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

GB Front Office and Athleticism
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
AlexGreen#20


Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 13483
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 11:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

skibrett15 wrote:
AlexGreen#20 wrote:


You're just forgetting the players involved.

CJ Wilson, Marshall Newhouse, Alex Green, Lawrence Guy, Jerron McMillian, and Andrew Datko were all really good athletes.


CJ Wilson- 65th percentile sparq
Marshall Newhouse- 33rd percentile sparq
Alex Green - 40th percentile
Guy- 50th percentile
McMillian-64th percentile
Andrew Datko - 34th percentile

k?


Pro Day/Combine results for McMillian:

5'11
203
4.35-40
1.40-10
39"-Vert
10'6"-Broad
17-225 reps
6.69-3cone

Below average athlete.

Sure
_________________
BroncoinGermany wrote:
From the day he was born and subsequently starting to grow into his short neck, round face, scruffy beard and pale face, Bulaga was destined to be a Packers O-Linemen for life.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
skibrett15


Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 2524
Location: nibelheim
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 11:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

64th percentile means better than 64 percent of nfl athletes, not below average.

Those are better numbers than I used. 40 time screams bogus, and I'd lean to keeping the 4.47 but even updating the vert to 39 and ss to 6.69 makes him 84th percentile.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AlexGreen#20


Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 13483
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 7:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

skibrett15 wrote:
64th percentile means better than 64 percent of nfl athletes, not below average.

Those are better numbers than I used. 40 time screams bogus, and I'd lean to keeping the 4.47 but even updating the vert to 39 and ss to 6.69 makes him 84th percentile.


Alright, and now check out Alex Green.

Height, Arm Length, 40 time, 20 shuttle, (and I'm comfortable assuming 3-cone and 10 split) are all in the 75th percentile or above.

He had an average broad jump and a below average vertical, and that knocked him down to being a worse athlete than 60% of RBs in the league?

https://www.mockdraftable.com/player/alex-green?position=RB

Not following you.
_________________
BroncoinGermany wrote:
From the day he was born and subsequently starting to grow into his short neck, round face, scruffy beard and pale face, Bulaga was destined to be a Packers O-Linemen for life.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
skibrett15


Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 2524
Location: nibelheim
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 9:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

yeah, so bearing in mind I don't have the actual sparq formula, just a very good approximation (I think 97% correlation) from regression...

For Alex Green, he's pretty hamstrung by his jumping numbers. He has good not elite three cone, very good shuttle, good 40 time, decent split of 1.56, good weight at 225, and average bench.

There's a huge segment of RBs between 115-125 which is where his score is at (118) and the 50th percentile is 120. Anyway, point being that in that range you are firmly in the "NFL athlete" relative to position category. The interesting part is looking at the guys who are 1 or 2 standard deviations away from the mean.

Basically once you fall below a certain threshold at any one metric, you really have a steep hill to climb just to get back to average, and Green basically does that anyway. The metric values improvement towards average more than it rewards being elite at any one event.
Some would say there is unnecessary emphasis on the jumping numbers, but they are good indicators of power and twitch.

Most of the background on this metric (developed by Nike) comes from Pete Carroll, and his using it for all of his HS football camps, recruiting efforts at USC, and his involvement in developing the metric with Nike. Then once he joined the Seahawks, he and scheider started referring to players as "good testers" such as Luke Willson and Christine Michael.

Packers getting Aaron Jones (1.2 SD), Josh Jones (1.1 SD), King (2.4 SD) and Amichia (1.3 SD) is, well, something to me anyway. Add in Biegel (64th percentile), Mays (64th), Yancey (72nd) and Dupre (82nd) and Jamaal Williams starts to stick out like a sore thumb (32nd)

Especially when you consider that there are only:
3 OL over 1 SD (Bolles, UDFA)
3 RB over 1 SD (1 character red, 1 UDFA, and Jones)
15 CB over 1 SD and 6 over 2
8 S over 1 SD

in this draft class.

Last thing, for reference, Randall Cobb's testing numbers would put him at the 10th percentile despite his 4.46 40 time.

EDIT:
looks like someone had the same idea (before I did apptly)
http://titletownsoundoff.com/featured-stories/green-bays-2017-draft-class-could-provide-a-sparq/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
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, 4
Page 4 of 4

 
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