You are currently viewing the old forums. We have upgraded to a new NFL Forum.
This old forum is being left as a read-only archive.
Please update your bookmarks to our new forum at forums.footballsfuture.com.


 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
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
SoS


Joined: 20 Apr 2013
Posts: 7053
Location: Sleepless in Seattle
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 3:20 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.


I'm curious why you believe so. Certainly everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the correlation of the data and NFL success is pretty uncanny (at least from the small sample size Waldo was able to put together). The game is moving more and more toward analytics and I'm of the belief that formulas like this will prove very useful.

At the end of the day, NOTHING is going to guarantee a team that they're drafting a stud. All these analytics are intended to provide is a "risk factor" with each prospect to increase the likelihood of making a good selection. In that, I think it does a very good job and I look forward to seeing if there's any correlation between these findings and some other positions outside of just edge rushers.
_________________
DCRED wrote:
Your dialogue was amazing and your facts presented were Stellar.
You give yourself and your team's forum great Honor.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shanedorf


Joined: 18 Mar 2014
Posts: 1583
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 3:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

All models are wrong; some of them are useful
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NormSizedMidget


Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 17912
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


I'm curious why you believe so. Certainly everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the correlation of the data and NFL success is pretty uncanny (at least from the small sample size Waldo was able to put together). The game is moving more and more toward analytics and I'm of the belief that formulas like this will prove very useful.

At the end of the day, NOTHING is going to guarantee a team that they're drafting a stud. All these analytics are intended to provide is a "risk factor" with each prospect to increase the likelihood of making a good selection. In that, I think it does a very good job and I look forward to seeing if there's any correlation between these findings and some other positions outside of just edge rushers.


I don't even believe the correlation is that strong. There certainly is one but it's no better than a lot of rankings out there over the years if we studied it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
SoS


Joined: 20 Apr 2013
Posts: 7053
Location: Sleepless in Seattle
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


I'm curious why you believe so. Certainly everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the correlation of the data and NFL success is pretty uncanny (at least from the small sample size Waldo was able to put together). The game is moving more and more toward analytics and I'm of the belief that formulas like this will prove very useful.

At the end of the day, NOTHING is going to guarantee a team that they're drafting a stud. All these analytics are intended to provide is a "risk factor" with each prospect to increase the likelihood of making a good selection. In that, I think it does a very good job and I look forward to seeing if there's any correlation between these findings and some other positions outside of just edge rushers.


I don't even believe the correlation is that strong. There certainly is one but it's no better than a lot of rankings out there over the years if we studied it.


You don't think the teams who drafted Vernon Gholston, Aaron Maybin, and Jarvis Moss would've found this tool useful? All 3 were touted as consensus 1st rounders...
_________________
DCRED wrote:
Your dialogue was amazing and your facts presented were Stellar.
You give yourself and your team's forum great Honor.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ChaRisMa


Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 9172
Location: Hunting
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 5:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

First of all, I respect the guys that try to use analytics to get ahead. Innovation is great and certainly Waldo's original findings were impressive.

However, I find analytics in football to be incredibly dumb. In baseball they make total sense because it isn't a team sport for 95% of the action and hitters hit the same way each at bat and pitchers throw 3-4 pitches max. Football is the polar opposite. The success of each player is dependent on a pile of variables that aren't even in their control and as in all sports, it isn't about physical ability, it's about mental ability. Measure that better.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
SoS


Joined: 20 Apr 2013
Posts: 7053
Location: Sleepless in Seattle
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChaRisMa wrote:
First of all, I respect the guys that try to use analytics to get ahead. Innovation is great and certainly Waldo's original findings were impressive.

However, I find analytics in football to be incredibly dumb. In baseball they make total sense because it isn't a team sport for 95% of the action and hitters hit the same way each at bat and pitchers throw 3-4 pitches max. Football is the polar opposite. The success of each player is dependent on a pile of variables that aren't even in their control and as in all sports, it isn't about physical ability, it's about mental ability. Measure that better.


Hmm. It appears to me that there's a misunderstanding of the use of analytics in football compared to baseball, at least for the purposes of what we're talking about in this thread.

We're strictly talking workout results here, not anything done on game tape. This isn't taking a bunch of different statistics on a guy and trying to form an opinion of the type of player he is, it's taking his uniquely identified athletic profile and finding a correlation in success. We're not talking about PFF rankings here.

Tell me, what variables aren't in a players control when he's testing at the Combine? What external factors are hampering one prospect over another? You say baseball analytics comprise maybe 95% of what each individual player actually does. Combine analytics quite literally encompass 100% of each players ability.

