Mikey152
-
Posts
210 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Mikey152
-
-
I think 9 OLinemen is unlikely...especially with the position flexibility they have in their top 7-8. Will probably carry an extra WR, LB or secondary player instead, IMO.
Outside of that, and maybe who the bubble guys are a RB, S and CB...I agree with your prediction.
-
1
-
-
Just to clear up a few misconceptions...
First off, Vertical and broad jump are highly highly correlated to agility. The muscles you use to jump are the same ones that allow you to change direction...explosive is explosive. The main difference between the two types of tests, however, is the deceleration (or lack thereof) required to change direction (agility) vs. starting from a stopped position (explosiveness). Things like footing, center of gravity, weight...all of those factors are multiplied because they apply on deceleration AND acceleration. DK is at a distinct disadvantage as a tall, heavy receiver with long legs in those types of tests. What happened, at least in some respects, is to be expected.
That said, it doesn't mean he can only run in a straight line...it just means he won't be able to use precision to gain separation. He may need to round off a route more than you would like, but his combination of size (both reach and weight) combined with his speed would allow him to run away from corners AND separate from them physically. People keep talking about north/south, but the reality is he would be just as dangerous running east/west.
Plus lets be real...this dude would be a split end in almost any offense. His route tree is already going to be limited based on the type of coverage he will most often see...he's either going to beat his man physically at the line against press and get vertical, or stem his route if he gets a cushion.
Bottom line is, a guy that size with his flying 20 time is a nightmare and the kind of cushion CBs will need to give him, combined with JA's velocity, will more than make up for a few milliseconds of time needed to CD.
If he is actually physical and can actually track/catch the football, he is a steal at #9
-
3
-
-
15 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:
I think you're wrong. Mahomes completed 66% of his passes this season. Smith was better than that only once in his career. By going with Mahomes, Reed got the same or better completion percentage than he had with Smith, plus he got the rest that Mahomes brought to the table.
And that's what I'm saying about Allen. Get him to throw all the short stuff the team wants him to throw, and you can have high completion percentage, the same or better scrambling than Mahomes offers PLUS great downfield throwing.
2x...both seasons under Reed.
In 2017, Smith had an air yards per attempt of 7.6, and in 2018 Mahomes was at 9.2. It also clear based on their arm/skill set that the chiefs were looking to get more aggressive. Completion % went down (though not a ton because Mahomes is clearly a better QB) and touchdowns doubled.
FWIW, Smith lost his job in SF for pretty much the same exact reason.
For ***** and giggles...JA was at 10.9
-
15 hours ago, Shaw66 said:
I'd guess that if you talk to the best football minds in the country, the Belichicks and Reeds and others, they'll tell you completion percentage is more important. I don't know that, but watching and listening to the coaches talking, I think winning depends on consistent offense.. I think they'd tell you that if the QB keeps getting completions, they'll get the TD anyway. Maybe not a TD pass, maybe a two-yard run.
In other words, over the long run, the incompletion you throw trying for the 40-yard TD pass hurts more than the benefit of the occasional 40-yard TD you get.
Except when the game is on the line, when it's fourth and 17 and you're on your last possession, except when the game is on the line in those situations, the coach wants the higher probability throw.
Reed is probably not a great name to throw out there, considering he ditched Alex Smith for a far more unproven (and aggressive) Patrick Mahomes...
-
On 2/6/2019 at 7:46 PM, Misterbluesky said:
Boom..a few games when Foster actually ran proper routes,caught catchable balls and put numbers up and he becomes a number one flanker????
Bank on it,he'll be no higher than 4th on the flanker depth chart next year,if he is higher than #3,Beane didn't do his job.
This offense needs to load up this spring/summer...I want a team that is a threat to put 30 points on the scoreboard every week.
Not for nothing, but Foster mostly lined up at Split-End, not flanker...
-
13 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:
The only thing I’m confused on is how this thread is so long. It’s not complicated.
BPA is subjective to a teams draft board. Teams draft board is subjective to team needs. Best RB in draft could be on board when Giants pick...but that RB isn’t even on the Giants draft board.
When a GM says BPA, they are referencing their internal draft board. That’s it. Every single time a GM has said BPA this has been the case, and even Beane himself has said multiple times they will “stay true to their board” when he says he’s going BPA. The “needs” of the team are already factored into that board.
Not drafting for need means means he won’t reach for a specific position just because that position has a bigger need. He will take the guy who is highest on their board regardless of position. But that doesn’t mean they will have players at every position on their board in that spot. Like I said, Giants aren’t putting RBs on their first round draft board just like Bills won’t be putting QB on their first round draft board either.
You are completely wrong if you think every player isn't on their board and isn't ranked appropriately according to talent. Just because you have a starter at a position doesn't mean you don't want to know what is available. The player could be an upgrade, backup/handcuff, an heir apparent/cost control, or even trade bait (either in the draft or later).
This is where I think fans and GMs differ. Fans are thinking about right now...coaches are too, most of the time. But GMs are trying to build a sustainable roster. They have three years from now in mind just as much as today. Position should really only ever come into play in "all else being equal" type scenarios, period.
-
23 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:
It's mostly BPA but there is a little need sprinkled in.
If Daniel Jones is available at 9 and he is the BPA on the Bills board.....they're not taking them.
I believe it's BPA at the positions they are targeting or at least need some help in.
I think BPA is too literal. It would be extremely rare that there is a single "best player"...usually it is a group of players lumped together. If two guys are in the same tier, they are considered the same from a value or talent standpoint...that's when you can start bringing in subjective stuff like personal opinions and current roster. If none of the guys left in that top tier fit your team for whatever reason, you should trade the pick and not just give them to a team that does need/want them for free.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, PrimeTime101 said:
again it was an EXAMPLE. some GM's consider 10 spots a reach some consider 15. the number was an example.
The Patriots has had a great history of solid draft picks. I don't think you get it
https://insidetheiggles.com/2017/03/31/drafting-need-best-player-available/
Go read ALL of this. see what some of the best teams in the league do. GET A CLUE PLEASE!
I'm pretty sure you are the one that doesn't get it...what we are saying isn't even all that different. But what you were describing isn't BPA at a position of need...it's just BPA. BPA at a position of need is just drafting for need, because of course you would draft the BPA at the position you need...
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, PrimeTime101 said:
Mikey I just think your writing down lots of stupid crap that makes NO sense what so ever. the definition of reaching is going for a player of need that is 7+ spots higher on your top 500 list. that is called reaching when you have another guy of need that's only 2 up on your list.
you just making up silly comments as you go on and it needs to stop. BPA at NEED is what the best of GM's DO!
I think you need to get over yourself. I can care less what you think what BPA at NEED is..
7+ spots higher and I am the one making up crap? You literally just pulled that number out of your ass.
-
1 minute ago, LABILLBACKER said:
If I'm a team that sucks offensively, I'm not waiting around for my draft needs to line up with my bpa scenario. Now the great news this year is we need OL, WR & DL (95 gone) almost equally. So no matter how you mix it, a quality player WILL fall to 9 at one of these 3 positions. Have your cake and eat it too.
Here's the problem...every team needs different things; your offense needs to get better relative to other teams, not in a vacuum.
If you pass on an A player for a B player...the team behind you is going to get that A player. Your team might have gone from a C to a B, but that team just went from a C to an A.
1 minute ago, PrimeTime101 said:NO it does not imply REACHING LMAO where do you get this stuff... Just because you have a position of need and you draft that need doesn't mean you have to reach for it..
seriously just stop and think before you type
BPA at a position of need as a statement does nothing to address the issue of reaching. In your description you said something about it, but the term "BPA at a position of need" literally implies you would skip positions you don't need. That is the definition of reaching.
-
4 minutes ago, PrimeTime101 said:
I Don't think some of you understand the concept of BPA. They go into the draft with gaps to fill on the roster, but the last thing they want to do is reach. SO for example.
High Needs.... OT, OG, DT, WR
Mid Needs.... RB, #2 CB, TE
Low Needs.... P, OLB, DE, another WR.
So now they hit the draft. they have there list of top 500 players in draft that could be different then many other peoples top 500.
So here we go round 1 pick 9. the BPA is 7Edge, 9OLB, 10edge, 11DT, 12T So you have the 7th, 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th best players on the board they really want an DT or T but they have to reach 2 spots to get there BPA High Needs at 11DT. Can they filp a small trade? if not do we really want that #7edge and skip needs this round?
I am here to tell you MOST of the time its BPA at NEED and they will get that 11DT and slightly reach leaving the 7edge and 9OLB on the board.
