options.
Pick #26, Datone Jones, DE/DT, Green Bay Packers - With a -0.261 Kangaroo, and a 1.351 Agility Score, Jones isn't quite as explosively powerful as I would like, but still a very gifted athlete overall. His average of 12.75 TFL during his last two years in college also reassures you that he made the most out of this physical ability. Still, as a 3-4 DE prospect, I don't like him quite as much as Kendall Reyes (0.999 Kangaroo Score, and a 0.640 Agility Score, with a 11.75 TFL avg), or Derek Wolfe (0.279 Kangaroo Score, and a 1.145 Agility Score, with a 14 TFL avg.)from the 2012 draft. If he had slid to the late 2nd round, or into the 3rd, I would have felt more comfortable with him. Nonetheless, I think he has a reasonable chance of upgrading the Packers defensive line.
Pick #27 DeAndre Hopkins, WR, Houston Texans- He was one of the computer's higher rated WR prospects, plus he gets to play opposite from Andre Johnson. Though there may have been other receivers that the computer liked even more, Hopkins probably wound up in one of the best situations to succeed.
Pick #52 Jamie Collins, OLB, New England Patriots- Hmm, I've pretty much covered this already, so I'll just move on.
Pick #53, Margus Hunt, DE/DT, Cincinnati Bengals - Hunt is someone I have to mention, even if he makes me nervous that he might be a disappointment. His 0.538 Kangaroo Score, and 1.279 Agility Score, are too significant to ignore. On the other hand, he is an older than ideal rookie (26 years old), who only produced okay stats in college, until his senior year where he was quite good. At 6' 8.5" tall, I also wonder if his height might actually become a disadvantage, particularly for someone who is merely 277# (it sounds weird to say "merely 277#"). Still, the announcers will have fun talking about how he is from Estonia, so that is worth something. I would have been too nervous to take him this highly (though it was tempting), but he is very physically gifted. In the end, I probably would have chosen him ahead of Datone Jones.
Pick #54 Jamar Taylor, CB, Miami Dolphins - He's not a big CB, but I thought he was quite scrappy. His measurables weren't bad either. His Ht/Spd Score was a solid 0.448, and his Agility Score was a similarly respectable 0.592. He also possessed a 2nd Gear Score of 0.16, suggesting that his acceleration could be even more impressive than his excellent 4.37 forty time might suggest. There might be guys with better stats, or combine numbers, but of the players who were acceptable in the eyes of the computer, he was one of the most fun to watch play.
Pick #62, Christine Michael, RB, Seattle Seahawks - I have no idea how he is ever going to get any playing time when stuck behind Marshawn Lynch and Robert Turbin. Still, he is the most physically perfect running back in the 2013 class. You can see how he compares athletically to the other 2013 RBs here.
Pick #71, T.J. McDonald, S, St. Louis Rams - I've already gotten grief from people for being a fan of his, but I still think there was good value in this pick. The computer has a harder time sorting out safeties, but still likes his measurables and college production. At 6'2", 219#, he definitely has excellent size for a safety. His 0.839 Ht/Spd Score was well above average, though his Agility Score of -0.063 is a bit more mundane. Still, this score is only showing his agility in comparison to all defensive backs, so for a safety it's actually a good result. He also had a 40" vertical jump, which shows some truly remarkable explosiveness. Some people were critical about his coverage abilities, but I didn't really notice this too much when I watched him play. To me, he was a guy who showed up all over the place, running up to make a tackle, and seeming equally adept dropping back. His stats were also quite exceptional, with 8 career INTs, and 112 tackles in his senior year. I think he will do better than a lot of people think, and that the 3rd round was just about the right place to pick him.
Pick #72, Brian Winters, G, New York Jets - It is somewhat embarrassing to have another Jets' selection on this list. What can I say? They appear to have had a good draft. At 6'4", 320#, with a Kangaroo Score of 1.019, and an Agility Score of 0.344, Winters is quite an interesting guy. His numbers would suggest that he will turn into quite the run blocker. He also shouldn't be a liability as a pass protector, though this might not be his area of strength. Compared to the guards who were taken in the 1st round, the computer thinks Winters could turn out just as well, if not better, so they probably got very good value with this pick.
Pick #75 Terron Armstead, OT, New Orleans Saints - Again, some people seemed to treat Terron's excellent athletic ability as something not to be taken too seriously. His 1.259 Kangaroo Score, and 0.342 Agility Score, project well to the NFL. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if he ends up being the starting tackle for the Saints this year, and performs quite well. The Saints seem like an excellent landing spot for a guy from Arkansas Pine-Bluff, since Drew Brees probably helps his linemen look good, more than a guy like Blaine Gabbert would.
Pick #79 Markus Wheaton, WR, Pittsburgh Steelers - I've already included him in the list of interesting wideouts from 2013, so I'll just add that landing with Ben Roethlisberger only enhances the likelihood that his skills can be capitalized upon. The Steelers have done quite well, recently, at making the most of somewhat small but speedy receivers. His real value may not come until next year, when Emmanuel Sanders is likely to depart the team.
Pick #93 Will Davis, CB, Miami Doplhins - Again, the Dolphins take a CB that the computer likes, having already chosen Jamar Taylor. His 1.161 Ht/Spd Score, and 0.899 Agility Score, actually measure even better than Taylor's results. Still, his 2nd Gear Score of just 0.07, is a bit average. The main reason I slightly prefer Taylor is because of how they looked when watching them play. Davis seemed more nimble, but played with less violence and aggression. Between the two of them, it's hard to say who will emerge as the better player, but by picking both I think the odds are strongly in favor of at least one becoming quite excellent.
Pick #94 Brandon Williams, NT, Baltimore Ravens - If you can accept the idea that simply being an immovable blob is a valuable trait, then you will like this pick. Compared to Terrence Cody, who has been a dismal failure, this should prove to be an immediate upgrade. Williams' Kangaroo Score of 0.874, and Agility Score of -1.397 (relatively unimportant for nose tackles), should quickly push Cody out of the way who only had a -1.242 Kangaroo Score, and a -1.864 Agility Score. The Kangaroo Score is the name of the game for nose tackles, where raw explosive power is their most important trait. Why people thought that Cody would succeed is a mystery to me.
Pick #97 Zaviar Gooden, LB, Tennessee Titans - Gooden is a rather odd physical specimen. With a 0.402 Kangaroo Score, and a 1.494 Agility, while running a shocking 4.46 forty yard dash, he is clearly gifted. Still, his production in college was just good, not great. He only averaged 5 TFL in his last two years, which is a bit poor, and doesn't suggest much of a violent attacking disposition. He did have a fair number of interceptions though. So, as a coverage type linebacker, who can run people down, he is still fairly appealing for a late 3rd round pick.
Pick #102 Josh Boyce, WR, New England Patriots - He's also in the list of interesting 2013 receivers. Personally, I think he has an excellent chance to eventually become the top receiver on the team. The fact that the Patriots' other receivers aren't very good aids in this. I think there is also a reasonable probability that he will outperform Aaron Dobson (selected by the Patriots with the 59th pick). One of my favorite 'Small' receivers in the draft.
Pick #124 Trevardo Williams, DE/OLB, Houston Texans - This pick could have a huge payoff, or amount to nothing. His measurables are nothing shocking, with a 0.309 Kangaroo Score, and a 0.002 Agility Score. Combined with his smaller size, at just 241#, I would normally have to bet against him. Still, he was a very productive pass rusher, averaging 14.25 TFL in his last two years. This is one of those odd times where my gut battles with my computer. I just like watching him play, so I'm kind of hoping the computer is wrong about him.
Pick #128 Quinton Patton, WR, San Francisco 49ers - I've mentioned him before in the list of interesting 2013 wide receivers, so I'll keep this short. He may not be as flashy as some guys, but he seems very solid. A lot of people with gaudier 40 times were taken ahead of him, and are going to probably fare much worse. Maybe he won't become a #1 type receiver, but I think he should become a dependable #2. It made no sense for him to fall this far in the draft, while having bozos like Ace Sanders drafted ahead of him.
Pick #132 Devin Taylor, DE, Detroit Lions - From a physical perspective, Taylor is ideal. Unfortunately, his production never lived up to this ability. At 6'7", 266#, with a 1.346 Kangaroo Score and a 0.815 Agility Score, I would have expected him to average more than 8.5 TFL in his last two years in college, especially playing across from Jadeveon Clowney. Still, for a late 4th round pick, his ability is quite enticing, as he at least has the physical potential to be great. With the Lions loss of Cliff Avril and Lawrence Jackson, he also has a shot to get some playing time.
Pick #147 Steven Means, DE/OLB, Tampa Bay Buccaneers - I'm not really sold on Steven Means, but at this point in the draft it's not unreasonable to take some gambles. Means had a 1.408 Kangaroo Score, and a 0.075 Agility Score, while averaging a rather mediocre 7.25 TFL in his last two years. His measurables suggest he could do okay as a 4-3 DE, but his college production fails to excite me very much.
Pick #150 Terry Hawthorne, CB, Pittsburgh Steelers - He has decent size at 5'11.25", 193#, and generally seems willing to play a fairly physical game. His Ht/Spd Score of 1.026 is excellent, as is his 2nd Gear Score of 0.21, so keeping up with receivers shouldn't be a problem. On the other hand, his Agility Score of -0.175, is slightly below average, and suggests he could have a harder time against nimbler receivers who run sharp routes. In the end, I still think there is decent potential value in this pick.
Pick #170 Eric Kush, C, Kansas City Chiefs - This pretty much sums up my views on this subject. He was the computer's favorite center prospect in the draft.
Pick #176 Dave Quessenberry, OT/OG, Houston Texans - At the very least, Quessenberry should provide good depth and flexibility to the Texans o-line. Athletically he shows just decent explosiveness with a 0.351 Kangaroo Score, but has an excellent Agility Score of 1.234. The numbers would suggest that he might be better suited to playing guard, though I can't rule out the possibility of him doing well at the tackle position. This seems like a rather safe pick, that should help to keep a very good offensive line well stocked.
Pick #181 Latavius Murray, RB, Oakland Raiders - I should be more of a fan of this pick, based on his measurables, but when I watch him play it just doesn't click for me. Still, I have to keep him on the radar, to see if the computer's hunch turns out to be correct. You can see how he compares athletically to the other 2013 RBs here.
Pick #189 Mike James, RB, Tampa Bay Buccaneers- I'm not going to say much here, since we'll probably never hear his name again. His measurables were pretty good, though his college production was a bit anemic, since he always split carries with other backs. I did enjoy watching him play though, and have to wonder if he could exceed people's expectations if given more of a chance. Being stuck behind Doug Martin won't help the cause though.
Pick #198 Chris Jones, Houston Texans- His Kangaroo Score of -0.027 is merely average, but his Agility Score of 1.015 is simply excellent. Combining that with his average number of tackles for a loss in his final two college years, of 16.5 per year, and you have a verrrrry intriguing player. Seems well worth investing a late 6th round pick in a player like this, and could end up rewarding the Texans quite handsomely.
Pick #207 Mike Catapano, DE/OLB, Kansas City Chiefs - Every year their seems to be an odd duck like Catapano. He's one of those guys who measures up as a potentially very interesting 3-4 OLB pass rusher, until you see the school that he came from, in this case Princeton. Personally, I'm not terribly concerned about the Princeton issue, but I do have my doubts as to whether a team will give him much of a chance. He had a 1.176 Kangaroo Score, and a 0.402 Agility Score, while averaging 12.75 TFL in his last two years. Seems well suited to playing OLB in a 3-4.
Pick #216 Charles Johnson, WR, Green Bay Packers- Johnson is probably on of the most physically gifted receivers in the whole draft class, and fits the mold of a conventional high end #1 receiver quite well. His production at Grand Valley State was also quite good, so to some extent he lived up to his physical gifts. Still, that is Grand Valley State, so it's not surprising that teams were nervous about selecting him. Personally, I think this was a steal for the Packers, and though there is some risk, the potential reward is enormous. I've mentioned him previously among the interesting wideouts of 2013, so you can see some comparisons to him in that post. Why people let him fall this far, while taking the likely overrated Brian Quick (from the similarly goofy Appalachian State)in the second round of the 2012 draft, makes no sense.
Pick #223 Nicholas Williams, DT, Pittsburgh Steelers- At this point in the draft, I'm just happy if a player has some sort of potential. Williams production in college was merely average (averaging 5.75 TFL in his final two years) , but his Kangaroo Score of 1.069 suggests he has some explosive power, and his Agility Score of 0.141 is at least in the average range. It's a low risk, potentially decent reward type of pick.
Pick #235 Steve Beauharnais, LB, New England Patriots- I'm actually a bit of a fan of this player. With a 0.899 Agility Score, and a -0.737 Kangaroo Score, he actually struck me as a reasonable prospect to play middle linebacker. He was also quite productive in his time at Rutgers. His 4.84 forty yard dash was somewhat concerning, though he improved this at his pro day to a 4.67 (if you can trust pro day results). I think this pick could provide excellent value to the Patriots.
Pick #238 Aaron Mellette, WR, Baltimore Ravens- I've already covered this subject, and my expectations aren't excessively high, but I can see the appeal of this pick. It makes more sense than how the Ravens usually pick their receivers.
Undrafted Da'Rick Rogers, WR, Buffalo Bills - Like Charles Johnson, he arguably had the best combination of physical traits, and proven college production, among the 'Big' receivers in this draft. Unlike Johnson, he had some proven success at a highly competitive college program (Tennessee). Unfortunately, people also felt he had some character issues. I had a high enough opinion of him to give him his own post.
Undrafted Eric Martin, DE/LB, New Orleans Saints - While he didn't get many opportunities at Nebraska, until his senior year, he made the most of his chances. In his last year, he had 16.5 TFL, with 8.5 sacks, and was generally quite a menace to opposing QBs. While his Kangaroo Score is only -1.094, this could be due to an odd imbalance when comparing his vertical jump to his broad jump. Based on his broad jump, his Kangaroo Score would be closer to -0.553. Though that is still well below what I am normally looking for, his Agility Score is an astounding 2.230 (the 3rd highest result I've ever seen), which suggest he could fit in amongst the high agility pass rushers. Initially, I thought someone might try to move him to MLB, where his measurables are more favorable, but it looks like the Saints might give him a real shot as a pass rusher. Considering their team's injuries, he has a legitimate shot at getting playing time.
Undrafted Paul Worrilow, LB Atlanta Falcons - I've already sung the praises of this oddball from Delaware.
Undrafted Ryan Spadola, WR, New York Jets - He's something of an oddball, coming from Lehigh University, but the computer like him a lot. Though he's a bit of a longshot, I thought he deserved his own post.
Undrafted Cody Davis, S/CB, Rams - Athletically, Davis compares favorably to some of the elite cornerbacks in the league. At 6'1", 204#, he has a Ht/Spd Score of 1.161, and an Agility Score of 0.899. So, yes, he is big, fast, and agile. He also averaged 90.5 tackles per year, in his four seasons at Texas Tech. Unfortunately, a lot of this seemed to be in clean up duty for his teammates. He also only produced 4 INTs in this time. For a guy who will cost a team nothing to sign, he is a very intriguing and highly experienced player.
Undrafted Jayson DiManche, LB, Cincinnati Bengals - This is one of those prospects where the computer isn't as intrigued as I am. At 6' 0.4", 231#, DiManche isn't exactly huge, and the computer penalizes him heavily because of this. His Kangaroo Score of -0.027, and Agility Score of 0.127, are merely average. The problem, in the eyes of the computer, is he lacks the mass to be a defensive end, and his agility would only be mediocre for a linebacker. Still, if he could maintain his explosiveness (38" vertical jump, 10'7" broad jump) while gaining some weight, the computer's opinion would improve. His 4.53 forty yard dash, was also fairly impressive. Either way, I like the guy. At Southern Illinois, he averaged 12.75 TFL in his last two years, and had 8 sacks as a senior. Beyond all of that, he was just a fun and exciting player to watch. Figuring out where to play him would seem to be the main obstacle.
Undrafted Glenn Foster, DT/DE, New Orleans Saints - In the computer's opinion, Foster is basically a somewhat shorter version of Mario Williams or J.J. Watt (6'3.5" vs. 6'7" and 6'5"), at least athletically. With a 2.305 Kangaroo score, Foster shows absolutely shocking explosiveness and power, and his Agility Score of 1.300 is almost as remarkable. Unfortunately his statistical production in college pales in comparison. While Williams and Watt averaged 19.5 and 18.25 tackles for a loss in their final two college seasons, Foster only averaged 4.75. Quite a big difference. Still, an argument could be made that coming into college as a mere 255# DT, on an incredibly bad Illinois team, hindered his progress. Playing now at 286#, he has not only filled out his frame, but is also moving to the 3-4 DE position, which might suit him better. There is vast potential here, and no real risk for the Saints.
Undrafted Nick Driskill, S, Colts - I have no idea what will become of this guy, but his stats are cartoonishly ridiculous. He deserved a post of his own, even if the odds are a bit stacked against him.
Showing posts with label statistics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label statistics. Show all posts
Monday, August 12, 2013
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Jamie Collins: Future Star?
I figured I would continue to mention a few players that I am excited about, who
haven't become household names yet, while things are still quiet in the NFL world. Some may fail to become anything,
but all of them have the sort of rare athleticism (surprise!) or production, that
should give them an excellent chance at success.
Jamie Collins was a defensive end/outside linebacker, who played at Southern Miss. He was drafted with the 52nd pick, in 2013, by the Patriots. He averaged 19.75 tackles for a loss in his last two years in college, and is an absolute physical freak. Here is how he compares to some of the other alleged pass rushers who were selected ahead of him.
Player Weight Kang. Score Agility Score Total Avg. TFL Pick #
I can't say that Jamie Collins will become the best NFL player on this list. All I can say is that he was the most athletically gifted and productive player on this list. Barkevious Mingo and Ziggy Ansah have respectable numbers too (though Ansah's TFL numbers came from just one year), so I wouldn't write either of them off. Ansah could actually be quite a strong candidate for success, with only a lack of experience/production holding him back in the eyes of the computer. Jamie's Kangaroo Score is what really steals the show. You're not going to find many players who are that explosive. Depending on how things play out, there could be some GMs that will have to explain why their physically inferior and less productive pass rushers seemed like better bets.
Overall, 2013 didn't strike me as a terribly good year for pass rushers, despite some of the hype that surrounded certain players. Dion Jordan, Jarvis Jones, and Bjoern Werner all strike me as likely candidates to become disappointments. That might seem harsh, but it would fit the typical failure rate for these positions. Today's shining hope, is tomorrow's bum. One other player, who was a very exciting and productive pass rusher, is Cornelius Carradine, but he couldn't perform at the combine or his pro day, so I won't say much about his career outlook.
You can also look here for a general overview of how these scores compare to some of the explosive linebackers and defensive ends that are already established in the NFL. According to my normal methods for these things, I would have had to give Jamie Collins a first round grade. He has the athleticism, and he had the required production. The computer suggests he was the safest pass rushing prospect in the draft. Not necessarily the best, just the safest. He may not become the next James Harrison or Demarcus Ware, but I think the likelihood of him busting is very low. In many ways, when I've watched him play, he strikes me as more of a 4-3 OLB, as he doesn't look quite as powerful or violent as a player like Carradine when he is rushing the QB. Still, I'll go along with the computer, since nobody else in the first two rounds really interested me nearly as much as Collins (at least among the pass rushers). Anyone who wants to laugh at that ludicrous theory is free to. We'll see what happens. Maybe the computer is having a bad year.