Unfortunately there's not a good way to test the mental aptitude of a player, outside of maybe the Wonderlic and interviews, neither of which I have access to and neither of which have any tangible correlation to success.
_________________
DCRED wrote:
Your dialogue was amazing and your facts presented were Stellar.
You give yourself and your team's forum great Honor.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NormSizedMidget


Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 17912
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


I'm curious why you believe so. Certainly everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the correlation of the data and NFL success is pretty uncanny (at least from the small sample size Waldo was able to put together). The game is moving more and more toward analytics and I'm of the belief that formulas like this will prove very useful.

At the end of the day, NOTHING is going to guarantee a team that they're drafting a stud. All these analytics are intended to provide is a "risk factor" with each prospect to increase the likelihood of making a good selection. In that, I think it does a very good job and I look forward to seeing if there's any correlation between these findings and some other positions outside of just edge rushers.


I don't even believe the correlation is that strong. There certainly is one but it's no better than a lot of rankings out there over the years if we studied it.


You don't think the teams who drafted Vernon Gholston, Aaron Maybin, and Jarvis Moss would've found this tool useful? All 3 were touted as consensus 1st rounders...


Not sure how they ranked.

Those guys weren't guys who were omg they can't miss guys by any means either. And that's not just hindsight.

But we can go all day back and forth where it would help or hurt.

Wouldn't guys like Hali or Wake rank poorly? I could be wrong. I'm mobile with little reception.

I find it interesting. But not useful. Tell ya what. I find it MORE useful looking for sleepers and mid to late projects than anything else. Top tier guys generally show up on tape and that's what you should look at closely with the character yada yada over some metric.

But admittedly I'm not a numbers guy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
NormSizedMidget


Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 17912
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SoS wrote:
ChaRisMa wrote:
First of all, I respect the guys that try to use analytics to get ahead. Innovation is great and certainly Waldo's original findings were impressive.

However, I find analytics in football to be incredibly dumb. In baseball they make total sense because it isn't a team sport for 95% of the action and hitters hit the same way each at bat and pitchers throw 3-4 pitches max. Football is the polar opposite. The success of each player is dependent on a pile of variables that aren't even in their control and as in all sports, it isn't about physical ability, it's about mental ability. Measure that better.


Hmm. It appears to me that there's a misunderstanding of the use of analytics in football compared to baseball, at least for the purposes of what we're talking about in this thread.

We're strictly talking workout results here, not anything done on game tape. This isn't taking a bunch of different statistics on a guy and trying to form an opinion of the type of player he is, it's taking his uniquely identified athletic profile and finding a correlation in success. We're not talking about PFF rankings here.

Tell me, what variables aren't in a players control when he's testing at the Combine? What external factors are hampering one prospect over another? You say baseball analytics comprise maybe 95% of what each individual player actually does. Combine analytics quite literally encompass 100% of each players ability.

Unfortunately there's not a good way to test the mental aptitude of a player, outside of maybe the Wonderlic and interviews, neither of which I have access to and neither of which have any tangible correlation to success.


Injuries is one..

Running these drills isn't second nature. Some guys might concentrate more on other things that maybe SS then they have that ability but didn't work on it as much. You might falter once then be nervous and be more careful on the second.

These got not exist and I don't think it would really matter to be honest. But like I said. Like it more for project type players
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
SoS


Joined: 20 Apr 2013
Posts: 7053
Location: Sleepless in Seattle
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NormSizedMidget wrote:
Not sure how they ranked.

Those guys weren't guys who were omg they can't miss guys by any means either. And that's not just hindsight.

But we can go all day back and forth where it would help or hurt.

Wouldn't guys like Hali or Wake rank poorly? I could be wrong. I'm mobile with little reception.

I find it interesting. But not useful. Tell ya what. I find it MORE useful looking for sleepers and mid to late projects than anything else. Top tier guys generally show up on tape and that's what you should look at closely with the character yada yada over some metric.

But admittedly I'm not a numbers guy.


Doesn't matter how they rank. What matters is that they were consensus 1st rounders. Do you think that would've been the case had GMs seen them in the "High Risk" category? I don't.

Wake tested in the elite tier. Hali actually fell in a lower tier, albeit not one of the two lowest. Hali is a good example of how this system isn't perfect.

Trust me, I'm not much of a numbers guy myself Laughing But I do enjoy a strong correlation.

Quote:
Injuries is one..

Running these drills isn't second nature. Some guys might concentrate more on other things that maybe SS then they have that ability but didn't work on it as much. You might falter once then be nervous and be more careful on the second.