BPA at NEED people.... that's the concept people don't get. You BPA at need as long as you don't reach.. Now.. if your need player is out of range and you cant manage a trade then you go 7EDGE. its all what is on there top 500 board and there needs list.
Thats the point of tiers...to determine what is and isn't a reach. It's also why BPA at a position of need is not a good description, because the name alone IMPLIES reaching is ok.
-
I was thinking about an analogy that might help
Lets say you want a blue shirt to go with some gray pants you got for Christmas, so you go to the store. When you get there, they are all out of your size.
would you:
A) Buy a different size (Draft for need)
B) Look at different colors in your size (draft BPA)
C) Look at pants that go with shirts you already have (draft BPA but at a position of strength)
D) Go to a different store (trade down)
I would say that as far as decisions go, B=D>C>A
-
1 minute ago, BillyWhiteShows said:
But the board is different for each team and it’s largely decided on need. That’s my whole point in saying that yes, Need does come into play.
It's not built on need...positions come into play, but more with regards to their intrinsic value than their value to a given team. Pushing players up or down your board based on position RELATIVE TO YOUR TEAM is exactly what you should never do
-
30 minutes ago, LABILLBACKER said:
All teams draft for "best player available at top position of need".
The whole concept that teams ignore this and take the BPA regardless of their position is silly.
You're half right...
Teams won't (and shouldn't) pass on a better player at a position they don't "need" to take one at a position they do. If that single player is truly the only BPA, they would likely trade down (or have traded up before they were stuck with just the one option)
Whats subjective about BPA is who the Best player available actually is. Rarely is it just one guy, but rather a tier of guys that are of a similar grade. Using some planning and trading, you should be able to generally select players from an area of need from the top tiers on your board.
What you should never do is skip tiers because the higher tiers don't have any players you need. That's poor asset management, but you see fantasy football players do it all the time...they will fill out their starting roster before even looking at bench players, almost no matter what, which would be fine if injuries, bye weeks and trades didn't exist, I guess.
Repost from the Josh Allen thread:
"Best Player available" is sort of a misnomer...it is incredibly rare where there is a literal "best player". Most of the time what happens is players fall into groups or tiers made up of similarly-ranked players (position is likely factored in somewhat, but from an absolute value standpoint and not based on need).
When you adopt a BPA strategy, you should always be picking from the highest tiers left on your board. If there aren't any positions you need in your highest tier (or loads of guys left in that tier), maybe you trade down...and if there is only one or two guys left in a tier at a position of need maybe you trade up.
What BPA really means is don't reach for need...you should trust your board you spent a year building. Crazy stuff happens to rosters in football, and you can always trade picks or players if you're in a position of surplus.
Here is a simplified example:
Lets say your team really needs an OL and a WR and does not need a QB or a S. Everywhere else is neutral.
With your first pick, there are three guys on your board with first-round grades: QB, S, and RB. Your second round tier has 5 WR and 10 OL.
The best choice would be to trade down for say 2 2nd round picks and draft a WR and an OL. That is BPA AND good asset management
A good choice would be to draft the RB. That is BPA and neutral asset management
A bad choice would be to take the QB or S because they are unlikely to increase in value from here...you may get lucky and at least you drafted "BPA", but it is poor asset management.
A terrible choice would be to draft a WR or OL. It is not BPA and good asset management..
-
1
-
-
On 1/18/2019 at 3:24 PM, Shaw66 said:
Thanks. That's helpful.
Beane claims he is a strict BPA guy, but we all know that if the BPA in every round is a center, he isn't going to take seven centers. So you have to be right at some point.
But, since you know that the return on guys down at the end of the draft is low, if you need a receiver, it's not stupid to bet on the same position multiple times. It increases the chances you'll win on one. And it really isn't likely that if the Bills won on two of them, they would have kept one on the bench. First, they aren't likey to be productive for most of their rookie seasons, as was the case with Foster. But even if Foster had made it from day one, if Ray Ray had made it too, they BOTH would have been playing. The coach is going to find ways to get productive guys on the field. Belichick played several seasons with a cadre of small, not particularly fast receivers.
So although your points are good and show that the probability of helping the team might have been higher by spreading those picks around, position wise, the practical reality is that you're likely to do no better than one out of three with picks like that, and that's what Beane did. If he'd had two Fosters in the mix, McDermott would have player two Fosters with Zay. If one developed really fast, he would have taken Benjamin's job earlier.
