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, 4, 5 ... 16, 17, 18  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
BrettFavre004


Joined: 08 Feb 2007
Posts: 19745
Location: Galesville, WI
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Waldo wrote:
BrettFavre004 wrote:
Waldo wrote:
motorcycle wrote:
Great work Waldo. Are there any plans to do something similar for the defensive line?


There is. My old database covers the full defensive front 7 spectrum. I'm working on fully redoing it, my old one used best time, pro day/combine, I've changed my mind to using pure combine wherever possible, so every number has to be revisited, which is quite a long term project.

OLB was a logical place to start. It has the volume to really make solid type clumpings.

NT and DE don't have nearly the volume that OLB has, and there are a lot less greens, simply because those guys rarely make the pro bowl, and I don't like the idea of using personal subjective ratings in lieu of basic qualifiers.


If you go far enough back, you could use 2nd contract as a qualifier. Those restructuring, i.e., might be artificially high because they are essentially working with their future money as a base. I'd also exclude the Raiders for some type of outlier control.


Problem with going back far enough is the numbers get scarce, and it used to be a trend in the early '00's that virtually none of the first rounders worked out at the combine.


Then perhaps in a few years once you get a good database of numbers. Smile
_________________


http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=17
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
Waldo


Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Posts: 22679
Location: The ATL
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mr Green wrote:
Quote:
Even when heads-up on a defensive end, the tall tackle faces a unique problem. Robert Mathis of the Colts is just 6-foot-2, but he plays even shorter in the pass rush. On NFL Network, Mike Mayock spent Combine week praising the angles at which defenders like Mathis torque their bodies when turning to attack the quarterback. Mathis can twist upfield with his body at a 47 degree angle to the ground. Do a little trigonometry (74 inches time the sine of a 47 degree angle) and you get 54.1 inches: Mathis is essentially 4-foot-6 with his body at such a tight angle. Try getting low on that!

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/41849993/ns/sports-nfl/


Is there a way of measuring the draft prospects based on this quote using your data Waldo? I'm guessing you can't as that requires watching every single tape and measuring on the screen just how much of an angle he is from the ground.

Regardless this is an article that you may find interesting when it comes to analysing pass rushers and offensive tackles.
[/quote]

Nope, no way to measure that. Closest is probably the 3 cone, you'd expect a real good time out of somebody that can bend like that and keep their balance.

Hence the tape based scouting reports on guys with good 3 cones typically mention their good bend around the corner. For those that it doesn't, you have to think that its a coaching and technique issue as much as a physical one.
_________________

Title Town USA wrote:
Waldo was right!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RashaanSalaami


Global Moderator
Most Valuable Poster
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 29825
Location: Jersey
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Great stuff! Applause
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
MNPackfan32


Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 7541
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 10:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have liked the idea of Houston all year, he has been my favorite OLB prospect and these numbers back it up. My real question is what would it take to trade up to like pick #19 to grab him? I dont know if thats a good spot to get him, but I dont get the draft spot "x" = "y" points deal. What would we have to give up to get him? By the numbers it looks like he should be a top 15 pick.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sandybaby716


Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 3581
Location: Rhode Island
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MNPackfan32 wrote:
I have liked the idea of Houston all year, he has been my favorite OLB prospect and these numbers back it up. My real question is what would it take to trade up to like pick #19 to grab him? I dont know if thats a good spot to get him, but I dont get the draft spot "x" = "y" points deal. What would we have to give up to get him? By the numbers it looks like he should be a top 15 pick.


i think the best we can do is wait until anywhere starting at 19 and start calling everyone with trades until we manage to move up without giving the farm away. thats what i would do with the team at least, our depth is strong, and after I signed Awesome-wa, id use a couple of draft picks to nab this guy and have the best defense of all time.

which i really think we would have, given that all stay healthy.
_________________
wgbeethree wrote:
In all fairness it is kind of rude to just lay injured at their feet while the Lions defensive players are trying to hold a completely unrelated dance party.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
palmy50


Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 13458
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That was a very nice post Waldo. Not so sure I agree with some of it, but some nice points there. I just think one needs to look at that thing a little different in ways. Your take on Robert Quinn IMO is WAY off. That kid is an elite football athlete. His ability to bend the edge and turn speed into power is truly elite. It's just something one can't take from the numbers. Some have it, and some don't. Quinn might be the best in that area I have seen since Ware came out of Troy.

