BarleyNY Posted May 14, 2014 Author Share Posted May 14, 2014 (edited) I just happened across the article and thought I'd share it. Some people put a ton of weight on analytics and some don't. I see it as one tool in the toolbox. The aim of analytics is to determine the likely ceiling of players, not how good they will be. I was surprised at the low ratings so many Bills' picks got. I'd like to see how that compares with the field of prospects as I'm not sure what that looks like. I am a proponent of going after the prospects that rate highly on the analyitics scale as the draft goes on. Small school prospects fit well into that approach since few get quality coaching. Bigger school prospects with high physical abilities who haven't translated that to on the field success are more likely to have other issues, like not taking coaching well. Edited May 14, 2014 by BarleyNY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 Explosive lower body strength, speed and dynamic speed metrics define a player's potential career arc? Those can be helpful as a part of determining future production, but those metrics alone don't make a lot of sense in realistically dictating whether an O-lineman will be a "reserve/bust" or Pro Bowler. I've read that the 3-cone and short shuttle times can be useful for RB and WR projections, but this is a bit much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 I am not sure you would call this "analytics" like football outsiders does. This analysis is based on just the combine stats. If this was a legitimate system, wouldn't NFL teams just take guys who have the best combine stats? I think a better analytical measure is a players' production, like the adjusted yards above replacement stats football outsiders does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manther Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 What a weird article..They had Gilmore as a starter, McKelvin as a probowler, Chris Williams as a pro bowler, and all kinds of weird things going on. This guy seems off his rocker... I believe the article is not only based on metrics from the combine. But, that means the metrics of the players combine the year they were drafted. So, it is based on metric projections from each players draft year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formerly Allan in MD Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 A robot would likely grade out very well, unless it had a loose wire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 I wonder how Brady would rate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CountryCletus Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 Would love to see what this would say about Maybin coming out... How about Trent or Losman.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarleyNY Posted May 14, 2014 Author Share Posted May 14, 2014 Would love to see what this would say about Maybin coming out... How about Trent or Losman.... Again, these metrics are only supposed to give an idea of a player's ceiling from a physical talent perspective. Maybin could've scored very well, but that doesn't mean he'd ever play up to that. People piss their talent away all the time, injuries happen, people do stupid stuff, etc. I'm not one to get upset if others don't like what I (or my team, etc.) have done. It's an opinion and - right, wrong or incomplete - it is backed up by facts and is unbiased so I'll give it it's due. When I watch these players play and develop, succeed and fail, this report will be one of the things I think about. Not only the overall grades of these players, but their pluses and minuses according to those metrics. That will inform my opinion of these metrics in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 Such a focus on a player's physical limitations reminds me of the Bum Phillips quote that Wade re-told in London last week about Earl Campbell stepping out ofm a pre-season mile run: "That's ok... if it's 4th and mile we won't give him the ball." Some players rely on their physical gifts, some on their football brain and most a combination of the two. So any analysis which focuses on one at the expense of another is flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Lightning Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 Well, Hairston is looking good at least. Hey, let's tuck this article away and see if it holds water. I put some stick in such things but this analysis seems a bit of a reach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 (edited) I am not sure you would call this "analytics" like football outsiders does. This analysis is based on just the combine stats. If this was a legitimate system, wouldn't NFL teams just take guys who have the best combine stats? I think a better analytical measure is a players' production, like the adjusted yards above replacement stats football outsiders does. lets be honest - terrible WRs with unbelievable 40s, or great height.... DEs that "fit the prototype" are often shot up boards based on the idea that coaches think they can teach football but cant create the perfect frankenstein body for a hard working and smart but physically not spectacular guy. its certainly not the only dimension by any means, but i think its often weighed heavily by teams. Well, Hairston is looking good at least. Hey, let's tuck this article away and see if it holds water. I put some stick in such things but this analysis seems a bit of a reach. he was a guy that had a lot of physical talent, but needed to show he could put it together consistently in college. he showed flashes in the pros. IF he gets healthy and then IF he reaches his potential he could be very productive Edited May 14, 2014 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davspo Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 While I agree you cannot measure heart, as the author says it's just another prospective. While I think the information may be useful, any GM who drafts solely on this information would be foolish. It would be interesting to see how the Hall of Famers score on this level. I imagine Jim Kelly was very slow in both the 40 and dynamic speed categories- At any rate, I thought it was certainly worth a read considering we are back to off season dullness. Thanks for posting the link! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuckeyeBill Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Interesting read... but I don't consider McKelvin an All Pro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Interesting read... but I don't consider McKelvin an All Pro. No but neither do the and I'm surprised that of all the evaluations THAT is the on that stood out. Mckelvin has just begun putting his game together and they are saying is that his athleticism essentially leaves him with no ceiling or unlimited potential not that he has reached it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CountryCletus Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Again, these metrics are only supposed to give an idea of a player's ceiling from a physical talent perspective. Maybin could've scored very well, but that doesn't mean he'd ever play up to that. People piss their talent away all the time, injuries happen, people do stupid stuff, etc. I'm not one to get upset if others don't like what I (or my team, etc.) have done. It's an opinion and - right, wrong or incomplete - it is backed up by facts and is unbiased so I'll give it it's due. When I watch these players play and develop, succeed and fail, this report will be one of the things I think about. Not only the overall grades of these players, but their pluses and minuses according to those metrics. That will inform my opinion of these metrics in the future. I dig it! I was just trying to imply the obvious, players need so many things to succeed and physical ability could be the biggest, but they need to have something between their ears, determination, and a supporting cast wouldn't hurt... Such a focus on a player's physical limitations reminds me of the Bum Phillips quote that Wade re-told in London last week about Earl Campbell stepping out ofm a pre-season mile run: "That's ok... if it's 4th and mile we won't give him the ball." Some players rely on their physical gifts, some on their football brain and most a combination of the two. So any analysis which focuses on one at the expense of another is flawed. Well said! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 I dig it! I was just trying to imply the obvious, players need so many things to succeed and physical ability could be the biggest, but they need to have something between their ears, determination, and a supporting cast wouldn't hurt... Well said! For sure - so many people look at stuff like this and either take it as gospel or look at the obvious and explicit short comings and throw out the whole thing. The physical part isn't the only thing but it is a big one. You'd be silly to rely in it solely (or any single measure) just as it'd be silly to totally ignore it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Well, Hairston is looking good at least. Where does this come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Lightning Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 Where does this come from? The writer of the article linked to by the OP includes Hairston as one of the comparisons to Cujo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 That's based on his metrics, obviously Alonzo has great vision and understanding of the game, which isnt measured on that site. It's basicly who has the best body kind of comparision, but says nothing about the minds. Which is why I find myself, both here and at work, saying the same things over and over: "Analytics can only ever be as good as the raw data collected, and the busines rules(algorithms, etc.) applied." "If you don't measure it, you can't manage it." "If you go looking for something using analytics, you're probably going to find it, and you're doing it wrong. Analytics is about letting the patterns come to you." Which is really just saying: be competent and be objective. The other thing I say "If you give someone with an agenda, some high-powered software, and a few terrabytes of data? I wouldn't be surpised to wake up tomorrow and find out that: of all humans between the ages of 18-65, I have the highest propensity of causing Global Warming, Childhood Obesity, and Heart Disease." It's like the old saying about AI: "The problem is not whether computers think, but whether men do". So my modification: "The problem with Analytics is not whether computers analyze, but whether men allow them to." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 The writer of the article linked to by the OP includes Hairston as one of the comparisons to Cujo. Has the team made any statements about Hairston? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts