The 2009 Rookie Scouting Portfolio (1 Viewer)

[Matt Waldman]

Rookie Scouting Portfolio-get it here

The link above will take you to pages that explain the concept and provide sample profiles, rankings, and reports from previous RSPs. Remember, you get this 624-page analysis of the 2009 rookie class of fantasy prospects free with a 2009 subscription to Footballguys.

Here's what you find in the 2009 RSP:

165 Game film study profiles on most draft eligible QBs, RBs, WRs, and TEs
Rankings tables by position
Best And worst individual skill sets by position
Overrated and underrated players by position
Players considered "projects" by position
Historical player comparison charts by position
A convenient draft guide for dynasty/re-draft owners
A glossary that explains the scoring criteria in complete detailI'm available to answer any questions about the RSP by e-mail or posting on this thread.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Am I the only one who immediately looks at the rankings to see what less hyped players Matt has higher this year and then feel both happy and sad to see him list some of my sleepers?

 

[Mr Clean]

 

[Dave Larkin]

Matt, you've done a tremendous job with this. It's one of the reasons I subscribed to Footballguys. It was worth every penny!

I've been printing out selected profiles and absorbing the knowledge.

Thanks again Matt!

 

[corpcow]

Very excited to dig in.

Just a stupid point - why did you put a © symbol at the end of the title? You have the copyright notice elsehwere (and even there it's not necessary). Did you mean to say that "Rookie Scouting Portfolio" is a trademark?

 

[Matt Waldman]

Just ignorance on my part.

 

[boodussy18]

Just ignorance on my part.

you refer to Deon Butler as Deon Branch at least once in the WR section (in the Elusiveness ranking)

 

[Matt Waldman]

Just ignorance on my part.

you refer to Deon Butler as Deon Branch at least once in the WR section (in the Elusiveness ranking)

Thanks for pointing it out. As I've mentioned before, there will be a few content errors interspersed with this 624-page publication. I made the decision in 2006 that I'm willing to sacrifice a little bit on editing for more player analysis. With each passing year, I'm getting more efficient with the work and I hope to have enough time in coming years to send it to a few more pairs of eyes than just mine. Hopefully the issues within this version are few and not too annoying.

 

[ravnzfan]

Matt

I've been and always will be a subscriber---those of us on board early in the game towed the line while Joe and David could continue to put together THE uber FF site on the planet, grabbing writer after writer creating a staff that "exceptional" doesn't come close to describing.

Dynasty information/rookie eval's were the pet projects of Mike Anderson (Drugrunner's "Minimal WR Strategy" still landmark from the early days) and Jeff Pasquino, who I've had the great pleasure in meeting because of this site and a leaguemate a couple times over now....

But this rookie copulation, while I know "out there" and available in the FF world for a few years now, is new to me and I'm sure 98% of my 150+ dynasty league mates---takes the cake!

"Impressive" does not begin to do justice to the work that you've put into this---I've only had the opportunity to glance thru ~2% of the work, but can already see that I'll be printing out a couple hundred pages to read over on an extended vacation I'll be on starting the weekend of the NFL draft...I come home to draft into 2 new dynasty leagues I've started, and can't help but feel I'll be 1/2 a leg up on some of the finest FF players in the land---guys from this site, Pasquino included.

A big THANX! from your newest fan...

Steve/aka ravnzfan

 

[corpcow]

Matt, just out of curiosity is there any plan to make past RSPs available? (I saw one linked at another site you may have sold through, but couldn't find it anywhere). I'd love to see what you've said about guys in the past, and compare to the current rankings to get a sense of your scale etc.

Or, better yet, if those rankings could be pulled in and hung off each FBG player profile........

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I would guess that since he sold them in the past on FFToday that he couldn't just give them away now, but maybe he can?

 

[anakin]

Matt

Once again you have done a fantastic job! I subscribed to the RSP last year and I am even happier with this year's. Congrats!

 

[Matt Waldman]

Matt, just out of curiosity is there any plan to make past RSPs available? (I saw one linked at another site you may have sold through, but couldn't find it anywhere). I'd love to see what you've said about guys in the past, and compare to the current rankings to get a sense of your scale etc.Or, better yet, if those rankings could be pulled in and hung off each FBG player profile........

For past editions of the RSP, just contact me directly. M

 

[dmac37]

Matt, great job again with the RSP. Now that you are on board at FBG's are you going to use your research & knowledge and enter your rankings in the FBG's dynasty expert rankings?

We would love to see that.

.

 

[ditka85]

Excellent work, Matt.

 

[bigums]

But this rookie copulation,

Possibly the best misspelling/freudian slip ever... Nice job once again, Matt. I've been a RSP customer for a few years. Getting it the same place as the Dominator software and all of the other great stuff @ FBGs is the nuts.

Thanks again for all your work and thanks to Joe/David for bringing you on!

 

[Matt Waldman]

I agree...probably the funniest slip ever and it's said with mad respect for Ravnzfan. I've had my share of malapropisms (read Bill Simmons on Mike Tyson) that like this one...

Thanks for giving me your feedback here and if you guys have questions, feel free to e-mail me, post them on this thread. or send them to the Audible draft talk thread for the Thursday night shows.

I plan to do some 2-, 3-, and 4-year reviews of RSP content in my Gut Check columns this year. We'll see what I come up with.

 

[Gamma1210]

This may be addressed somewhere, but when you calculate scores for the checklist, how do N/As factor in. For a lot of players they get all N/As in injury and you give them a 10 for the category even though the points only add to 7.

 

[Matt Waldman]

This may be addressed somewhere, but when you calculate scores for the checklist, how do N/As factor in. For a lot of players they get all N/As in injury and you give them a 10 for the category even though the points only add to 7.

Good question and here's the deal: I ran into this problem when I first used this evaluation format in the customer service/call center industry. The goal for the checklist is to provide a clearly defined criteria point that if done according to the definition is scored yes, if not done correctly then it's scored no, and if you didn't have the opportunity or the information to score it, then it's Not Applicable. The problem is when you score N/A, you have to decide whether to award credit or penalize. I take two approaches: 1) If the criteria is a skill that's displayed on the field, I will use "No" rather than "N/A" if I haven't seen the player perform that skill. The reasoning is, I'd rather give a player a lower grade and have the perspective that he has to prove on the field that he can perform that skill. That way, when I do rankings, I may have a quality player with a lower score, but it may be deflated due to this lacking of opportunity to see him demonstrate a set of skills. To me that means I can communicate elsewhere that he has upside potential, provided he can do those things. Then you can see how high his ceiling might be if those "No's" become "Yes'". 2) If the criteria is something that wouldn't be fair to penalize because it's not as much about skills or it is dependent on weather, then I use the "N/A" which counts point-wise, like a "Yes". For instance, I don't have former FBI men researching the character of players on my staff of one, so if I can't find anything glaring about these players, I will put N/A because this isn't situation where I think it makes sense to say this player has to prove he's a decent citizen. Same thing with injuries if they are not well-publicized. To me the basic approach is "You have to prove that you have the skills, but you don't have to prove what kind of man you are or what condition you're in." I am seriously considering changing the checklist to get rid of character as a portion of the grading and just comment on it where necessary. I am considering the same with injury, but not as seriously.

 

[bcr8f]

Did Beanie Wells run a 4.38?

 

[Matt Waldman]

One of the timings on his Pro day was a 4.38, yes. I wouldn't take that 4.38 and conclude he's consistently that fast. I'd take my observations from the game tape and go with that. I list the best 40 times for these players for two reasons:

1) His potential speed in a straight-line situation.

2) How much the 40 time can be gamed by performance coaches.

 

[Matt Waldman]

Matt, great job again with the RSP. Now that you are on board at FBG's are you going to use your research & knowledge and enter your rankings in the FBG's dynasty expert rankings? We would love to see that. .

Thank you! And as far as your questions, I don't know...I'd be willing though.

 

[bcr8f]

One of the timings on his Pro day was a 4.38, yes. I wouldn't take that 4.38 and conclude he's consistently that fast. I'd take my observations from the game tape and go with that. I list the best 40 times for these players for two reasons: 1) His potential speed in a straight-line situation.2) How much the 40 time can be gamed by performance coaches.

It was a fast track but I didn't think he ran that fast. He looked fast in games I saw too. I'm more interested in how quickly a back gets up to top speed and how quick he is with defenders all around(can he avoid hits) than 40 speed, but straight line speed is a nice addition.

 

[Matt Waldman]

Wells is fast enough to be a good NFL back. He's not Peterson-fast. He's more like Corey Dillon-fast in Dillon's prime: he can break a long run, but the conditions have to be right (teams loading the box and either a hole opening where there's no one in the secondary or he breaks one tackle in the second level).