These got not exist and I don't think it would really matter to be honest. But like I said. Like it more for project type players


In what way? You're either too injured to participate or you're comfortable enough to go out there and perform. It's not as if GMs are forcing these guys to run with bum hammys. Let's look at a guy like WR Kolby Listenbee this year. Came into Combine week nursing an injury but still ran and ran very well. You could say his numbers were effected, but it still gave us a good picture of the type of athlete he is, and when you document the fact he has an injury you can go back and safely assume he's actually slightly better than what the analytics show.

But you agree that everyone has the same advantages and disadvantages in the Combine? They all get time to prep with trainers, believe me, so it's not as if this sneaks up on them like some pop quiz. Sure, one guy could have better form than another which may slightly improve his numbers, but at the end of the day they're running. Poor form isn't going to take off more than a couple hundredths of a second, which isn't all that drastic.

You could very easily poke more holes into baseball analytics than you could these workout analytics, at least IMO. I'm not sitting here preaching that this is a full-proof system that guarantees results. I'd be a millionaire if I could. All I'm saying is that these analytics provide us with a nice athletic profile for each guy to determine, ultimately, the risk factor in drafting them.
_________________
DCRED wrote:
Your dialogue was amazing and your facts presented were Stellar.
You give yourself and your team's forum great Honor.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Packerraymond


Moderator
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 19293
Location: Oconomowoc, WI
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChaRisMa wrote:
First of all, I respect the guys that try to use analytics to get ahead. Innovation is great and certainly Waldo's original findings were impressive.

However, I find analytics in football to be incredibly dumb. In baseball they make total sense because it isn't a team sport for 95% of the action and hitters hit the same way each at bat and pitchers throw 3-4 pitches max. Football is the polar opposite. The success of each player is dependent on a pile of variables that aren't even in their control and as in all sports, it isn't about physical ability, it's about mental ability. Measure that better.


Sorry but the correlation between mental ability and pass rushers is probably leagues worse than this stat. These aren't QBs.

I think it's funny when the game tape brigade shows up to mock stuff like this. It's certainly useful and the measure that are used for stuff like twitch and explosion often show up on film. No coincidence most of the low risk groups are high draft picks. They are usually the most productive and most athletic. I wouldn't draft solely based on this, but its a useful tool.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NormSizedMidget


Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 17912
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SoS wrote:
NormSizedMidget wrote:
Not sure how they ranked.

Those guys weren't guys who were omg they can't miss guys by any means either. And that's not just hindsight.

But we can go all day back and forth where it would help or hurt.

Wouldn't guys like Hali or Wake rank poorly? I could be wrong. I'm mobile with little reception.

I find it interesting. But not useful. Tell ya what. I find it MORE useful looking for sleepers and mid to late projects than anything else. Top tier guys generally show up on tape and that's what you should look at closely with the character yada yada over some metric.

But admittedly I'm not a numbers guy.


Doesn't matter how they rank. What matters is that they were consensus 1st rounders. Do you think that would've been the case had GMs seen them in the "High Risk" category? I don't.

Wake tested in the elite tier. Hali actually fell in a lower tier, albeit not one of the two lowest. Hali is a good example of how this system isn't perfect.

Trust me, I'm not much of a numbers guy myself Laughing But I do enjoy a strong correlation.

Quote:
Injuries is one..

Running these drills isn't second nature. Some guys might concentrate more on other things that maybe SS then they have that ability but didn't work on it as much. You might falter once then be nervous and be more careful on the second.

These got not exist and I don't think it would really matter to be honest. But like I said. Like it more for project type players


In what way? You're either too injured to participate or you're comfortable enough to go out there and perform. It's not as if GMs are forcing these guys to run with bum hammys. Let's look at a guy like WR Kolby Listenbee this year. Came into Combine week nursing an injury but still ran and ran very well. You could say his numbers were effected, but it still gave us a good picture of the type of athlete he is, and when you document the fact he has an injury you can go back and safely assume he's actually slightly better than what the analytics show.

But you agree that everyone has the same advantages and disadvantages in the Combine? They all get time to prep with trainers, believe me, so it's not as if this sneaks up on them like some pop quiz. Sure, one guy could have better form than another which may slightly improve his numbers, but at the end of the day they're running. Poor form isn't going to take off more than a couple hundredths of a second, which isn't all that drastic.

You could very easily poke more holes into baseball analytics than you could these workout analytics, at least IMO. I'm not sitting here preaching that this is a full-proof system that guarantees results. I'd be a millionaire if I could. All I'm saying is that these analytics provide us with a nice athletic profile for each guy to determine, ultimately, the risk factor in drafting them.