I'm also not sure I feel your point about the length/hands guys when it comes to value. They might take a little longer to get going, but more times than not make up for it in the backend of their career. The speed will go in time, but those length/hands guys can get there as they get older more times than not. I view it very much the same way I view LT's on the OL. You will see those freak athletes like Jake Long that can get it done at the start of their career. Long term though, give me that Clady.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Waldo


Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Posts: 22679
Location: The ATL
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 2:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

palmy50 wrote:
Your take on Robert Quinn IMO is WAY off. That kid is an elite football athlete. His ability to bend the edge and turn speed into power is truly elite. It's just something one can't take from the numbers. Some have it, and some don't. Quinn might be the best in that area I have seen since Ware came out of Troy.


Only going by the data I have. I've never actually watched him, or really any of these guys, play. Never really got into college FB, the team I should be a fan of is just embarrassing at this point.

palmy50 wrote:
I'm also not sure I feel your point about the length/hands guys when it comes to value. They might take a little longer to get going, but more times than not make up for it in the backend of their career. The speed will go in time, but those length/hands guys can get there as they get older more times than not. I view it very much the same way I view LT's on the OL. You will see those freak athletes like Jake Long that can get it done at the start of their career. Long term though, give me that Clady.


Not so much the value of the player but the value of the pick. When you draft a player type that has little hope of elite play in their first contract, except maybe the very tail end, you are better off spending your high picks on bang for the buck, and lower picks on guys that will take a while. Especially given the fact that we already have one of those types in Zombo. When BPA morphs into BVA, development time has to be considered.
_________________

Title Town USA wrote:
Waldo was right!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
palmy50


Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 13458
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 5:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fair enough.

Many would agree with you about the core value of the pick being what the player brings you under his rookie deal. I at some level disagree, but LIS, Know a hell of a lot of guys that feel the same way. I just think in Green Bay you better do all it takes to keep the good picks in town long term.

My main point was just to say maybe you should take a look at Quinn. To say he "is firmly in the low explosion nothing special group" is crazy talk. And he is far from a "tech rusher" at this point in the game. I would agree all day long about his future very much pending on the want/will to be great. Just don't think that young man falls short in ability, that's all.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kal-El


Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 3535
Location: Milwaukee, WI. Team: Packers.
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 11:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not a "watch the tape" guy. I do find the #'s to be very important. But at the same time, I kinda feel like you do have to watch the tape to kinda "get" what the numbers are saying. While I feel tests are typically in-line with the kind of players that these guys are, I think that now and then if x-prospect can't jump high, all it means is that he can't jump high. You have to take a look at the "too slow" because occasionally there is a decent Parys Haralson to be found.

In short, #'s are great, but tape should more/less "agree" with what they imply.
_________________
> mfw users post PFF-nonsense
> mfw I have no face
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Waldo


Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Posts: 22679
Location: The ATL
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

palmy50 wrote:
My main point was just to say maybe you should take a look at Quinn. To say he "is firmly in the low explosion nothing special group" is crazy talk. And he is far from a "tech rusher" at this point in the game. I would agree all day long about his future very much pending on the want/will to be great. Just don't think that young man falls short in ability, that's all.


But how? I lack the resources (or time for that matter) at my disposal to do so. Youtube "tape" in my mind has little value.

But I do think that there is an inherent value in my viewpoint, from a purely #'s based look. I am completely untained by how they look on tape, and thus can bring an extremely objective viewpoint to the table. The value of this objective look of course is to question or confirm that which the tape provides.

I also think when you break it down like this, clustering players by type based on #'s, you can get a picture of what is really important with them. You know, what separates Brad Jones from KGB isn't really anything physical, they are close enough across the board that it would be a stretch to say that there is a big difference. KGB wasn't actually that explosive, physically. But he faked it really well by being the first man moving (unfortuantely too fast a bit too much though), which completely overcame the shortcoming that had him in that group instead of the high explosion group.

When the #'s are wrong with what is shown on tape, one has to ask why.

Is it a competition level issue? Is it a coaching or technique issue? Is his mind not right? Did he not try very hard? Is he a slow learner athletically?