While the computer would suggest a first round grade for him, I think getting him in the second works out much better, and makes more sense. One of the issues for Collins is his playing weight. In college he played at about 240# before bulking up to 250# for the combine. If he were to drop back to 240, he might not have the weight to bull rush, which is what his Kangaroo Score suggests he is suited to do. He also might not really have the sort of exceptional agility that you normally see amongst successful lightweight pass rushers (it's good, just not exceptional). Lighter pass rushers really need to be fairly nimble to avoid getting mauled by offensive tackles. Staying up around 250# or so, could be important for his success, as well as embracing the bull rush a bit more than he seems to have done in college. He seemed to run around blockers a bit more than I would like to see, when playing at Southern Miss. It's not that he can't continue to do this. It's just that I think he would do better if he embraced the lower body power that he seems to possess.
His tendency, from the little bit I've seen of him, to try to avoid blockers, or to just beat them at the snap, isn't necessarily a bad thing at all. If it works, go with it. Still, not taking better advantage of the one truly exceptional physical trait he has, explosive power, is something of a concern for me. It may seem stupid to want him to attack opponents head on, rather than going around them, but the numbers suggest he could do very well at this. If you are big, play big. If you are fast, play fast. If you are agile, then use those nimble toes of yours. Unfortunately, sometimes there are players who seem to try to play as if they are imitating the style of someone else, rather than embracing what they do best. These peculiar situations could also be due to coaches, who just want things done a particular way, rather than seeing that a player's style is better suited for something else (this happens a lot, I believe). Square peg, round hole. Regardless, I do like Collins as a prospect, and getting him in the 2nd round, rather than the 1st, quells pretty much all of my concerns, from an investment/risk perspective.
Sometimes, when all the draft hoopla is at its craziest, people get a bit carried away with tagging certain prospects as future Pro Bowlers, and forget how often these things don't work out. You can never really know for sure what a player will do with their talents. I prefer to look at players in terms of the risks they present, rather than the potential rewards. If you can draft seven guys who all have a good floor, things should work out pretty well for you. One or two may even become exceptional. Jamie Collins would seem to fit that criteria. Worst case? He becomes an adequate role player. Best case? His exceptional athleticism lets him become one of the better pass rushers in the league. I'll take that deal every single time.
Jamie Collins was a defensive end/outside linebacker, who played at Southern Miss. He was drafted with the 52nd pick, in 2013, by the Patriots. He averaged 19.75 tackles for a loss in his last two years in college, and is an absolute physical freak. Here is how he compares to some of the other alleged pass rushers who were selected ahead of him.
Player Weight Kang. Score Agility Score Total Avg. TFL Pick #
| Jamie Collins | 250 | 2.099 | 0.355 | 1.266 | 19.75 | 52 |
| Dion Jordan | 248 | -0.216 | 0.426 | 0.021 | 11.75 | 3 |
| Ziggy Ansah | 271 | 0.894 | 0.502 | 0.628 | 13* | 5 |
| Barkevious Mingo | 241 | 0.395 | 0.566 | 0.430 | 11.75 | 6 |
| Jarvis Jones | 245 | -1.243 | -1.304 | -1.216 | 22 | 17 |
| Bjoern Werner | 266 | -0.280 | -0.251 | -0.220 | 14.5 | 24 |
I can't say that Jamie Collins will become the best NFL player on this list. All I can say is that he was the most athletically gifted and productive player on this list. Barkevious Mingo and Ziggy Ansah have respectable numbers too (though Ansah's TFL numbers came from just one year), so I wouldn't write either of them off. Ansah could actually be quite a strong candidate for success, with only a lack of experience/production holding him back in the eyes of the computer. Jamie's Kangaroo Score is what really steals the show. You're not going to find many players who are that explosive. Depending on how things play out, there could be some GMs that will have to explain why their physically inferior and less productive pass rushers seemed like better bets.
Overall, 2013 didn't strike me as a terribly good year for pass rushers, despite some of the hype that surrounded certain players. Dion Jordan, Jarvis Jones, and Bjoern Werner all strike me as likely candidates to become disappointments. That might seem harsh, but it would fit the typical failure rate for these positions. Today's shining hope, is tomorrow's bum. One other player, who was a very exciting and productive pass rusher, is Cornelius Carradine, but he couldn't perform at the combine or his pro day, so I won't say much about his career outlook.
You can also look here for a general overview of how these scores compare to some of the explosive linebackers and defensive ends that are already established in the NFL. According to my normal methods for these things, I would have had to give Jamie Collins a first round grade. He has the athleticism, and he had the required production. The computer suggests he was the safest pass rushing prospect in the draft. Not necessarily the best, just the safest. He may not become the next James Harrison or Demarcus Ware, but I think the likelihood of him busting is very low. In many ways, when I've watched him play, he strikes me as more of a 4-3 OLB, as he doesn't look quite as powerful or violent as a player like Carradine when he is rushing the QB. Still, I'll go along with the computer, since nobody else in the first two rounds really interested me nearly as much as Collins (at least among the pass rushers). Anyone who wants to laugh at that ludicrous theory is free to. We'll see what happens. Maybe the computer is having a bad year.
While the computer would suggest a first round grade for him, I think getting him in the second works out much better, and makes more sense. One of the issues for Collins is his playing weight. In college he played at about 240# before bulking up to 250# for the combine. If he were to drop back to 240, he might not have the weight to bull rush, which is what his Kangaroo Score suggests he is suited to do. He also might not really have the sort of exceptional agility that you normally see amongst successful lightweight pass rushers (it's good, just not exceptional). Lighter pass rushers really need to be fairly nimble to avoid getting mauled by offensive tackles. Staying up around 250# or so, could be important for his success, as well as embracing the bull rush a bit more than he seems to have done in college. He seemed to run around blockers a bit more than I would like to see, when playing at Southern Miss. It's not that he can't continue to do this. It's just that I think he would do better if he embraced the lower body power that he seems to possess.
His tendency, from the little bit I've seen of him, to try to avoid blockers, or to just beat them at the snap, isn't necessarily a bad thing at all. If it works, go with it. Still, not taking better advantage of the one truly exceptional physical trait he has, explosive power, is something of a concern for me. It may seem stupid to want him to attack opponents head on, rather than going around them, but the numbers suggest he could do very well at this. If you are big, play big. If you are fast, play fast. If you are agile, then use those nimble toes of yours. Unfortunately, sometimes there are players who seem to try to play as if they are imitating the style of someone else, rather than embracing what they do best. These peculiar situations could also be due to coaches, who just want things done a particular way, rather than seeing that a player's style is better suited for something else (this happens a lot, I believe). Square peg, round hole. Regardless, I do like Collins as a prospect, and getting him in the 2nd round, rather than the 1st, quells pretty much all of my concerns, from an investment/risk perspective.
Sometimes, when all the draft hoopla is at its craziest, people get a bit carried away with tagging certain prospects as future Pro Bowlers, and forget how often these things don't work out. You can never really know for sure what a player will do with their talents. I prefer to look at players in terms of the risks they present, rather than the potential rewards. If you can draft seven guys who all have a good floor, things should work out pretty well for you. One or two may even become exceptional. Jamie Collins would seem to fit that criteria. Worst case? He becomes an adequate role player. Best case? His exceptional athleticism lets him become one of the better pass rushers in the league. I'll take that deal every single time.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Paul Worrilow: Neglected Hen
Using a statistical approach to finding middle linebackers can be a
bit sketchy. With other positions you can kind of look at a players
physical traits, and see how they will compare to his opponent. How
does a particular wide receiver compare physically to the average
cornerback? How does this pass rusher compare to the average offensive
tackle? Over time, and enough plays, a player with a physical advantage
should produce results.
Middle linebackers, as well as safeties, are exceedingly peculiar in this way. They don't necessarily have one guy they will be matched up against. On one play an MLB could be chasing a tight end, on the next a running back or wide receiver. It's also not necessarily predetermined who the match up will be, but likely something that won't be known until the ball is snapped. So, decision making comes into the equation. That is something subjective, which everyone has to judge for themselves.
Still, certain baselines physical traits do exist, as well as a few somewhat reliable trends. For one, the majority of MLBs who achieve high levels of success are running sub 4.7 second forties, and often into the 4.5 range. Secondly, a player's agility score (based on the short shuttle and 3-cone drill) does appear to have a significant relationship to their ability to drop into coverage. Thirdly, just like OLBs and defensive ends, a good Kangaroo Score has a positive correlation to their likelihood of being a good blitzer. Nothing is set in stone, these are just the way things tend to go on average.
Being too rigid about what you are looking for here can be a problem. Not many MLBs are going to be great at everything. Some are good run stoppers. Some are good in coverage. Some are good blitzers. Some run stoppers are only good against inside runs, while some are better at getting to the sidelines. It's a mad world! The only ones worth paying serious attention to, in my opinion, are the guys who can pretty much do it all, but they almost always get drafted before the end of the second round.
Despite being undrafted, and being a Blue Hen, Paul Worrilow actually compares rather favorably to some of the better MLBs in the league. He's been picked up as an undrafted free agent by the Falcons, and despite the odds, I'm wagering (my ego, not my money) that people will start hearing his name in the next couple years. Here's how he compares to some of his peers.
Player 40 time Bench Kangaroo Score Agility Score
If the Kangaroo scores seem a bit lower in general, this is because these players are graded with all the OLBs and defensive ends who throw off the curve for the other MLBs. The average result for middle linebackers is probably closer to -0.800 (for now, use that as the baseline for judging these Kangaroo Scores), so all of these players would be above average for their position. The average Kangaroo Score for Pro Bowl or All Pro MLBs would be -0.362. I realize that this makes things look a bit odd, compared to a baseline of 0, but I'm sure you will survive. Scores are shown as the number of standard deviations above or below average that a player is for his position group.
What you will hopefully notice about Paul Worrilow is his shocking agility score that is 2.480 standard deviations above average for his peer group. He might have the highest agility score of any linebacker currently in the NFL. The closest current NFL players I can find are A.J. Hawk (1.891) or Von Miller (1.846). Worrilow also had one of the better 40 times in the 2013 linebacker class, as well as an excellent bench press of 30 repetitions.
So, what did he actually accomplish in his time at Delaware?
Tackles TFL Sacks Pass Def. Int. FF Fumbles Rec.
2012 107 9 3 2 - 1 -
2011 97 11 1 2 1 - 1
2010 113 9.5 2 3 - 2 2
2009 60 4 0 1 - - 2
Now, I'm not claiming that he is going to be the next Brian Urlacher or Ray Lewis. I'm just saying that he is a very athletic guy, who showed steady and solid production in college. The most interesting stat to me is his number of tackles for a loss. This is always one of my favorite stats, since I think it really says something about a player's aggressiveness to go after the play, rather than just letting it come to him. In this regard, and many others, Worrilow does as well or better than players like Arthur Brown, Manti Teo, or Kevin Minter who were all taken well ahead of him (since everybody was taken ahead of him).
Still, you might wonder if he actually looks like he can play...
He might disappear, never to be heard from again. In a league where so few middle linebackers are actually worth very much, I would find it to be a shame if Paul Worrilow didn't get a real shot. Teams seem more interested in recycling a mediocre talent like Rolando McClain. So how does Paul compare to the overrated McClain, who is being given yet another chance despite accomplishing nothing beyond being a former first round pick?
Player 40 time Bench Kangaroo Score Agility Score
Rolando McClain 4.68 24 -0.564 0.074
Yup, Rolando was pretty much just average across the board, but somehow people are surprised that he failed. Paul pretty much crushes him. However it all plays out, it's always fun to bet on a somewhat odd prospect like Worrilow, even if he does come from an a place that is just a puffed up sandbar.
Oh, one other thing I wanted to make a note of is the annual "he's an undersized linebacker" nonsense that the commentators spout about anyone under 6' 4" and 250 pounds. The average height and weight, of the 17 Pro Bowl and All Pro middle linebackers that I have numbers for, is 6' 1.2" and 239 pounds (Worrilow is 6'2" and 238#). People used to always say that Ray Lewis was undersized, when it seems he was very much the typical build for an MLB. So, maybe, people should shut up about this stuff.
Middle linebackers, as well as safeties, are exceedingly peculiar in this way. They don't necessarily have one guy they will be matched up against. On one play an MLB could be chasing a tight end, on the next a running back or wide receiver. It's also not necessarily predetermined who the match up will be, but likely something that won't be known until the ball is snapped. So, decision making comes into the equation. That is something subjective, which everyone has to judge for themselves.
Still, certain baselines physical traits do exist, as well as a few somewhat reliable trends. For one, the majority of MLBs who achieve high levels of success are running sub 4.7 second forties, and often into the 4.5 range. Secondly, a player's agility score (based on the short shuttle and 3-cone drill) does appear to have a significant relationship to their ability to drop into coverage. Thirdly, just like OLBs and defensive ends, a good Kangaroo Score has a positive correlation to their likelihood of being a good blitzer. Nothing is set in stone, these are just the way things tend to go on average.
Being too rigid about what you are looking for here can be a problem. Not many MLBs are going to be great at everything. Some are good run stoppers. Some are good in coverage. Some are good blitzers. Some run stoppers are only good against inside runs, while some are better at getting to the sidelines. It's a mad world! The only ones worth paying serious attention to, in my opinion, are the guys who can pretty much do it all, but they almost always get drafted before the end of the second round.
Despite being undrafted, and being a Blue Hen, Paul Worrilow actually compares rather favorably to some of the better MLBs in the league. He's been picked up as an undrafted free agent by the Falcons, and despite the odds, I'm wagering (my ego, not my money) that people will start hearing his name in the next couple years. Here's how he compares to some of his peers.
Player 40 time Bench Kangaroo Score Agility Score
| Paul Worrilow | 4.59 | 30 | -0.302 | 2.480 |
| Derrick Johnson | 4.52 | N/A | 0.070 | 1.223 |
| Brian Urlacher | 4.59 | 27 | 0.458 | 1.051 |
| Brian Cushing | 4.64 | 30 | -0.219 | 1.133 |
| Patrick Willis | 4.51 | 22 | 0.217 | -0.282 |
| DeMeco Ryans | 4.65 | 23 | 0.463 | 0.569 |
| Lawrence Timmons | 4.66 | 25 | -0.481 | 0.702 |
| Lavonte David | 4.57 | 19 | -0.547 | 0.285 |
| Luke Kuechly | 4.58 | 27 | 0.303 | 1.256 |
| Sean Lee | 4.72 | 24 | -0.219 | 1.203 |
| Jonathan Vilma | 4.61 | 23 | -0.376 | 1.516 |
| Paul Posluszny | 4.70 | 22 | -0.406 | 0.996 |
If the Kangaroo scores seem a bit lower in general, this is because these players are graded with all the OLBs and defensive ends who throw off the curve for the other MLBs. The average result for middle linebackers is probably closer to -0.800 (for now, use that as the baseline for judging these Kangaroo Scores), so all of these players would be above average for their position. The average Kangaroo Score for Pro Bowl or All Pro MLBs would be -0.362. I realize that this makes things look a bit odd, compared to a baseline of 0, but I'm sure you will survive. Scores are shown as the number of standard deviations above or below average that a player is for his position group.
What you will hopefully notice about Paul Worrilow is his shocking agility score that is 2.480 standard deviations above average for his peer group. He might have the highest agility score of any linebacker currently in the NFL. The closest current NFL players I can find are A.J. Hawk (1.891) or Von Miller (1.846). Worrilow also had one of the better 40 times in the 2013 linebacker class, as well as an excellent bench press of 30 repetitions.
So, what did he actually accomplish in his time at Delaware?
Tackles TFL Sacks Pass Def. Int. FF Fumbles Rec.
2012 107 9 3 2 - 1 -
2011 97 11 1 2 1 - 1
2010 113 9.5 2 3 - 2 2
2009 60 4 0 1 - - 2
Now, I'm not claiming that he is going to be the next Brian Urlacher or Ray Lewis. I'm just saying that he is a very athletic guy, who showed steady and solid production in college. The most interesting stat to me is his number of tackles for a loss. This is always one of my favorite stats, since I think it really says something about a player's aggressiveness to go after the play, rather than just letting it come to him. In this regard, and many others, Worrilow does as well or better than players like Arthur Brown, Manti Teo, or Kevin Minter who were all taken well ahead of him (since everybody was taken ahead of him).
Still, you might wonder if he actually looks like he can play...
He might disappear, never to be heard from again. In a league where so few middle linebackers are actually worth very much, I would find it to be a shame if Paul Worrilow didn't get a real shot. Teams seem more interested in recycling a mediocre talent like Rolando McClain. So how does Paul compare to the overrated McClain, who is being given yet another chance despite accomplishing nothing beyond being a former first round pick?
Player 40 time Bench Kangaroo Score Agility Score
Rolando McClain 4.68 24 -0.564 0.074
Yup, Rolando was pretty much just average across the board, but somehow people are surprised that he failed. Paul pretty much crushes him. However it all plays out, it's always fun to bet on a somewhat odd prospect like Worrilow, even if he does come from an a place that is just a puffed up sandbar.
Oh, one other thing I wanted to make a note of is the annual "he's an undersized linebacker" nonsense that the commentators spout about anyone under 6' 4" and 250 pounds. The average height and weight, of the 17 Pro Bowl and All Pro middle linebackers that I have numbers for, is 6' 1.2" and 239 pounds (Worrilow is 6'2" and 238#). People used to always say that Ray Lewis was undersized, when it seems he was very much the typical build for an MLB. So, maybe, people should shut up about this stuff.
Monday, May 13, 2013
Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
I was having a conversation with someone the other day about
statistics, and their relationship to the draft, when it dawned on me
that I might have sounded a bit too dismissive of the film study portion
of talent evaluation. That was probably a mistake on my part. so I
thought I would clarify things a bit more.
Among the draft geek crowd, there is a bit of a divide between the guys who examine the numbers, and the guys who feel that it all comes down to studying the film. Things sometimes get a bit heated (as much as they can between geeks), and insulting comments are thrown around regarding the opposing groups viewpoints. In general, both sides come out looking rather badly. Everybody wants to be perceived as some sort of guru, and to show that the other side is composed of morons. It's sort of a very lame version of the Middle East peace talks, but with more spreadsheets and a slightly lower body count.
Since I would probably get lumped in with the stat geeks, more often than not, I thought I would poke some holes in their balloon first. The men of numbers tend to be very dismissive of any subjective analysis. Sometimes this is a good thing, but occasionally they get carried away with things. If a player's traits can't be measured, they must be ignored. Only the quantifiable matters. Except for when the numbers come out wrong, and then they have to come up with new statistics to explain the shortcomings of the old ones.
If there is one issue that I think screws up the statistics crowd, it is probably an over-reliance on regression analysis, and the scatter-plots that come with it. It's not that this approach has no value. It's just that people get carried away with it. They try to find correlations between certain attributes, and an arbitrary measure of success, and forget to question whether this attribute has any sort of sensible relationship to the game of football. Why does a defensive ends' 3-cone time have a 0.05 correlation to his CarAV (I'm just making this up as an example)? There can be a reason for this, or it can mean nothing. If you can't envision how it translates to what a player is doing on the field, it becomes a bit sketchy. This becomes an issue before we even get to the question of whether CarAV is an adequate measure of success. Cameron Wake has a CarAV of 37, and is one of the league's premier pass rushers. Tyler Brayton was a mediocrity, with a CarAV of 39. Something doesn't add up there. It ends up being Sex Panther statistics.
It's not that this sort of analysis is bad; it's just that it has some limitations that people sometimes overlook. In baseball, questions of sample size are less problematic (more games played, more at bats, etc.). Plus, the situations that players are put in are much more similar, at least when they are batting. They all face the same pitchers (for the most part), and they have comparable and numerous opportunities. Does Denarius Moore, playing receiver with the Raiders, have a similar opportunity to Greg Jennings, playing with the Packers? This is before we even come to the question of whether the best players are getting on the field in the first place. See Cameron Wake's four years in the CFL, when no NFL team wanted him, as an example. At some point, expecting the results to be in any way linear, becomes ridiculous. Maybe it is a product of our childhood education involving coloring books, that makes our obsession with "staying inside the lines" so powerful. Regardless, I suspect we could find a high correlation between a stat geek's sense of superiority and his proximity to someone who doesn't know how to use Excel spreadsheets.
Really, though, how complicated are spreadsheets? I could teach a five year old how to do a regression analysis in five minutes (true, a sixty year old might take longer). Despite my affection for spreadsheets, I have to admit that only people with OCD are likely to spend much time using them. Spreadsheets do a good job of tidying things up, and making us look more clever than we are, and for that I am grateful. They don't make us geniuses.
So, now we come to the other side of the table, the "film study" boys. They generally dismiss statistics, in favor of a pure observational approach. By eschewing statistics, they also insulate themselves from any analysis that might show what percentage of the time their eyes were malfunctioning. It's sort of like my view on going to the doctor. If I never go in for a check up, I am guaranteed to die of natural, or at the very least undiagnosed, causes. That certainly sounds preferable to finding out about a tumor in my colon. "Here lies Sid, his ass killed him." That will never be on my headstone, so long as I avoid doctors. People will just say,"We don't know what killed him. It was just his time."
Despite my occasional prodding of the film study crowd, I think there are some areas where they are correct. No matter what my computer is telling me about a particular prospect, it seems sensible to watch them play at some point. My only gripe with the film guys, is their short term memory. This year's 'waist bender with a bad bubble', can be next year's All Pro. It's good to keep track of how often we turn out to be wrong, so that we can learn from our mistakes. Everyone wants to point to a player like Vernon Gholston, and say they knew he was going to be a bust, or that they could have spotted Tom Brady. If you don't account for all the times you were wrong, however, you aren't telling the whole story.
The film study crowd will often say that talent evaluation is more art than science. Based on my experience, guru types who make such statements are generally to be avoided. Yes, there are things that can be difficult to quantify, and some people might indeed have a good eye for talent. However, people who make these statements are kind of setting themselves up on a theoretically unassailable position. I can't debate with someone on their subjective views, nor can I prove them wrong. They might be right, but making mystical claims of insight, is problematic for me..
Quite frequently, watching game film does give you an interesting and valuable perspective. On the one hand, I remember watching Melvin Ingram (DE/OLB, taken with the 18th pick in 2012, by the Chargers), and being really excited about him. Unfortunately, the computer wasn't quite as sold on him as a prospect, so I was forced to demote him in favor of safer prospects. On the other hand, I also remember watching Hakeem Nicks play in college (WR, taken with the 28th pick in 2009, by the Giants), and also being fan. In this case, the computer liked Hakeem quite a bit. What really sealed the deal though was watching this particular play.
If you only watched the beginning of this clip, do yourself favor and watch the whole thing. The slow motion replay is what you want to see. Now maybe I made too big of a deal out of this play, back in 2009, but it stuck with me. I remember thinking,"My god, how did he maintain control of that ball?" It seemed to show a lot of concentration. Someone else might suggest that is was just a fluke, or that he got lucky. To me, at the time, it was just amazing. I enjoy seeing those "Oh shit, did you see that?" moments, and put a lot of stock in them. If a player can do something like that, even just once, there is reason to hope that they can do it again....and hopefully again, and again.
When both perspectives, the statistical and the observed, are combined, I think you will get a better view of things, than if you are just an adherent to one side of the argument. These two opposed groups are the peanut butter and chocolate of analysis. They work better together. Or, since peanut butter and chocolate are actually quite pleasing on their own, maybe these two groups are more like vinegar and oil. Individually they are repulsive, but capable of making a decent salad dressing when combined. Still, for what I will write in this blog, I will generally try to refrain from expressing my own subjective views. There are already enough people out there who will give you subjective opinions, and a select few of them are worth listening to (not he bozos on ESPN). For the most part, I will just give you the numbers, and you can go watch the players yourself, to form your own conclusions. There's no reason to think that your impressions of a player would be any worse than mine.
Among the draft geek crowd, there is a bit of a divide between the guys who examine the numbers, and the guys who feel that it all comes down to studying the film. Things sometimes get a bit heated (as much as they can between geeks), and insulting comments are thrown around regarding the opposing groups viewpoints. In general, both sides come out looking rather badly. Everybody wants to be perceived as some sort of guru, and to show that the other side is composed of morons. It's sort of a very lame version of the Middle East peace talks, but with more spreadsheets and a slightly lower body count.
Since I would probably get lumped in with the stat geeks, more often than not, I thought I would poke some holes in their balloon first. The men of numbers tend to be very dismissive of any subjective analysis. Sometimes this is a good thing, but occasionally they get carried away with things. If a player's traits can't be measured, they must be ignored. Only the quantifiable matters. Except for when the numbers come out wrong, and then they have to come up with new statistics to explain the shortcomings of the old ones.
If there is one issue that I think screws up the statistics crowd, it is probably an over-reliance on regression analysis, and the scatter-plots that come with it. It's not that this approach has no value. It's just that people get carried away with it. They try to find correlations between certain attributes, and an arbitrary measure of success, and forget to question whether this attribute has any sort of sensible relationship to the game of football. Why does a defensive ends' 3-cone time have a 0.05 correlation to his CarAV (I'm just making this up as an example)? There can be a reason for this, or it can mean nothing. If you can't envision how it translates to what a player is doing on the field, it becomes a bit sketchy. This becomes an issue before we even get to the question of whether CarAV is an adequate measure of success. Cameron Wake has a CarAV of 37, and is one of the league's premier pass rushers. Tyler Brayton was a mediocrity, with a CarAV of 39. Something doesn't add up there. It ends up being Sex Panther statistics.
It's not that this sort of analysis is bad; it's just that it has some limitations that people sometimes overlook. In baseball, questions of sample size are less problematic (more games played, more at bats, etc.). Plus, the situations that players are put in are much more similar, at least when they are batting. They all face the same pitchers (for the most part), and they have comparable and numerous opportunities. Does Denarius Moore, playing receiver with the Raiders, have a similar opportunity to Greg Jennings, playing with the Packers? This is before we even come to the question of whether the best players are getting on the field in the first place. See Cameron Wake's four years in the CFL, when no NFL team wanted him, as an example. At some point, expecting the results to be in any way linear, becomes ridiculous. Maybe it is a product of our childhood education involving coloring books, that makes our obsession with "staying inside the lines" so powerful. Regardless, I suspect we could find a high correlation between a stat geek's sense of superiority and his proximity to someone who doesn't know how to use Excel spreadsheets.
Really, though, how complicated are spreadsheets? I could teach a five year old how to do a regression analysis in five minutes (true, a sixty year old might take longer). Despite my affection for spreadsheets, I have to admit that only people with OCD are likely to spend much time using them. Spreadsheets do a good job of tidying things up, and making us look more clever than we are, and for that I am grateful. They don't make us geniuses.
So, now we come to the other side of the table, the "film study" boys. They generally dismiss statistics, in favor of a pure observational approach. By eschewing statistics, they also insulate themselves from any analysis that might show what percentage of the time their eyes were malfunctioning. It's sort of like my view on going to the doctor. If I never go in for a check up, I am guaranteed to die of natural, or at the very least undiagnosed, causes. That certainly sounds preferable to finding out about a tumor in my colon. "Here lies Sid, his ass killed him." That will never be on my headstone, so long as I avoid doctors. People will just say,"We don't know what killed him. It was just his time."
Despite my occasional prodding of the film study crowd, I think there are some areas where they are correct. No matter what my computer is telling me about a particular prospect, it seems sensible to watch them play at some point. My only gripe with the film guys, is their short term memory. This year's 'waist bender with a bad bubble', can be next year's All Pro. It's good to keep track of how often we turn out to be wrong, so that we can learn from our mistakes. Everyone wants to point to a player like Vernon Gholston, and say they knew he was going to be a bust, or that they could have spotted Tom Brady. If you don't account for all the times you were wrong, however, you aren't telling the whole story.
The film study crowd will often say that talent evaluation is more art than science. Based on my experience, guru types who make such statements are generally to be avoided. Yes, there are things that can be difficult to quantify, and some people might indeed have a good eye for talent. However, people who make these statements are kind of setting themselves up on a theoretically unassailable position. I can't debate with someone on their subjective views, nor can I prove them wrong. They might be right, but making mystical claims of insight, is problematic for me..