Fair enough. I'll respond when I'm not 8 beers in. Have more thoughts
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
NormSizedMidget


Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 17912
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 7:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Packerraymond wrote:
ChaRisMa wrote:
First of all, I respect the guys that try to use analytics to get ahead. Innovation is great and certainly Waldo's original findings were impressive.

However, I find analytics in football to be incredibly dumb. In baseball they make total sense because it isn't a team sport for 95% of the action and hitters hit the same way each at bat and pitchers throw 3-4 pitches max. Football is the polar opposite. The success of each player is dependent on a pile of variables that aren't even in their control and as in all sports, it isn't about physical ability, it's about mental ability. Measure that better.


Sorry but the correlation between mental ability and pass rushers is probably leagues worse than this stat. These aren't QBs.

I think it's funny when the game tape brigade shows up to mock stuff like this. It's certainly useful and the measure that are used for stuff like twitch and explosion often show up on film. No coincidence most of the low risk groups are high draft picks. They are usually the most productive and most athletic. I wouldn't draft solely based on this, but its a useful tool.


In my defense. I'm not the game tape guy either. Just said the other day how I'm a projection guy who hates "the tape is the tape"

You'll see what you want to in this. That's my take. Those on the number side will find correlation those not will find the outliers.

Here's my take. Being in low risk probably means you were a really talented player who showed up on tape as one. Then we go see!!! R worked!

And nobody could have ever imagined this yet... They still very well may have been high picks. You know the pros that do this don't need formulas to find players.

Which doesn't mean they don't miss.

I bet Lawrence Okoye tested off the damn charts. Can't play a lick of football. Extreme example but football IQ. Work ethic. Coachability are key at well.

Like I say. Numbers guys are numbers guys. No offense but you're into them or you're not. Used to be one. Realized over the years.... Not as valuable as you think. Other than to verify what ya thought ya saw on tape or if they're WAY off make ya second guess
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
SoS


Joined: 20 Apr 2013
Posts: 7053
Location: Sleepless in Seattle
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 10:23 pm    Post subject: Re: 3-4 OLB's, by the #'s (Updated) Reply with quote

Cheers.

And just because I don't want this to get lost.

SoS wrote:
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?

_________________
DCRED wrote:
Your dialogue was amazing and your facts presented were Stellar.
You give yourself and your team's forum great Honor.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ChaRisMa


Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 9172
Location: Hunting
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2016 11:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Packerraymond wrote:
ChaRisMa wrote:
First of all, I respect the guys that try to use analytics to get ahead. Innovation is great and certainly Waldo's original findings were impressive.

However, I find analytics in football to be incredibly dumb. In baseball they make total sense because it isn't a team sport for 95% of the action and hitters hit the same way each at bat and pitchers throw 3-4 pitches max. Football is the polar opposite. The success of each player is dependent on a pile of variables that aren't even in their control and as in all sports, it isn't about physical ability, it's about mental ability. Measure that better.


Sorry but the correlation between mental ability and pass rushers is probably leagues worse than this stat. These aren't QBs.

I think it's funny when the game tape brigade shows up to mock stuff like this. It's certainly useful and the measure that are used for stuff like twitch and explosion often show up on film. No coincidence most of the low risk groups are high draft picks. They are usually the most productive and most athletic. I wouldn't draft solely based on this, but its a useful tool.

I'm not even down about using Combine numbers. I get wrapped up in them pretty easily. I just don't understand why we had to apply a formula to get a score. Thats what strikes me as a waste of time. You know what the combine tests are testing. Rolling them into one neat little number just takes away the details of how they got there. Too many variables to say, "if this player scores this he's a future Pro Bowler". The formulas are interesting and fun, but they don't really equate out to anything worth applying in the real world.

Hit a positions required size/speed requirements and if the rest of the test numbers line up with the tape, cool. If the numbers disagree with the tape, look at the tape again. There will never be a better indication of a players football ability than watching him play football.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Skypilot


Joined: 15 Dec 2013
Posts: 2225
PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2016 2:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The truth is somewhere between Waldo's over-reliance on (see Waldo's support of bust Aaron Maybin and others) analytical research and the old eye test.
I will believe it when I see it as opposed to I will see it when I believe it. I like Waldo's contributions even if I disagree on individual players on occasion. He was right about Zombo over Jones at OLB, but his ILB analysis was, IMO, compromised by his like of a certain former Packer (Paris Lenon,?), who's actual playing production numbers did not match statistical performance in the NFL, even though that player had the Combine #'s.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 17, 18, 19
Page 19 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