The value of combine derived numbers in my mind has increased dramatically in recent years. And I think that is goes back to a name that is always brought up this time of year, Mike Mamula. He has grown into a bit of a myth, his workout by today's standards was good, but not great, and he really wasn't a colossal bust as is often insinuated. He and those like him, early on, really some of the first (as I understand) to practice specifically for the predraft evaluation drills in an effort to get drafted higher. While it has become lore to say any guy that works out great might be the next Mike Mamula, he and others like him did a valuable service for the NFL in my mind. Because today, everybody is Mike Mamula. The value of it has risen even moreso because of the culture shift of the last 6-8 years where now the top prospects work out, which did not used to be true.

The numbers only work if everybody does or doesn't practice for them. In the time before everybody did, their value was somehwat marginalized because some people were better practiced as some aspects than others. Track people, good or not, could run faster, basketball people, good or not, could jump higher, because they had practice in the drills. With everybody doing it, that previous experience and the advantage it gave is marginalized.

With the culture of everybody doing it, you get other evaluation items that were simply not possible before everybody did it, in addition to the numbers themselves.

Some guys are slow learners, athletically. If it takes player x more time to learn to do the drills well than player y, if both put forth the same level of effort (as much as possible during the predraft time), one would assume that player y would outperform player x, given equal physical talent. While it may marginalize the values of the numbers somewhat, it adds an entirely new and valuable piece to the puzzle, player y is most likely going to respond to coaching better and faster than player x, completely offsetting the number marginailzation. Discounting any personality issues, player y is simply a more coachable player than player x, a fast learning pace and high coachability is a very imporant trait for NFL success.

Then there is the effort issue. Given that everybody does it and the positive effect that it can have on their draft position if they do well; draft position earning more money and a higher degree of roster safety. One can assume that every player puts forth as much effort as they possibly can. If a guy has a poor workout, worse than expected, the question as to whether or not they tried very hard needs to be asked. Now with even the top of the draft working out, in my mind it is expected of everybody where it is reasonalby possible (would not expect as much out of non-combine invitees, those that lack the resorces to be in a good workout program). If a guy didn't try very hard, despite being in a position where he should, this does not say much in the way of positive things about what you can expect out of them once on a team.

And that is where my take on Quinn lies. His workout was not good. Either its a level of competition thing on tape and he's not physically what his tape shows, he takes to coaching slowly and might lack the quick learning pace necessary to be great at the NFL level, or he didn't try very hard and one has to question his dedication and desire. The numbers clearly say he is not what he appears to be on tape IF he worked as hard as everybody else and he learns as fast as everybody else. But overall, there is signficant risk with him this shows. Risk that I would rather let a different team take on, unless he is available in the area of the draft (old day 2) where that risk is marginalized by draft value.
_________________

Title Town USA wrote:
Waldo was right!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
palmy50


Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 13458
PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 12:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just don't think it's that easy, that's all. Some guys just don't translate the numbers to the field like others. God given ability will always translate better than those guys that need to work for it. Not saying it's fair, but fact more times than not. It's the Finley thing. Finley might not be the best worker on this team but truly everything about that mans god given athletic ability translates to the football field. That's Quinn!

Now with that said I would be the first to tell ya Quinn comes with a little more risk than Finley did. When "want/will" is the core issue, one must think twice when it comes to line play. The lights are not on you there, and the passion/pride grade can be the difference between All-Joe and All-Pro! Life will be short if you fall short on will in there. Need to fight for it because that 300lb monster in front of you just might.

Is there risk? HELL YES, but your talking about one of the better pure talents in this class that just happens to also play a premium.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MM


Joined: 25 Dec 2008
Posts: 220
PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 2:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good work on compiling and analyzing the numbers. There is definite value in this type of analysis. But imo it should be used to supplement the tape, and not vice versa. As alluded to in this thread, based on combine numbers, Finley would probably not be on our board, and on paper would look like a smaller version of Bubba Franks, rather than what he actualy is, which is like a bigger Larry Fitzgerald.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Waldo


Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Posts: 22679
Location: The ATL
PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 3:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MM wrote:
Good work on compiling and analyzing the numbers. There is definite value in this type of analysis. But imo it should be used to supplement the tape, and not vice versa. As alluded to in this thread, based on combine numbers, Finley would probably not be on our board, and on paper would look like a smaller version of Bubba Franks, rather than what he actualy is, which is like a bigger Larry Fitzgerald.