Quite frequently, watching game film does give you an interesting and valuable perspective. On the one hand, I remember watching Melvin Ingram (DE/OLB, taken with the 18th pick in 2012, by the Chargers), and being really excited about him. Unfortunately, the computer wasn't quite as sold on him as a prospect, so I was forced to demote him in favor of safer prospects. On the other hand, I also remember watching Hakeem Nicks play in college (WR, taken with the 28th pick in 2009, by the Giants), and also being fan. In this case, the computer liked Hakeem quite a bit. What really sealed the deal though was watching this particular play.
If you only watched the beginning of this clip, do yourself favor and watch the whole thing. The slow motion replay is what you want to see. Now maybe I made too big of a deal out of this play, back in 2009, but it stuck with me. I remember thinking,"My god, how did he maintain control of that ball?" It seemed to show a lot of concentration. Someone else might suggest that is was just a fluke, or that he got lucky. To me, at the time, it was just amazing. I enjoy seeing those "Oh shit, did you see that?" moments, and put a lot of stock in them. If a player can do something like that, even just once, there is reason to hope that they can do it again....and hopefully again, and again.
When both perspectives, the statistical and the observed, are combined, I think you will get a better view of things, than if you are just an adherent to one side of the argument. These two opposed groups are the peanut butter and chocolate of analysis. They work better together. Or, since peanut butter and chocolate are actually quite pleasing on their own, maybe these two groups are more like vinegar and oil. Individually they are repulsive, but capable of making a decent salad dressing when combined. Still, for what I will write in this blog, I will generally try to refrain from expressing my own subjective views. There are already enough people out there who will give you subjective opinions, and a select few of them are worth listening to (not he bozos on ESPN). For the most part, I will just give you the numbers, and you can go watch the players yourself, to form your own conclusions. There's no reason to think that your impressions of a player would be any worse than mine.
Saturday, May 11, 2013
What should we make of Aaron Mellette?
The Ravens' selection of Aaron Mellette presents an interesting case
to examine. On the one hand, a very basic comparison to his peers, as I discussed here,
would suggest that this was an excellent pick. When lumped in with
receivers over 200 pounds, his total combined statistical/athletic score
would be 1.052 standard deviations above average. That is an excellent
overall score, and places him amongst players such as Larry Fitzgerald,
Dez Bryant, or Julio Jones. Selecting players by this simple
measurement should lead to a successful outcome about 67.5% of the time,
which is far better than the Ravens' typical success rate of 16.66%.
Unfortunately, things aren't that simple. I still think that picking Aaron Mellette was a good idea. If the Ravens continue to place value on athletically superior players with a good history of college production, their success rate should climb. Why they haven't been doing this already, I don't know. Still, if you look deeper into the numbers that make these simple scores, the outlook for Mellette is somewhat less glamorous. He might still be good, but it is unlikely that he will really compare to the top tier receivers I mentioned above.
This probably doesn't come as a shock to anyone, since he was only a seventh round draft pick. Still, there have been late round/undrafted receivers that scored well and outperformed their draft position. Victor Cruz, Miles Austin, and Marques Colston would be example of this type of player. Even here though, Mellette has some nagging issues that might diminish such hopes. Since the players' total score is made up of their college Statistical Score (40% of total score for "Big" receivers) and their Athletic Score (60% of total score), any significant irregularity on one score can create an imbalance that is difficult for the other portion of the score to balance out. Here is how Aaron Mellette compares to some of his more well known peers (in the 'Big' receiver group) in this regard.
Player Stat Score Athletic Score Combined Score
Average Result 0.647 1.123
A couple notes should be made about players on this list. First, Torrey Smith and Victor Cruz really belong more to the "Small" receiver group, but I'm listing them here anyway. They score well enough among the "Big" receivers to still serve as interesting comparisons. Secondly, some players like Brandon Marshall or Greg Little would probably have higher Stat Scores, if they had been regular starters for more than one year in college. The Stat Score looks at the final two years of college production for a receiver, so, obviously, missing a year or a portion of one can give a somewhat skewed picture of things.
What you will probably notice is that Aaron Mellette's total score is getting a significant boost from his Stat Score of 1.943, while his athletic score is a good, but not shocking 0.457. I don't mean to sound as if I am complaining about his excellent college production, because I'm not. It's just that this distorts things a bit when you are trying to evaluate him. There are some other players, like Vincent Jackson and Larry Fitzgerald who had similarly outrageous Stat Scores, but they paired them with better athletic results. We also have to be aware that Aaron Mellete compiled his stats at Elon, so level of competition is going to be an issue.
Even with all of that said, an Athletic Score of 0.457 seems pretty good. You might point to players like Hakeem Nicks, Roddy White, or Kenny Britt as players who appear to be somewhat comparable. Unfortunately, things get a bit complicated here too. As always, there are numbers within numbers. And the way Aaron Mellette puts together this respectable Athletic Score is perhaps less than ideal. The simplest way to look at this is to show what goes into the Athletic Score.
Player Wt/40 Kangaroo BMI Dev. Agility Total
Average Result 0.742 1.350 0.943 -0.287
The Wt/40 score is just a measure of a player's 40 yard dash time relative to their weight. The Kangaroo Score is a measurement of explosiveness. The BMI Dev. shows how many standard deviations above or below average a player is in terms of body mass. Players with lower BMIs might have a higher risk of injury, due to their lankier frames. The Agility Score shows how many standard deviations above or below average a player was in the short shuttle drill and 3-cone drill. The different score are not all valued the same, when it comes to combining them for the final score.
The Agility Score can, for the most part, be ignored here. It tends to be of greater value to smaller receivers who rely more on evading cornerbacks, rather than overpowering them. I am just including it so as to eliminate the possibility that Aaron Mellette might have done well here, which he hasn't. Not a big deal.
While Aaron Mellette's Wt/40 Score is comparable to the average result for this particular group of "Big" receivers, though things kind of fall apart after this point. What really stands out is the sheer domination that the rest of the receivers show in terms of lower body explosiveness, as measured by the Kangaroo Score. The closest players to Aaron's score of 0.254, are David Boston (0.463) and Hakeem Nicks (0.487), who are both still scoring significantly better than Aaron. That the average Kangaroo Score for this group is 1.350 is fairly shocking, and probably says something important about what traits teams should be looking for amongst large receivers. There are exceptions, of course, but this list does contain a rather large percentage of top tier "Big" receivers in the league.
In the end, we have a picture of Aaron Mellette as a player who has good speed for his size, produced well in college, but probably lacks the type of explosiveness that you normally associate with top tier large receivers. None of this is to say that he will not turn out well. He still measures up better than most of the receivers that the Ravens have selected in the past, and could prove to be quite productive. There just might be a cap on how far he can go. I still expect he could be significantly better than any of the receivers on the Ravens' roster, not named Torrey Smith.
None of this is meant to be a criticism of Mellette. I just thought it would be good to provide a deeper look at wide receivers than I did in the post about the statistical drafting of receivers, and how it can improve a team's odds of success. This just goes a step further, and should improve a team's results even more.
Unfortunately, things aren't that simple. I still think that picking Aaron Mellette was a good idea. If the Ravens continue to place value on athletically superior players with a good history of college production, their success rate should climb. Why they haven't been doing this already, I don't know. Still, if you look deeper into the numbers that make these simple scores, the outlook for Mellette is somewhat less glamorous. He might still be good, but it is unlikely that he will really compare to the top tier receivers I mentioned above.
This probably doesn't come as a shock to anyone, since he was only a seventh round draft pick. Still, there have been late round/undrafted receivers that scored well and outperformed their draft position. Victor Cruz, Miles Austin, and Marques Colston would be example of this type of player. Even here though, Mellette has some nagging issues that might diminish such hopes. Since the players' total score is made up of their college Statistical Score (40% of total score for "Big" receivers) and their Athletic Score (60% of total score), any significant irregularity on one score can create an imbalance that is difficult for the other portion of the score to balance out. Here is how Aaron Mellette compares to some of his more well known peers (in the 'Big' receiver group) in this regard.
Player Stat Score Athletic Score Combined Score
| Vincent Jackson | 1.914 | 2.089 | 2.019 |
| Calvin Johnson | 0.742 | 2.640 | 1.881 |
| Andre Johnson | 0.178 | 2.111 | 1.338 |
| Aaron Mellette | 1.943 | 0.457 | 1.052 |
| Larry Fitzgerald | 1.303 | 0.822 | 1.014 |
| Dez Bryant | 0.358 | 1.425 | 0.998 |
| Roddy White | 1.171 | 0.695 | 0.885 |
| Miles Austin | 0.737 | 0.927 | 0.851 |
| Greg Little | -0.752 | 1.865 | 0.818 |
| Julio Jones | -0.020 | 1.370 | 0.814 |
| Kenny Britt | 1.000 | 0.678 | 0.807 |
| Hakeem Nicks | 1.023 | 0.518 | 0.720 |
| Michael Floyd | 0.513 | 0.853 | 0.717 |
| Mike Williams (Tampa) | 0.180 | 1.030 | 0.690 |
| Victor Cruz | 0.433 | 0.853 | 0.685 |
| Brandon Marshall | 0.096 | 1.003 | 0.640 |
| David Boston | 0.668 | 0.588 | 0.620 |
| Marques Colston | 0.322 | 0.799 | 0.608 |
| Torrey Smith | 0.486 | 0.624 | 0.569 |
A couple notes should be made about players on this list. First, Torrey Smith and Victor Cruz really belong more to the "Small" receiver group, but I'm listing them here anyway. They score well enough among the "Big" receivers to still serve as interesting comparisons. Secondly, some players like Brandon Marshall or Greg Little would probably have higher Stat Scores, if they had been regular starters for more than one year in college. The Stat Score looks at the final two years of college production for a receiver, so, obviously, missing a year or a portion of one can give a somewhat skewed picture of things.