Wasted, no. Might there have been a better strategy, yes, I agree.
"Best Player available" is sort of a misnomer...it is incredibly rare where there is a literal "best player". Most of the time what happens is players fall into groups or tiers made up of similarly-ranked players (position is likely factored in somewhat, but from an absolute value standpoint and not based on need).
When you adopt a BPA strategy, you should always be picking from the highest tiers left on your board. If there aren't any positions you need in your highest tier (or loads of guys left in that tier), maybe you trade down...and if there is only one or two guys left in a tier at a position of need maybe you trade up.
What BPA really means is don't reach for need...you should trust your board you spent a year building. Crazy stuff happens to rosters in football, and you can always trade picks or players if you're in a position of surplus.
-
7 hours ago, oldmanfan said:
Good stuff. You nail it on precision and accuracy in that the only true way would be off field at a specific target. I have made the statement that Allen needs to be more precise and I agree based one one throw that is not measurable. My statement is directed more at say an entire games worth of throws, where I see receivers having to reach back a bit, or where they make a catch but aren't in position to get YAC. I feel he's accurate on such throws but could be more precise, with the assumption that he wanted to hit a different specific target within the catch radius than he did, such that receivers would be running after catch and such.
Thanks for this post.
Whether or not I agree with the terminology, I totally get what you are trying to say and I agree with you...he was not an efficient passer, and part of that was due to ball placement.
What I also think is, under certain (ie ideal) circumstances, he throws darts and can do so to all areas of the field. It’s those throws where he needs to gear down a little or quickly move his feet that he seems to be less consistent with...I’m not sure he will ever be more than ok at them. It’s the downside of having a rocket arm...you have to take so much off to get the proper trajectory, it’s almost impossible to maintain proper mechanics consistently...if you’ve ever tried to throw a football to a small child, it’s almost impossible to slow your arm down and still throw an accurate spiral.
The other misfires are often timing related...throwing to a spot too early or too late (or right on time but your receiver is early or late) can have a huge impact, and throwing as hard as he does only exacerbates the problem because receivers don’t have as much time to adjust and make the throw look even wilder than it really is. I think those issue will work themselves out over time.
-
Precision can be calculated in one of two ways when it comes to throwing a football, and neither of them are possible during a live game due to A) a sample set of 1 per pass attempt (ie every attempt is different and has a million variables) and B) Throws are spacial, time-relevant, and optimal location (and therefore intent) is contingent on situation.
So the reality is...we really only are talking about accuracy here. But, semantics aside...clearly the evaluation of accuracy is flawed for some of the same reasons (B) and because an "accurate pass" is subjective...it's why opinions on Josh Allen's accuracy varies so wildly.
I don't have stats to back it up, but I would say that from a strictly observational standpoint...When Josh Allen has time and a clean pocket, he has the ability to deliver the football as accurately and consistently (ie precisely) as anyone in the league to all levels of the field. I don't recall too many misfires, and conversely saw quite a few dead-accurate passes, in this scenario. I think he would destroy other QBs at an "accuracy" skills challenge, for example. Where he struggles is when he is rushed, trying to do too much, and misreads/miscommunication. Those are all things that get better with experience, IMO (and with better teammates)...and I think for those of us that have watched him, it's why he looks a lot better when you watch him than he does on paper. I think OP's analysis at least partially helps to bridge that gap.
-
These threads are often so misguided...I'm pretty sure some of you would replace half the roster with rookies and other teams trash if you could, then you would complain when they suck. You'd also complain when our trash looks great on other teams. I still remember threads about how the Bills had the "worst WR corps in the league outside of Sammy" when they had Watkins, Woods, Goodwin and Hogan on the same team. Whoops.
What this team really needs is...time. Maybe some consistency. And a quarterback (which takes, get this, time).
Zay Jones is more than a Slot receiver. Dawkins is more than a guard. Hell, even the bottom half of the receiver roster has potential under the right circumstances..they are just young.
This team should look for a few upgrades in FA at any position on the roster, including defense. Then draft BPA not counting QB. In a case where grades are close, I would hope they lean towards WR, OL or TE...but I also wouldn't mind a stud DLineman.
-
Just now, 26CornerBlitz said:
Plenty of players test fast, but don't play fast and sometimes it's just the opposite. What happens on the field in actual competition is all that matters.