I'm getting a fair amount of e-mail questions, but if you have any you want to post here feel free.

 

[benidrama]

Hi Matt

I noticed while comparing wr scores from last year that you have 4 receivers last year who got the same numerical score or higher as your highest rated wr this year.

I assume that your grading is consistent year to year and would allow for these comparisons... Do you think that as prospects, these 4 wrs graded out as well or better than your #1 wr this year? I understand it isn't fair to compare one year veterans to 2009 rookies, but I'm asking about 2008 prospects vs. 2009 prospects...

Thanks for the great work, btw.

 

[Matt Waldman]

Great question. I'll do my best to answer it.

1) My grading is pretty consistent every year, but I would be lying if I said I haven't learned anything since I began in 2006. I learn things every year and catch more each year.

2) That said, I think in the case of the 4 WRs with higher scores last year than the No. 1 guy in 2009 that these 4 guys had as much if not more physical skill than the 2009 guy. While the No.1 guy this year has a lower score than the guys from last year that you're referring to, I think he has more upside. So his score might be a tad lower, but his potential is better. Still, if the No.1 guy from 2008 works hard then he has the skills to be as good or better than the 2009 guy.

But if I were to rate the 2009 guys versus the 2008 guys, he'd be at the top of the list because the skills he demonstrates give him a lower floor with nearly as high of a ceiling.

Does that help?

 

[benidrama]

Thanks, Matt

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Great question. I'll do my best to answer it. 1) My grading is pretty consistent every year, but I would be lying if I said I haven't learned anything since I began in 2006. I learn things every year and catch more each year. 2) That said, I think in the case of the 4 WRs with higher scores last year than the No. 1 guy in 2009 that these 4 guys had as much if not more physical skill than the 2009 guy. While the No.1 guy this year has a lower score than the guys from last year that you're referring to, I think he has more upside. So his score might be a tad lower, but his potential is better. Still, if the No.1 guy from 2008 works hard then he has the skills to be as good or better than the 2009 guy. But if I were to rate the 2009 guys versus the 2008 guys, he'd be at the top of the list because the skills he demonstrates give him a lower floor with nearly as high of a ceiling. Does that help?

That is always the difficulty with quantitative "ratings". IMO, you (not you in particular, but folks doing analysis) really need to define what the ratings "mean".So if you've got 4+ guys with higher ratings than another guy, yet you'd put that other guy "at the top of" a combined list, what does the rating actually indicate?If it is more an indication of "potential" or "physical skill", why does it seem to be composed of current abilities, some of which could certainly be developed/improved?Dunno, just seems to me that if you really want the rating to be considered consistent from year to year, you should maybe just say "Yeah, I like(d) those four guys better all things considered.".I'm not trying to bust balls, I really like what I've seen of the product. I just always struggle with what rankings like this are really trying to get across.

 

[Matt Waldman]

Hey Holy Schneikes,

No worries-I'm glad you like what you've seen and you've hit on a great point: Ranking anything is inherently difficult. When you're looking at 20-30 different skill sets and trying to distill it down to one number, there will always be "yeah, buts" or "If this, then that" or "could be" factored into the summary. Ranking people sucks...trust me, trying to sum up someone with one number is not easy if you really care about being as accurate about total of that person's parts.

Certain skill sets are harder to improve than others. For instance it's easier to become a better blocker as a WR than it is to learn to catch the football with your hands while taking a hit. Just as it may be easier for a QB to develop better footwork than it is for him to revamp his entire wind up and delivery. This is why I try to explain as much as I can about the ranking.

To me, the primary importance of the evaluation process is to incorporate both a quantitative and qualitative approach. The rating numbers are there, so if you simply want to ignore my qualitative thoughts, you can rank these guys by the overall score I give them. Maybe in coming years I will provide that ranking in addition to the one I do now, which incorporates things that even a 30-point checklist can't quantitatively evaluate with complete accuracy.

 

[az_prof]

I would like to give some props to Matt. This is the second year I have bought his Scouting Portolio and it was the main reason that I paid for Footballguys this year. It isn't that I don't like the other staff at FBG--I do--it's just that I do not know alot about rookies and I am in a dynasty league. Matt's detailed analysis of the rookies is a big draw.

Matt, one thing I would love to see you do at some point before the regular season is to go back to the top 5 or 10 players at each position from the previous year and then take a look at their NFL rookie season in light of your analysis. If there is a player like Earl Bennett whom you liked as a rookie but who did not have a good rookie year, do you still have optimism or are you down on them. Let's face it--the NFL competition and game is different--so seeing the guy in the big leagues might make you say 'yes, the guy has the same skills and he just needs more of an opportunity; or, No, the guys skills did not translate as I thought they would; or, We still don't know. It would tough with a guy like Bennett who didn't see the field but maybe a guy like Limas Sweed, who did get on the field some.

 

[Matt Waldman]

az_prof

Thanks for the props and when I resume my column The Weekly Gut Check when FBG opens for 2009, I intend to do a piece where I look back at the prominent players in my rankings. I am actually doing what I can to record NFL games so I can analyze rookies more informally. If I get more time to devote to the RSP, I may decide to do a first-year analysis of players who saw time on the field, using these checklists evals as a follow up tool.

Once the subscription curtain goes up in August, I will also do a more detailed analysis with RSP data from 2006-2009. I haven't fully figured out what I'm going to do with the data, but it will probably be an analysis of workout measurements and skill set scores with a sample of players. It may not lead to anything ground-breaking, but it should be interesting to see if anything can come out of it.

 

[Ray Finkle]

Matt,

Thank you for all the effort. The RSP was a big reason why I subscribed to the site and I was not disappointed. I also want to thank you for the quick response to my e-mail and getting me the 2006-08 RSP.

 

[Barry Jive and The Uptown Five]

Anyone else having difficulty downloading this monster from the FBG links (this thread & the home page)?

My Acrobat opens & gives me the error message:

"There was an error opening this document. This file cannot be found."

 

[Matt Waldman]

Barry J

Thanks for letting me know. Contact Memphis Foundry (Keith Overton) and he should help you out. I haven't had a single e-mail from anyone else having difficulty opening the document. If anyone else is having an issue, contact Keith.

M

 

[az_prof]

az_profThanks for the props and when I resume my column The Weekly Gut Check when FBG opens for 2009, I intend to do a piece where I look back at the prominent players in my rankings. I am actually doing what I can to record NFL games so I can analyze rookies more informally. If I get more time to devote to the RSP, I may decide to do a first-year analysis of players who saw time on the field, using these checklists evals as a follow up tool. Once the subscription curtain goes up in August, I will also do a more detailed analysis with RSP data from 2006-2009. I haven't fully figured out what I'm going to do with the data, but it will probably be an analysis of workout measurements and skill set scores with a sample of players. It may not lead to anything ground-breaking, but it should be interesting to see if anything can come out of it.

That's great news. The reappraisal pieces could be collaborative too--maybe you and one or two of the other FBG staff could do them together. I will be looking forward to whatever you come up with in August.

 

[Matt Waldman]

Thought I'd share that the most common thing I hear from readers when they first get the download and open the RSP are these statements:

It's going to be a productive day at work...

My work productivity will be zero today...

I've decided I'm taking some vacation time as of now...

My employees don't know it, but they should be thanking you that I'm spending the rest of the day locked in my office

I feel like I'm helping people stick it to the man...

 

[risberg]

Just wanted to say that the RSP is the only reason I subscribed to FBG - I figured I know that the RSP is worth the price alone from buying it last year, so if I get anything else in return, it's just a bonus.

Keep up the good work!

 

[bcr8f]

Matt's rankings do part from the norm here.

 

[Matt Waldman]

They most likely will. Wait until you see my re-draft rankings...

The reasons why:

1) I'm more of a high-risk/high-reward guy in approach because nowadays most people you face have a basic level of understand of the game that makes drafting more predictable. In leagues where I'm not facing FBGs subscribers/posters, half the guys still know what VBD is or have a VBD-based ranking in front of them. In today's fantasy football, sometimes you need to take some risks.

2) Most importantly, I'm looking at these players with a minimally prejudiced eye of a group-think. That can be both good and bad if you have bottom-line thinking and just want to grab my rankings and use them without have at least some informed perspective about the player and how he's usually ranked. Every year I'll have players ranked in places where no one else does (Ahmad Bradshaw ranked in my rookie RB top 10 when he was drafted; Mike Bell ranked in my rookie top 10 when he went undrafted; Selvin Young; this year - Josh Vaughn, who I like, but probably won't be drafted). I've learned to make the effort to trust what I see. If it doesn't work out, that's fine but at least my readers know it's based on what I see and they at least become familiar with a player who might develop in the future (and become familiar earlier, which helps them down the line).

