Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

3-4 OLB's, by the #'s (Updated)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 17, 18, 19  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
lightsout85


Joined: 11 Apr 2013
Posts: 3
PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 1:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ugLymayNe wrote:
What twitch does is it takes the sprinting part of SS and isolates their COD skills.


I understand that. I was just wondering if any thought was given to cases where a player has a good/great 3-cone (which is also a COD drill - especially highlighting "bend") but has an oddly-low SS (that might lead one to believe the player just messed up doing the drill).

Would you just have to say in hindsight that it was an aberration & point to the 3-cone as the reason the player succeeded despite a bad twitch? (As it was noted Wimbley has been successful and was the only person in his group that had a sub-7s 3cone). You could always run a regression of 3cone vs SS times (for a position) and just substitute the bad SS with what the predicted SS would be based on their 3-cone, but I just thought I'd ask if anyone had come up with a "way around" this possible weakness in the metric. (Not that many player have this odd mis-match of times, but still interesting to me).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
deathstar


Joined: 06 Jun 2012
Posts: 1026
PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Instead of trying to fix the time, maybe it's pointing to a flaw in the player?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lightsout85


Joined: 11 Apr 2013
Posts: 3
PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 8:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

deathstar wrote:
Instead of trying to fix the time, maybe it's pointing to a flaw in the player?


I'd be curious as to what makes each of the 2 drills unique? That is, on the surface they're both COD drills. I've seen analysis on 3-cone's correlation to a player's ability to bend & pass-rush from the edge - so I'm curious as to if there's something that SS captures that 3-cone doesn't. If not, I was just asking if there was anything other than hindsight to evaluate those odd-cases of bad SS + great 3-cone. There's nothing wrong with that, "____ doesn't grade out well in Twitch, but he's got a great 3-cone so he'll probably still be successful", but I was curious.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nuke


Joined: 07 Jan 2007
Posts: 2581
PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2014 9:36 pm    Post subject: Re: 3-4 OLB's, by the #'s (Updated) Reply with quote

Waldo wrote:

Formulas used:
Twitch = Shuttle - 2*10 yd split - (1.60 - 10 yd split)
Bump to add 2014 list, and to point out that "twitch" formula can be done easier. Shuttle - 10 yard split - 1.60 is the exact same, and it's easier to do.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmG38OtkC7qLdE1JTDRwaUJvZ2ZZMGtWM3NHN052U3c&usp=sharing#gid=0

EDIT:Now that I'm looking at it, per his formula players are punished for running a good 10 yard split. Starr has the lowest twitch by a mile because he A: had the best shuttle in the group and B: had the 3rd worst 10 yard split in the group.
_________________
Nuke's Thread Archive
Damn the Falcons for stealing my 2014 mancrushes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
British


Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Posts: 754
Location: England
PostPosted: Wed Mar 18, 2015 6:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not sure who made this but there is a 2015 list up here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NR_IK6Qum7uIKX2PaXihE76FXy7VkEgsjUaShTfBIK8/edit#gid=0
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Skypilot


Joined: 15 Dec 2013
Posts: 2123
PostPosted: Wed Mar 18, 2015 9:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting that some of the analysis who place great emphasis on measurables were high on Bust O Rama Aaron Maybin as Waldo has him as "high risk" here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bossvegas


Joined: 19 Mar 2015
Posts: 110
PostPosted: Thu Mar 26, 2015 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sandybaby716 wrote:
I thought he was in low risk 2, which was for all players who got hgiher than 1.05 in the power thing.

If you remove Mark Anderson and Dontay Moch, since neither of them have played in a 3-4, Then the only two in that category who have not been to a Pro Bowl are Barwin and Houston. Remarkable considering Barwin was arguably deserving of the honor last season.


I think a couple things should be noted about the guys that didn't make a Pro Bowl.