What you will probably notice is that Aaron Mellette's total score is getting a significant boost from his Stat Score of 1.943, while his athletic score is a good, but not shocking 0.457. I don't mean to sound as if I am complaining about his excellent college production, because I'm not. It's just that this distorts things a bit when you are trying to evaluate him. There are some other players, like Vincent Jackson and Larry Fitzgerald who had similarly outrageous Stat Scores, but they paired them with better athletic results. We also have to be aware that Aaron Mellete compiled his stats at Elon, so level of competition is going to be an issue.
Even with all of that said, an Athletic Score of 0.457 seems pretty good. You might point to players like Hakeem Nicks, Roddy White, or Kenny Britt as players who appear to be somewhat comparable. Unfortunately, things get a bit complicated here too. As always, there are numbers within numbers. And the way Aaron Mellette puts together this respectable Athletic Score is perhaps less than ideal. The simplest way to look at this is to show what goes into the Athletic Score.
Player Wt/40 Kangaroo BMI Dev. Agility Total
| Vincent Jackson | 1.433 | 2.553 | 1.557 | N/A | 2.089 |
| Calvin Johnson | 1.954 | 3.466 | 1.152 | N/A | 2.640 |
| Andre Johnson | 1.327 | 2.453 | 2.094 | N/A | 2.111 |
| Aaron Mellette | 0.671 | 0.254 | 0.772 | -1.155 | 0.475 |
| Larry Fitzgerald | 0.622 | 0.787 | 1.158 | -0.316 | 0.822 |
| Dez Bryant | 0.568 | 1.735 | 1.585 | -1.308 | 1.425 |
| Roddy White | 0.278 | 1.044 | 0.217 | 0.237 | 0.695 |
| Miles Austin | 0.496 | 1.267 | 0.495 | -0.150 | 0.927 |
| Greg Little | 0.826 | 2.304 | 1.881 | 0.313 | 1.865 |
| Julio Jones | 1.362 | 1.638 | 0.630 | 0.515 | 1.370 |
| Kenny Britt | 0.437 | 0.895 | 0.358 | N/A | 0.678 |
| Hakeem Nicks | 0.180 | 0.487 | 1.010 | -0.858 | 0.518 |
| Michael Floyd | 1.041 | 0.836 | 0.674 | -1.014 | 0.853 |
| Mike Williams (Tampa) | 0.379 | 1.147 | 1.485 | 0.138 | 1.030 |
| Victor Cruz | 0.190 | 1.034 | 1.144 | 0.062 | 0.853 |
| Brandon Marshall | 0.758 | 1.268 | 0.552 | -0.433 | 1.003 |
| David Boston | 0.496 | 0.463 | 1.049 | -0.242 | 0.588 |
| Marques Colston | 0.641 | 1.145 | 0.019 | -0.894 | 0.799 |
| Torrey Smith | 0.443 | 0.891 | 0.095 | 0.793 | 0.624 |
The Wt/40 score is just a measure of a player's 40 yard dash time relative to their weight. The Kangaroo Score is a measurement of explosiveness. The BMI Dev. shows how many standard deviations above or below average a player is in terms of body mass. Players with lower BMIs might have a higher risk of injury, due to their lankier frames. The Agility Score shows how many standard deviations above or below average a player was in the short shuttle drill and 3-cone drill. The different score are not all valued the same, when it comes to combining them for the final score.
The Agility Score can, for the most part, be ignored here. It tends to be of greater value to smaller receivers who rely more on evading cornerbacks, rather than overpowering them. I am just including it so as to eliminate the possibility that Aaron Mellette might have done well here, which he hasn't. Not a big deal.
While Aaron Mellette's Wt/40 Score is comparable to the average result for this particular group of "Big" receivers, though things kind of fall apart after this point. What really stands out is the sheer domination that the rest of the receivers show in terms of lower body explosiveness, as measured by the Kangaroo Score. The closest players to Aaron's score of 0.254, are David Boston (0.463) and Hakeem Nicks (0.487), who are both still scoring significantly better than Aaron. That the average Kangaroo Score for this group is 1.350 is fairly shocking, and probably says something important about what traits teams should be looking for amongst large receivers. There are exceptions, of course, but this list does contain a rather large percentage of top tier "Big" receivers in the league.
In the end, we have a picture of Aaron Mellette as a player who has good speed for his size, produced well in college, but probably lacks the type of explosiveness that you normally associate with top tier large receivers. None of this is to say that he will not turn out well. He still measures up better than most of the receivers that the Ravens have selected in the past, and could prove to be quite productive. There just might be a cap on how far he can go. I still expect he could be significantly better than any of the receivers on the Ravens' roster, not named Torrey Smith.
None of this is meant to be a criticism of Mellette. I just thought it would be good to provide a deeper look at wide receivers than I did in the post about the statistical drafting of receivers, and how it can improve a team's odds of success. This just goes a step further, and should improve a team's results even more.
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Explosive pass rushers!
If you were drafting a 3-4 outside linebacker, or a 4-3 defensive
end, how much would you really care about their ability to stop the run,
if they were a hellacious pass rusher? You probably wouldn't care very
much. Guys who can stop the run are a dime a dozen. You could pick
one up in the fifth round without much difficulty. Teams struggle much
more with finding guys who can turn the opposing quarterback into a
paraplegic.
If you have read through the other nonsense I have posted here, what I'm about to say will seem very predictable. Teams should draft freak athletes! Look for guys who can jump really high! Blah, blah, blah. I'm even bored with myself. Once again, we're going to pull out the old Kangaroo Score. The Kangaroo Score, in this case, relates to a player's ability to effectively bull rush and their explosiveness when the ball is snapped. There will also be a visit from the Agility Score, and a special guest appearance by the often neglected bench press. The bench press results from the combine don't really matter too much, and will only represent 10% of a player's total score. At some point I might get rid of the bench press altogether. It really only serves to eliminate the freakishly weak.
First of all, we'll look at the 3-4 outside linebackers. Generally speaking they will be a bit more agile than 4-3 defensive ends. It should make sense that a 3-4 outside linebacker would benefit from better agility, since they will drop back into coverage with greater frequency than defensive ends. Other than that, the differences are insignificant, regardless of what stupid things people say about "Oh, he won't fit this scheme". It's all nonsense. For the most part they are pretty interchangeable. Basically, the lighter the player is, the more they will require/benefit from increased agility, so as to avoid offensive tackles who could maul them. I will also be including the player's average number of tackles for a loss in their last 2 years in college. I'll explain why a bit later.
3-4 Outside Linebackers
Player Weight Bench Kang. Score Agility Score Total Avg. TFL
Hmm, that sure is a lot of exceptional athletes there. I wonder if that is a coincidence? Some difficult individuals might be tempted to say,"Hey, why does Connor Barwin have a higher total score than Demarcus Ware? That can't be right." These people are assholes, who want to make my life difficult. Yes, you. The scores themselves don't really matter that much, as odd as that may sound. All we care about is whether a player crosses certain thresholds when it comes to being more explosive and agile than his average peer. These guys are.. so shut up.
4-3 Defensive Ends
Player Weight Bench Kang. Score Agility Score Total Avg. TFL
What's that you say? These guys look pretty athletic too? Hmm, I'll have to look into that. Surely it is just a coincidence. In some ways, Brian Orakpo and Adalius Thomas should fit in better here, since their agility score were a bit lower. Some of these players like Brian Robison, Kyle Vanden Bosch, Chris Long, etc. would likewise probably prove capable of playing quite well in a 3-4. People would shriek and squeal,"No, Chris Long wouldn't fit in that scheme." Why not? He's about as agile as Cameron Wake, and no heavier than Shawne Merriman or Justin Houston. Jason Babin really should be in a 3-4, since he doesn't have great explosive power, but has excellent agility. This might be why he briefly thrived in the nonsensical "wide 9" defense in Philly. It let him line up very wide outside the offensive tackle (similar to how he would line up in a 3-4) and avoid some physical confrontations. The same thought probably applies to Rob Ninkovich.
Yes, J.J. Watt is really a 3-4 defensive end, which is more like a defensive tackle (sort of like Mario Williams who I also included), but I can't resist posting his numbers everywhere I possibly can. They are amazing!
Yes, this is leaving out quite a few guys who scored well, but who became busts (it also leaves out some who were just "good"). This is why I include the Avg. TFL here. If you additionally filter players who had a low number of TFL it eliminates most of the athletic guys who became failures. In general, I sort guys like this. If they have a total score over 0.500 and averaged 15 TFL in their last two college years, they get a first round grade. Then the TFL requirement goes down to 14 for the second round, 13 for the third, etc. If you stick to that your likelihood of success should fall somewhere between 65-82%, regardless of the round in which a player is taken. Of course, this does require pursuing players that the computer suggests are the most valuable targets, but these players are also frequently available later than you might suspect. The league-wide average success rate is somewhere between 20-30%. The reason I give a range of percentages is because precisely defining success is tricky here, and this covers the strictest and loosest possible definitions of the term that I can imagine. This is based on examining 702 linebackers and defensive ends, so sample size isn't really an issue. Once you get to the third round, I think it is okay to start taking guys with total scores between 0.300 and 0.500, but the TFL meter gets reset. So, 15 TFL for the third round, 14 TFL for the fourth, etc.
So far, using this system has only resulted in one potential first round pick who turned out to be a bust. Unfortunately that player was Vernon Gholston. What can you do? On the flip side, the system does alert you to an undrafted player like Cameron Wake, as a very interesting prospect. I have no idea how teams weren't interested in someone as athletically gifted as him. Sure, he wasn't very productive in college, but that sort of athleticism seems worth a late round pick.
Now let's look at some of the stupidest moments in recent NFL history. Who were some highly drafted players that haven't turned out to be worth much?