Finley is in fact a horrible comparison.

Let me explain.

I keep my scope narrowed here to the OLB prospects; really its application wanes away from the DL. There are positions where numbers matter, positoins where they don't.

Noone really gives a crap how a QB works out in underwear drills.

A receiver (TE's included) is nothing without the ability to catch the ball. A runner is nothing without vision. A corner is nothing without ball skills, and a ILB is nothing without play diagnose skills. I left out OL because I don't really understand the complexities, the precision teamwork required.

Pass rushers are essentially asked to run through a wall or around a moving wall. When playing the run they are asked to become a wall themselves, to prevent the other wall from moving them.

While sure, there are some esoteric football skills that can't be measured like drive and hand use, and play awareness surely plays a role, but by and large the faster and more agile guys will be the best at running around the moving wall, and the most powerful will be best at running through the wall.

In my mind, no place on the field has such a direct number correlation as the DL (3-4 OLB's included).

And no place is this more important than 3-4 OLB because the vast majority of players are switching positions and their play has to be projected (3-4 DE and NT are like this too, not as extreme).

The proof is in the pudding so to speak. My claims are clearly backed up with data. The value of this is only derived from the fact that everybody is included, from the top picks down to the UDFA's. There will always be data anomolies, but of course with anything like this, the object is to minimize draft risk.
_________________

Title Town USA wrote:
Waldo was right!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MM


Joined: 25 Dec 2008
Posts: 220
PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's a good point - that numbers for a 3-4 OLB tell more of the story than they do for most other positions - but even disregarding the whole pass catching aspect of receiving and looking purely at the numbers in terms of determining athleticism, explosiveness, quicks, speed, etc., Finley looked like a pedestrian middle of the road at best type of TE. Didn't he put up some almost unbelievably pathetic 26" vert? And something like a 4.82 40 (I think his pro-day brought this down a bit). If you broke down the numbers, my guess is most would look at that and say that there is no way that guy becomes a receiving threat, let alone one of the biggest mismatch players in the entire league.

I'm just saying that while the numbers are important, it's also important not to put too much weight into the numbers because ultimately it's still guys running in shorts. Your point about why the numbers apply more to relevantly to 3-4 OLBs is duly noted.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Waldo


Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Posts: 22679
Location: The ATL
PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MM wrote:
That's a good point - that numbers for a 3-4 OLB tell more of the story than they do for most other positions - but even disregarding the whole pass catching aspect of receiving and looking purely at the numbers in terms of determining athleticism, explosiveness, quicks, speed, etc., Finley looked like a pedestrian middle of the road at best type of TE. Didn't he put up some almost unbelievably pathetic 26" vert? And something like a 4.82 40 (I think his pro-day brought this down a bit). If you broke down the numbers, my guess is most would look at that and say that there is no way that guy becomes a receiving threat, let alone one of the biggest mismatch players in the entire league.

I'm just saying that while the numbers are important, it's also important not to put too much weight into the numbers because ultimately it's still guys running in shorts. Your point about why the numbers apply more to relevantly to 3-4 OLBs is duly noted.


Finley plays like it on the field too. He's not actually that fast at running. When's the last time you saw him breaking wide open doen the seam? Guys generally don't have that much trouble staying with him. The issue with him is that it really doesn't matter a whole heck of a lot.

He knows how to use his size advantage as well as anybody, wastes very little motion, and is borders on absurd in his ability to catch the ball. Take away his elite catching ability and give him typical crap TE hands and catching ability, and he probably isn't even a starter. Finley is always open because he makes catches in windows few TE's in the league could handle look easy. And unlike most TE's, he can handle the rocket ball.

Bubba, like many, was a turn and catch TE. That is, he had little hope of cathcing a pass unless he was looking at the QB with his back to the end zone. Finley can make over the shoulder jump catches. and can do entirely different things with his upper and lower body at the same time. And Bubba, like most TE's, had hands of stone at times. Finley has quite possibly the most reliable set of hands in the league.
_________________

Title Town USA wrote:
Waldo was right!
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, 5 ... 16, 17, 18  Next
Page 4 of 18

 
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