3) I have the luxury of ranking players alongside at least a half-dozen other writers. They will likely be the norm and I will be more high risk. When you see my column-beginning next week-you'll eventually see that my approach is to give you a different perspective. I try to push the envelope when it comes to finding sleepers, develop new strategies, or just take a different take. It's not just to be different, it's genuinely something based on what I believe and my desire to investigate it.

For instance, I'm pretty sure Ronnie Brown will be ranked pretty high in my re-draft rankings - especially if it turns out he's staying in Miami and the rumor is false. His numbers from last year don't predicate it, but the data I will reveal will at least explain why I think he makes a good candidate in a historical context (in addition to his ability and the improvement of the team).

It may not be the low-risk choice, but a ranking like mine will give you a fresh perspective to either incorporate certain players into your list that will be within your comfort zone of risk or you can just use my list, completely shake up your draft, and build a strong team.

 

[bcr8f]

They most likely will. Wait until you see my re-draft rankings...

I like it. Jason Wood has Crabtree at 8(he won't be there in a real draft of course) so having differing views is a very good thing.

 

[Matt Waldman]

They most likely will. Wait until you see my re-draft rankings...

I like it. Jason Wood has Crabtree at 8(he won't be there in a real draft of course) so having differing views is a very good thing.

Glad you do. In case you missed it, Wood explained in the rookie ratings post that Crabtree at 8 wasn't intentional and he'll be updating it.

 

[Vic Mackey]

This thing is a beast, I've just started to skim.

One thing I noticed that I would've loved right off of the bat, is a table of contents, or at least a note of what page positions start at.

Seems awesome, I may join a few more dynasty leagues just to take all this extra knowledge I'll have and put it to use.

 

[Matt Waldman]

This thing is a beast, I've just started to skim.One thing I noticed that I would've loved right off of the bat, is a table of contents, or at least a note of what page positions start at.Seems awesome, I may join a few more dynasty leagues just to take all this extra knowledge I'll have and put it to use.

Glad you like what you see thus far, VicThere is a table of contents: I bookmarked each section so you simply click on that bookmark and it takes you there. You can find it is a bookmarked contents. You can find it either by going to View - Navigation Panels - Bookmarks. Or you can click the icon found on the left margin of the document that looks like a sheet of paper with a blue ribbon on it. If you click on that page, it will display all the bookmarks for each section of the publication. Image attached... on this thread to show you what it looks like. I hope that helps. Matt

 

[Vic Mackey]

Awesome, thanks.

My old laptop wouldn't update Acrobat anymore, not since like 2004, so I guess I just never used it any in depth kinda way. I feel a little dumb.

Hopefully all the knowledge from the RSP will help balance it out

 

[Matt Waldman]

No worries Vic, I'm sure there are several folks who never noticed the table of contents until you posted. If you have any other questions, I'll answer them here.

I'll be in NYC Friday through Sunday so my access to the Internet may be a little spotty, but....

 

[massive attack]

I've been a fan of the RSP for a couple years now, Thank you for all the effort.

One question, I'm in a few 16 team leagues. Do you have a Dynasty Rookie Value Chart for a 16 team league?

 

[Matt Waldman]

I've been a fan of the RSP for a couple years now, Thank you for all the effort.One question, I'm in a few 16 team leagues. Do you have a Dynasty Rookie Value Chart for a 16 team league?

Massive attack, I'm in Manhattan with Bloom right now and I don't have access to my draft value chart stuff...I'll check when I get back.

 

[2and2is5]

is there a good highlight reel on cedric peerman anywhere, im definately intrigued after reading this, and hoping he's as under the radar as it seems, in a 12 team dynasty, you think he definately goes before a 2.4, or 16th pick? do i gotta trade up for this guy?

 

[Matt Waldman]

There is no film I can find of him. I think he's likely be a 3rd or 4th round pick, so he'll likely go after 2.4 unless he's picked before round three and McCoy just went off and Greene is still on the board with 10 picks left. I finally have Internet as the crowd as dispersed.

 

[2and2is5]

There is no film I can find of him. I think he's likely be a 3rd or 4th round pick, so he'll likely go after 2.4 unless he's picked before round three and McCoy just went off and Greene is still on the board with 10 picks left. I finally have Internet as the crowd as dispersed.

he's still out there, very interested to see where he lands, im definately thinking he'll fall to 2.4, probably even further...interesting