Player Weight Bench Kang. Score Agility Score Total Avg. TFL
The guys in this group have two things in common. They were all taken in the first two rounds, and they all suck. Aaron Curry almost has a passable score, but almost passable isn't what you want to see in a first round pick. The computer would have viewed him as a 3rd rounder. While many of them had impressive statistical production in college (high TFL numbers, in this case), their physical measurables suggested that there was a reasonable likelihood that this dominance wouldn't continue at the NFL level. I also realize that it is awfully early to call Courtney Upshaw a bust, but I'm willing to go out on limb with that hunch.
There is an additional category of pass rushers, that relies very heavily on high agility scores, which I've now written about here. I'll also try to get into some of the weird pass rushing outliers too.
If you have read through the other nonsense I have posted here, what I'm about to say will seem very predictable. Teams should draft freak athletes! Look for guys who can jump really high! Blah, blah, blah. I'm even bored with myself. Once again, we're going to pull out the old Kangaroo Score. The Kangaroo Score, in this case, relates to a player's ability to effectively bull rush and their explosiveness when the ball is snapped. There will also be a visit from the Agility Score, and a special guest appearance by the often neglected bench press. The bench press results from the combine don't really matter too much, and will only represent 10% of a player's total score. At some point I might get rid of the bench press altogether. It really only serves to eliminate the freakishly weak.
First of all, we'll look at the 3-4 outside linebackers. Generally speaking they will be a bit more agile than 4-3 defensive ends. It should make sense that a 3-4 outside linebacker would benefit from better agility, since they will drop back into coverage with greater frequency than defensive ends. Other than that, the differences are insignificant, regardless of what stupid things people say about "Oh, he won't fit this scheme". It's all nonsense. For the most part they are pretty interchangeable. Basically, the lighter the player is, the more they will require/benefit from increased agility, so as to avoid offensive tackles who could maul them. I will also be including the player's average number of tackles for a loss in their last 2 years in college. I'll explain why a bit later.
3-4 Outside Linebackers
Player Weight Bench Kang. Score Agility Score Total Avg. TFL
| Shawne Merriman | 272 | 25 | 1.960 | 0.506 | 1.351 | 13.25 |
| Connor Barwin | 256 | 21 | 1.642 | 1.186 | 1.282 | 16 |
| Brian Orakpo | 263 | 31 | 1.979 | -0.312 | 1.240 | 14 |
| Justin Houston | 270 | 30 | 1.581 | 0.506 | 1.226 | 16.75 |
| Cameron Wake | 236 | 20 | 1.371 | 0.843 | 0.996 | 8 |
| Demarcus Ware | 251 | 27 | 0.759 | 1.529 | 0.979 | 17.25 |
| Adalius Thomas | 270 | 24 | 1.573 | -0.306 | 0.855 | 18 |
| Von Miller | 246 | 21 | 0.532 | 1.846 | 0.814 | 19.5 |
| LaMarr Woodley | 266 | 29 | 1.195 | -0.075 | 0.800 | 15.25 |
| Kamerion Wimbley | 248 | 24 | 1.008 | 0.143 | 0.651 | 8.25 |
| Ryan Kerrigan | 267 | 31 | 0.805 | 0.007 | 0.632 | 22.25 |
Hmm, that sure is a lot of exceptional athletes there. I wonder if that is a coincidence? Some difficult individuals might be tempted to say,"Hey, why does Connor Barwin have a higher total score than Demarcus Ware? That can't be right." These people are assholes, who want to make my life difficult. Yes, you. The scores themselves don't really matter that much, as odd as that may sound. All we care about is whether a player crosses certain thresholds when it comes to being more explosive and agile than his average peer. These guys are.. so shut up.
4-3 Defensive Ends
Player Weight Bench Kang. Score Agility Score Total Avg. TFL
| Mario Williams | 295 | 35 | 3.123 | 0.005 | 2.104 | 19.5 |
| JJ Watt | 290 | 34 | 2.308 | 1.084 | 1.918 | 18.25 |
| Kyle Vanden Bosch | 270 | 26 | 1.211 | 1.559 | 1.238 | 14 |
| Brian Robison | 259 | 27 | 1.383 | 0.926 | 1.172 | 12 |
| Chris Long | 272 | 24 | 1.238 | 0.814 | 0.990 | 14.25 |
| Will Smith | 275 | 30 | 1.629 | -0.454 | 0.967 | 16.25 |
| Aaron Schobel | 263 | 21 | 1.098 | 1.043 | 0.912 | N/A |
| Jevon Kearse | 262 | 24 | 1.083 | 0.769 | 0.883 | 10 |
| Andre Carter | 249 | 20 | 1.230 | 0.577 | 0.831 | 19.5 |
| Jason Babin | 260 | 28 | 0.492 | 0.988 | 0.677 | 29.5 |
| Justin Tuck | 265 | 24 | 1.060 | -0.004 | 0.637 | 16.5 |
| Robert Quinn | 265 | 22 | 0.968 | 0.076 | 0.565 | 12.75 |
| Greg Hardy | 281 | 21 | 1.370 | -0.846 | 0.509 | 14.25 |
| Rob Ninkovich | 260 | 23 | 0.267 | 1.013 | 0.446 | 13.25 |
What's that you say? These guys look pretty athletic too? Hmm, I'll have to look into that. Surely it is just a coincidence. In some ways, Brian Orakpo and Adalius Thomas should fit in better here, since their agility score were a bit lower. Some of these players like Brian Robison, Kyle Vanden Bosch, Chris Long, etc. would likewise probably prove capable of playing quite well in a 3-4. People would shriek and squeal,"No, Chris Long wouldn't fit in that scheme." Why not? He's about as agile as Cameron Wake, and no heavier than Shawne Merriman or Justin Houston. Jason Babin really should be in a 3-4, since he doesn't have great explosive power, but has excellent agility. This might be why he briefly thrived in the nonsensical "wide 9" defense in Philly. It let him line up very wide outside the offensive tackle (similar to how he would line up in a 3-4) and avoid some physical confrontations. The same thought probably applies to Rob Ninkovich.
Yes, J.J. Watt is really a 3-4 defensive end, which is more like a defensive tackle (sort of like Mario Williams who I also included), but I can't resist posting his numbers everywhere I possibly can. They are amazing!
Yes, this is leaving out quite a few guys who scored well, but who became busts (it also leaves out some who were just "good"). This is why I include the Avg. TFL here. If you additionally filter players who had a low number of TFL it eliminates most of the athletic guys who became failures. In general, I sort guys like this. If they have a total score over 0.500 and averaged 15 TFL in their last two college years, they get a first round grade. Then the TFL requirement goes down to 14 for the second round, 13 for the third, etc. If you stick to that your likelihood of success should fall somewhere between 65-82%, regardless of the round in which a player is taken. Of course, this does require pursuing players that the computer suggests are the most valuable targets, but these players are also frequently available later than you might suspect. The league-wide average success rate is somewhere between 20-30%. The reason I give a range of percentages is because precisely defining success is tricky here, and this covers the strictest and loosest possible definitions of the term that I can imagine. This is based on examining 702 linebackers and defensive ends, so sample size isn't really an issue. Once you get to the third round, I think it is okay to start taking guys with total scores between 0.300 and 0.500, but the TFL meter gets reset. So, 15 TFL for the third round, 14 TFL for the fourth, etc.
So far, using this system has only resulted in one potential first round pick who turned out to be a bust. Unfortunately that player was Vernon Gholston. What can you do? On the flip side, the system does alert you to an undrafted player like Cameron Wake, as a very interesting prospect. I have no idea how teams weren't interested in someone as athletically gifted as him. Sure, he wasn't very productive in college, but that sort of athleticism seems worth a late round pick.
Now let's look at some of the stupidest moments in recent NFL history. Who were some highly drafted players that haven't turned out to be worth much?
Player Weight Bench Kang. Score Agility Score Total Avg. TFL
| Courtney Upshaw | 272 | 22 | -0.754 | -0.843 | -0.743 | 15.75 |
| Brandon Graham | 268 | 31 | -0.120 | 0.722 | 0.291 | 23 |
| Derrick Morgan | 266 | 21 | 0.225 | 0.012 | 0.079 | 14 |
| Tyson Jackson | 296 | 20 | -0.022 | -2.013 | -0.696 | N/A |
| Aaron Curry | 254 | 25 | 0.811 | -0.266 | 0.430 | 14.75 |
| Aaron Maybin | 249 | 22 | 0.705 | -0.619 | 0.199 | 12.25 |
| Larry English | 255 | 24 | -0.272 | -0.118 | -0.196 | 16.5 |
| Robert Ayers | 272 | 17 | -0.811 | -1.056 | -0.944 | 13.75 |
| Everette Brown | 256 | 26 | -0.459 | -1.092 | -0.559 | 16.5 |
| Derrick Harvey | 271 | 31 | -0.320 | -0.082 | -0.070 | 15 |
| Quentin Groves | 259 | 30 | 0.531 | -0.325 | 0.347 | 13 |
| Jarvis Moss | 250 | 16 | -0.517 | -0.105 | -0.503 | 10 |
The guys in this group have two things in common. They were all taken in the first two rounds, and they all suck. Aaron Curry almost has a passable score, but almost passable isn't what you want to see in a first round pick. The computer would have viewed him as a 3rd rounder. While many of them had impressive statistical production in college (high TFL numbers, in this case), their physical measurables suggested that there was a reasonable likelihood that this dominance wouldn't continue at the NFL level. I also realize that it is awfully early to call Courtney Upshaw a bust, but I'm willing to go out on limb with that hunch.
There is an additional category of pass rushers, that relies very heavily on high agility scores, which I've now written about here. I'll also try to get into some of the weird pass rushing outliers too.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)