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  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
HyponGrey


Joined: 23 Jun 2012
Posts: 3821
Location: Down the road from NFL Films
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2017 11:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PackyAttacky wrote:



Thats the best one.
mullet militia
_________________
justo wrote:
Bostick drove a guy 12 yards and finished off with a pancake and I'm not sure where my pants went.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blueswedeshoes


Joined: 08 Jun 2011
Posts: 2001
Location: WisKAHNsin
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 1:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

skibrett15 wrote:
NormSizedMidget wrote:
There's a hell of a lot more to discuss than this but if I didn't pay attention close I would always picture Ted as just this old school numbers be damned type of dude. But he's obviously not.


I think that's the impression he gives off for sure. People were starting to figure that there's actually a numbers "shell" around the process. I'm wondering now if there isn't an uber-athletic threshold where... you could be an objectively bad college player and still get a draftable grade due to the testing numbers.

To me, it's easy to just "he's a numbers guy" or "he doesn't care bout the numbers" when both types are still looking for athletic players with high college production vs excellent competition at the end of the day. So you need to look for the later rounds when those players are gone to differentiate.

Is he drafting obviously less athletic guys from big schools with production? Is he drafting guys who have a rep as athletic but don't test well?

or is he drafting guys who test well but aren't as productive, or only productive vs bad competition?


I remember Ted answering a question about the combine's influence on the team's draft board. He said that before the combine they used film and scouting to rank players, and after the combine they always got excited about some of the players and their scores and re-ranked the players, and then the team would go back to film and scouting notes and the players always ended up about where they had been in the first place.

So if the influence of athleticism isn't showing up on the field then in the end it can't really trump Ted's scouting analyses.

And if the players have elite athleticism it's probably showing up on the tape.

Thusly, the Packers are one team that would probably draft similarly if there were no combine at all.

[Edit] Re: post above--I am persuaded that the hair thing certainly merits consideration as an amplifying co-factor in terms of setting a Packer draft board.
_________________
Don_Draper wrote:
I, too, would love TT to trade for another young receiver for Rodgers to dislike and ignore.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PossibleCabbage


Joined: 25 Apr 2011
Posts: 4798
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 2:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

blueswedeshoes wrote:
I remember Ted answering a question about the combine's influence on the team's draft board. He said that before the combine they used film and scouting to rank players, and after the combine they always got excited about some of the players and their scores and re-ranked the players, and then the team would go back to film and scouting notes and the players always ended up about where they had been in the first place.

So if the influence of athleticism isn't showing up on the field then in the end it can't really trump Ted's scouting analyses.

And if the players have elite athleticism it's probably showing up on the tape.

Thusly, the Packers are one team that would probably draft similarly if there were no combine at all.


Then there are cases like Kofi Amichia where the tape is kind of a mess, but when you see the workout numbers you go and take another look at it.

There's also the question of what you're looking for on tape, whether it's isolated athletic traits you value or whether it's the outcome of a play, or something in between.

I think people sometimes lose sight of the fact that Ted was a Ron Wolf disciple, and Wolf was an Al Davis disciple. Even though Al sort of lost the plot towards the end, he was at one point a luminary in player evaluation and was first and foremost a Height/Weight/Speed guy.

I don't think "Ted took really athletic people this year" is any sort of a revelation. That's more or less every year for him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
skibrett15


Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 2530
Location: nibelheim
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 2:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

except that it's not. This class is way more athletic than last year, which was more athletic than the year before.

2015 has Ty and Brett Hundley, I guess if you count qbs.

2016 was lowry, spriggs, davis,

2017 has King, Josh Jones, Aaron Jones, Kofi, and a bunch in the mid-high range.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
HUDSONandGRUDEN


Joined: 11 Jan 2012
Posts: 217
Location: Lafayette, Colorado
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 3:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In football when you look at guys like Ansah or Shields becoming all-pros while basically learning the position on the job, I just think you can't be a gm for very long without an emphasis on athleticism. Thing is, we ask a ton of our WR's so the most SPARQ intensive offensive position is probably valued differently, and for a while there we were a ZBS so you're probably looking for a little bit of a different mold at RB, while also placing lower value on them. I do not really understand SPARQ for the O-line, but assume you are not passing up the top-tackle prospect for example just because of his SPARQ. The tape/hands use/etc seem just as important for them.

Is there any difference between Pre-Capers TT and Capers TT on defense in this regard?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blankman0021


Joined: 02 May 2007
Posts: 2744
Location: MKE
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

HUDSONandGRUDEN wrote:
In football when you look at guys like Ansah or Shields becoming all-pros while basically learning the position on the job, I just think you can't be a gm for very long without an emphasis on athleticism. Thing is, we ask a ton of our WR's so the most SPARQ intensive offensive position is probably valued differently, and for a while there we were a ZBS so you're probably looking for a little bit of a different mold at RB, while also placing lower value on them. I do not really understand SPARQ for the O-line, but assume you are not passing up the top-tackle prospect for example just because of his SPARQ. The tape/hands use/etc seem just as important for them.

Is there any difference between Pre-Capers TT and Capers TT on defense in this regard?


Probably hard to tell. We went from 4-3 to 3-4. Totally changes the body types you draft. At least it did that year. Now we're drafting more for sub-packages (nickel/dime/etc defense) which are essentially our base unit now.
_________________
The Doctor wrote:
ALLONS-Y, ALONSO!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
HUDSONandGRUDEN


Joined: 11 Jan 2012
Posts: 217
Location: Lafayette, Colorado
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 4:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Probably hard to tell. We went from 4-3 to 3-4. Totally changes the body types you draft. At least it did that year. Now we're drafting more for sub-packages (nickel/dime/etc defense) which are essentially our base unit now.