That is just something people say...It's not real.
And I am not just talking about 40 times. The jumps in particular are fairly indicative of a player's explosive ability.
-
6 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:
Does he look explosive in actual game play? I could not care any less about combine skills in shorts. What happens when the pads are on against the opposition in games that count?
Ah, so you prefer anecdotal to analytical...gotcha
The point is he is a good athlete, so if he is "playing slow" it's not because of his physical ability. Personally, I think it's bs until somebody shows me the contrary. He;s been able to get separation, even last year...he just has had problems dropping it or being targeted so far in his young career. Jerry Rice had similar problems. It happens to the best of them.
-
Somebody earlier said Zay isn't fast/explosive/etc...
At the combine (which was just last year for him) he measured 6'2" and 201 pounds with a 4.45 40, 36.5 inch vertical, 133 inch broad jump and 4.01/11.17 shuttles. Those were all top 12 times in his class, and some of them were top 3-5
For comparison, Sammy Watkins was 6'1" 211. 4.43, 34, 126, 4.34 and Julio Jones was 6'3" 220, 4.38, 38.5. 135. 4.23/11.07
-
8 hours ago, BullBuchanan said:
Brees has a weaker arm than Peterman...http://www.pass2win.com/ball-velocity-exposing-the-power-qb.html
Drew Brees has never been known for having a cannon, but he makes up for that with timing, deadly accuracy, and technique.
I've been making comparisons to Brees and Peterman for a while based mostly on the way they play and the situation they found themselves in on their rosters. Time will tell if he's able to put it together, but he's a smart kid who doesn't get rattled, and his skill set is shared by many really good QBs. He's got a hell of a mountain to climb, and I'm just hoping he gets that chance.
Something you have to realize is measuring ball velocity at the combine is not a separate test where the QB is intentionally trying to throw as hard as they can...it is measured when they are going through the passing drills. So while some QBs might try and throw with max or near-max velocity, others (especially those who are less accurate or throw very hard) might try to take something off to throw a more accurate, catchable ball.
As an overall list, it's useful information...but it's also not an end all, be all.
Also, for the record Josh Allen was at like 62 mph at the combine.
-
4 minutes ago, Trogdor said:
I mean what don't you understand about his responsibility? The untouched comment was because the other poster made it seem as though that was someone else's fault. It's not that he was untouched, it was that he had trouble picking it up in the first place. You're really fighting the good fight here huh?
Identifying a blitzer pre-snap isn't always possible. It's called disguising coverage and happens all the time.
Identifying blitzers POST-Snap IS his job...he failed the first time, but not the second. That is the point.
2 minutes ago, SoCoBills said:Of course he has the ability to set protections. EVERY quarterback and I mean EVERY single one is expected to do this. I’ve heard of a rare situation or 2 where an inexperienced qb had an experienced center make all the line calls from time to time but that’s not the norm.
He calls out the mike maybe...but he probably doesn't have audibles for the RB in a preseason game to pick up safety blitzes. That's not the kind of thing you just do on the fly.
And all of this is assuming that the safety blitz was identifiable pre-snap. Chances are it was not...especially since there wasn't any game planning.
-
1
-
2
-
-
19 minutes ago, Trogdor said:
Jesus Christ, when a DB drops down to blitz it's the QBs job to pick that up. Not to do the actual blocking. He didn't read the blitz either time, that's all I'm saying. A lot of pro-QBs don't see it either, but it's still their fault.
I feel like you are saying this because that is what Tim Couch said...
It is his job to read the safeties, because that is what tells him what kind of coverage they are in...It is NOT necessarily his job to set protections and since this was week two of preseason, I highly doubt they had safety blitz audibles assigned.
He missed it the first time. He did what he could with the play that was called the second time. Thats all we know. Anything beyond that is you putting your narrative one something you just don't know.
-
1
-
First Half wasn't as awful as everyone is saying
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Yes, he "just missed" throwing a pick...but he also "just missed" a touchdown on that play, too. Was a great break by the defender, but if that ball had a little more velocity, it's 6. It's not like it was a horrible decision, he just didn't set his feet because he thought his arm could get it there.
Conversely, the Bills tipped several passes and Darnold threw a few that could have been picked, including the 2 pt conversion. Results-based analysis only gets you so far.