Mark Anderson wasn't a high profile draft prospect like most of the others that broke the 1.05 explosive power number and didn't even get drafted until late in the 5th round. As a rookie he broke Urlacher's Bears' rookie record for sacks with 12. He also finished as runner-up for defensive rookie of the year. Pretty good for a 5th rounder. He had a lot of pressure and high expectations put on him by the media and ultimately couldn't live up to him them in the following years.

Moch got injured in the preseason of his rookie year then had a drug related suspension followed by issues with recurring migraines and has never really done anything but you have to wonder what could have been if he stayed healthy and kept on the right path.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SoS


Joined: 20 Apr 2013
Posts: 5259
Location: Sleepless in Seattle
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2016 12:55 pm    Post subject: Re: 3-4 OLB's, by the #'s (Updated) Reply with quote

Nuke wrote:
EDIT:Now that I'm looking at it, per his formula players are punished for running a good 10 yard split. Starr has the lowest twitch by a mile because he A: had the best shuttle in the group and B: had the 3rd worst 10 yard split in the group.


Did anyone ever do further digging on this? I was plugging in the formulas and just realized this myself.
_________________
DudeWhat?? wrote:
If I am a starting QB and my back up is Kellen Clemens..i would only have one question...."Turn up for what?"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bossvegas


Joined: 19 Mar 2015
Posts: 110
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2016 1:37 pm    Post subject: Re: 3-4 OLB's, by the #'s (Updated) Reply with quote

SoS wrote:
Nuke wrote:
EDIT:Now that I'm looking at it, per his formula players are punished for running a good 10 yard split. Starr has the lowest twitch by a mile because he A: had the best shuttle in the group and B: had the 3rd worst 10 yard split in the group.


Did anyone ever do further digging on this? I was plugging in the formulas and just realized this myself.


Yeah I noticed it too when I saw Spence had a worse twitch than Anthony Zettel despite a faster shuttle and 10 yard split. I was going to bring it up but decided to think about it some more.

Technically someone could have a great twitch score with a 5 second shuttle and a 2.5 split which obviously means he's really slow so in that sense the stat is flawed. A low 10 yard rewards them in the last part of the formula but not as much as it penalizes them in the first. I think the qualifier of a sub 7 second 3 cone is one thing that can help separate though because nobody that runs 5 and 2.5 on twitch stats would break the 7 second 3 cone mark.

I tried to think about how the numbers worked and what twitch is to figure out why it could make sense. The way the formula works is that it determines the player's quickness in change of direction compared to their short, straight line speed. So basically in the example of the person that runs a 5 second shuttle, even though he's really slow, his change of direction is really good compared to how slow he is running in a straight line. In other words, a 5 second shuttle is really good for someone who ran a 2.5 second 10 yard split and probably ran around a 7.5 second 40 and is therefore twitchy comparatively speaking.

I think that the fact that nobody that's gonna make it to the NFL will be that slow helps eliminate some of the issues with the formula and then the additional qualifier of a sub 7 second 3 cone separates the slow and twitchy from the fast and twitchy. I personally like to use other qualifiers to separate some of the players that have low twitch as well just because of some of the issues but technically the formula does measure what it's intended to. I hope that makes sense because it very well may not lol. That's just how I interpreted it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NCPackFan


Joined: 12 Jan 2013
Posts: 3829
Location: Kinston, NC
PostPosted: Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bossvegas wrote:
Sandybaby716 wrote:
I thought he was in low risk 2, which was for all players who got hgiher than 1.05 in the power thing.

If you remove Mark Anderson and Dontay Moch, since neither of them have played in a 3-4, Then the only two in that category who have not been to a Pro Bowl are Barwin and Houston. Remarkable considering Barwin was arguably deserving of the honor last season.


I think a couple things should be noted about the guys that didn't make a Pro Bowl.

Mark Anderson wasn't a high profile draft prospect like most of the others that broke the 1.05 explosive power number and didn't even get drafted until late in the 5th round. As a rookie he broke Urlacher's Bears' rookie record for sacks with 12. He also finished as runner-up for defensive rookie of the year. Pretty good for a 5th rounder. He had a lot of pressure and high expectations put on him by the media and ultimately couldn't live up to him them in the following years.

Moch got injured in the preseason of his rookie year then had a drug related suspension followed by issues with recurring migraines and has never really done anything but you have to wonder what could have been if he stayed healthy and kept on the right path.


Moch was highly questionable since day 1. Lots of flaws on tape, then his ego arrived. Anderson put in some good work with New England as well notching 10 sacks in 2011. A knee injury the following year ended his career and the last we've heard of him he was working for Lovie in Tampa Bay as a part of his scouting team.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PACKRULE


Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 1729
Location: saskatoon
PostPosted: Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TedThompson wrote:
Deep Mug wrote:
FakingInjuries wrote:
There is no science to drafting.

That's why they dissect every micromovement each player makes in specific workouts and examinations.

Right, but the funny thing is that despite all the extra effort and time, numbers/data-crunching, etc. they do now, they still bust at the same rate as they did 40 years ago. They've not gotten much better. Yu still get your Arian Fosters going undrafted, and your Blaine Gabberts going in round 1.


When it comes to bust rate each team still has to pick that's why the bust rate is still the same. Most teams would take the same guy if they could it's gotten that good with the exception of teams like the Browns. But from what I read and gather there are good indicators to success with OLB by the numbers but once the numbers guys are picked well what do you do when you need an OLB? You draft the next best guy by the numbers and play to support it. It's all teams can do as they move further down the draft order.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Packerraymond


Moderator
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 17692
Location: Oconomowoc, WI
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 9:51 am    Post subject: Re: 3-4 OLB's, by the #'s (Updated) Reply with quote

SoS wrote:
Nuke wrote:
EDIT:Now that I'm looking at it, per his formula players are punished for running a good 10 yard split. Starr has the lowest twitch by a mile because he A: had the best shuttle in the group and B: had the 3rd worst 10 yard split in the group.


Did anyone ever do further digging on this? I was plugging in the formulas and just realized this myself.


It is odd that the formula exists this way, I've been trying to come up with a solution, but then you look throughout that list at guys with a nice 10 yard and average SS and guys like Gholston, Maybin, Crable, Barnes, Jeremy Thompson, and a bunch of late round guys. It seems the guys who have great 10 yard splits but don't do well on their SS deserve the punishment based on their NFL careers.

A truly great athlete affected by this, like in the case of Orakpo, will usually score high enough on the explosion index to bypass the high twitch and be low risk 2.

One of those formulas that works, although it's a little tough to see why.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SoS


Joined: 20 Apr 2013
Posts: 5259
Location: Sleepless in Seattle
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:23 pm    Post subject: Re: 3-4 OLB's, by the #'s (Updated) Reply with quote

Packerraymond wrote:
SoS wrote:
Nuke wrote:
EDIT:Now that I'm looking at it, per his formula players are punished for running a good 10 yard split. Starr has the lowest twitch by a mile because he A: had the best shuttle in the group and B: had the 3rd worst 10 yard split in the group.


Did anyone ever do further digging on this? I was plugging in the formulas and just realized this myself.


It is odd that the formula exists this way, I've been trying to come up with a solution, but then you look throughout that list at guys with a nice 10 yard and average SS and guys like Gholston, Maybin, Crable, Barnes, Jeremy Thompson, and a bunch of late round guys. It seems the guys who have great 10 yard splits but don't do well on their SS deserve the punishment based on their NFL careers.

A truly great athlete affected by this, like in the case of Orakpo, will usually score high enough on the explosion index to bypass the high twitch and be low risk 2.

One of those formulas that works, although it's a little tough to see why.



I think that's fair. The reason I ask is because I was actually plugging the formula in for all positions (not just edge rushers) to see what correlation there might be. I was going about this and got to Jalen Ramsey, who I assumed would have an amazing Twitch score, but it turned out he was ranked as on the bottom half of the DB....which quite frankly makes no sense considering his times.