Yeah that was kinda the point I was trying to make. Perhaps skibrett's point is spurious because he is just drafting players for the scheme at hand. Capers is just evolving the defense in a fashion that enables match-up athletes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PossibleCabbage


Joined: 25 Apr 2011
Posts: 4798
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 2:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

skibrett15 wrote:
except that it's not. This class is way more athletic than last year, which was more athletic than the year before.


You've got to adjust for density, man. The 2017 GB class is 3rd in the NFL in Relative Athletic Scores (relative to position, and the 2016 class was 4th in the NFL in RAS.

So sure, it's better but it's not like 4th is bad.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
skibrett15


Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 2530
Location: nibelheim
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 2:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting, I've never heard of that metric, RAS.

My main point is that the 2016 and 2017 classes seem markedly different and more athletic than 2010-2015, for example. So 4th being high is kind of the point.

How did 2015 rank?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AlexGreen#20


Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 13508
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 6:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

skibrett15 wrote:
Interesting, I've never heard of that metric, RAS.

My main point is that the 2016 and 2017 classes seem markedly different and more athletic than 2010-2015, for example. So 4th being high is kind of the point.

How did 2015 rank?


I really feel like a huge deal is being made out of an almost nonexistent change in philosophy.

The drafting of highly athletic first rounders has ebbed and flowed in Green Bay just based on the board.

Ignoring Rodgers because he's a QB:

Hawk-Great Athlete
Harrell-Not Great Athlete
Jordy-Not Great Athlete
Raji-Great Athlete
Matthews-Great Athlete
Bulaga-Not Great Athlete (I disagree with this assesment, but just off the combine numbers)
Sherrod-Great Athlete
Perry-Great Athlete
Jones-Great Athlete
Clinton-Dix-Not Great Athlete
Randall-Not Great Athlete
Clark-Not Great Athlete
King-Great Athlete

It looks really random to me. We were coming off a stretch of 3 Not Great Athletes, but that was immediately following a stretch of 3 Great Athletes.
_________________
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
Packerraymond


Moderator
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 19270
Location: Oconomowoc, WI
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 7:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

^^^

There really isn't anything great about Datone as an athlete besides the fact that he ran a 4.8 at 280, but his jumps and agility were just average.

Without Jones that would make 4 straight years of non great athletes. Also coincides with probably the worst 4 year stretch for Ted as far as first round impact, so I understand why people are excited we went for an athlete again.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
skibrett15


Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 2530
Location: nibelheim
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 7:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't understand why you're looking at first round picks?

LIS early on the first page, I think most GMs would rather have an athlete with production than a non-athlete with production. At some point in the draft in the 1st or 2nd round, all of the great athletes with great production are gone.

It's at that point where you can either make an emphasis on uber-athleticism, or other factors.

If you look at 2010, 2011, 2012 for example, there isn't a single very athletic player in the bunch once you adjust for round. I guess Davon House is maybe the most athletic? 2013 has Charles Johnson I suppose.

Also, I'm not trying to necessarily make this point. But I feel like some of the non-packers beat media is pushing the narrative that the packers are one of the most metric and numbers driven teams. Something above and beyond the basic thresholds for each position.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AlexGreen#20


Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 13508
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 8:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

skibrett15 wrote:
I don't understand why you're looking at first round picks?

LIS early on the first page, I think most GMs would rather have an athlete with production than a non-athlete with production. At some point in the draft in the 1st or 2nd round, all of the great athletes with great production are gone.

It's at that point where you can either make an emphasis on uber-athleticism, or other factors.

If you look at 2010, 2011, 2012 for example, there isn't a single very athletic player in the bunch once you adjust for round. I guess Davon House is maybe the most athletic? 2013 has Charles Johnson I suppose.

Also, I'm not trying to necessarily make this point. But I feel like some of the non-packers beat media is pushing the narrative that the packers are one of the most metric and numbers driven teams. Something above and beyond the basic thresholds for each position.


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.
_________________
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
Packerraymond


Moderator
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 19270
Location: Oconomowoc, WI
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 8:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AlexGreen#20 wrote:
skibrett15 wrote:
I don't understand why you're looking at first round picks?

LIS early on the first page, I think most GMs would rather have an athlete with production than a non-athlete with production. At some point in the draft in the 1st or 2nd round, all of the great athletes with great production are gone.

It's at that point where you can either make an emphasis on uber-athleticism, or other factors.

If you look at 2010, 2011, 2012 for example, there isn't a single very athletic player in the bunch once you adjust for round. I guess Davon House is maybe the most athletic? 2013 has Charles Johnson I suppose.

Also, I'm not trying to necessarily make this point. But I feel like some of the non-packers beat media is pushing the narrative that the packers are one of the most metric and numbers driven teams. Something above and beyond the basic thresholds for each position.


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.


You're looking too longterm. I'd say there's a definite lull from 2013-2016, Dean Lowry is probably the most athletic day 3 player for his position in that group. This year Jones and Amichia were #1 Sparq players at their positon, Dupree was top 10 and Yancey and Williams were top 25 I believe.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
skibrett15


Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 2530
Location: nibelheim
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 9:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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?
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  Next
Page 3 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