If anyone is interested, I tried to come up with a formula of my own which would also incorporates each prospects 3-Cone and Mass. I'm far from a math guy so it took me some trial and error, but here's what I came up with. If you are particularly strong in math, maybe you can take a look at this formula and make any necessary refinements.

(3-Cone * (0.1*Mass)) + (20SS * (0.17*Mass)) + (10YS * (0.45*Mass)

The reason for multiplying these by a % of the players Mass is an attempt to get all of the figures as proportionate to one another as possible prior to finding their sum. You'll see why that's important in the next step.

(2*Mass) / (above SUM)

The first step should bring you a result slightly higher than (2*Mass), so by dividing the sum by this, you are eliminating the difference that a players Mass may have on any of these results. Let's say, for example, that two players had the EXACT same 3Cone/20SS/10YS. Regardless of their Mass, they are going to yield identical scores with this formula. Ultimately, reason would tell you that the player with the higher Mass is the better athlete, so this is one thing to consider when looking at scores. Which brings us to the final step.

(above SUM) * 10

After step 2 you will receive results hovering between 0.900 and 0.999. With such a small fraction, it's somewhat difficult to readily decipher and rank the results. By multiplying it by 10, you're simply making the data slightly more legible and easy to understand.

And here's what the formula looks like if you were to input it into an Excel sheet, assuming O=Mass, J=3-Cone, K=20SS, and G=10YS:

=ROUND(((2*O5)/((J5*(0.1*O5))+(K5*(0.17*O5))+(G5*(0.45*O5)))*10),2)

I have yet to run these numbers historically to see any correlation with some of Waldo's results, but I plan to do so in the near future. As an example, here's a couple of DBs (since I mentioned Jalen Ramsey) with their Twitch scores juxtaposed to their Flex scores (I haven't actually named this formula, so Flex will have to do for now).

Player A
6.94 3-Cone
4.18 20SS
1.52 10YS
34.38 Mass

Player B
7.17 3-Cone
4.25 20SS
1.77 10YS
32.6 Mass

Player C
7.03 3-Cone
4.06 20SS
1.72 10YS
32.25 Mass


Which of these athletes would you say is the best? It should be pretty obvious that Player A is the best athlete of the three, whereas Player B is a below average athlete and Player C is an average athlete for the position.

So who are these guys?

Obviously Player A is Jalen Ramsey. Player B is Kentucky S A.J. Stamps. And Player C is Northern Iowa CB Deiondre' Hall. Why did I pick these 3? Because they perfectly encompass the problem with the Twitch formula. Here are the results:

Ramsey
Twitch: 1.06
Flex: 9.58

Stamps
Twitch: 0.88
Flex: 8.94

Hall
Twitch: 0.74
Flex: 9.23


Now, keeping in mind that low Twitch is better, these Twitch scores would lead you to believe that Ramsey is the WORST athlete of the three, whereas Stamps is an above average athlete and Hall is an elite athlete. I don't think their workout numbers reflect that conclusion.

Instead, there respective Flex numbers indicate that Ramsey has above average flexible burst (at the end of the day, this is what both Twitch and Flex are calculating), Hall is slightly below average and Stamps is downright terrible. I think these conclusions are much more in line with what you'd predict to be true and what you'll find evident when watching tape.



Thoughts?
_________________
DudeWhat?? wrote:
If I am a starting QB and my back up is Kellen Clemens..i would only have one question...."Turn up for what?"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ChaRisMa


Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 8699
Location: Hunting
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just gotta get on the record in this thread saying this formula is stupid and should only be used for entertainment purposes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
NormSizedMidget


Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 12208
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 3:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChaRisMa wrote:
Just gotta get on the record in this thread saying this formula is stupid and should only be used for entertainment purposes.


It's no more useful than if we all watched the combine them voted on rankings.. IMO.

It's not completely useless to a degree from the years I've followed it but it's not as interesting as I once thought
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 17, 18, 19  Next
Page 18 of 19

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group