Elusiveness what is it good for? (1 Viewer)

[GULAM]

Just read this article over at Matt Waldman's site:

http://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2013/04/04/the-elusiveness-factor-patterson-austin-woods-by-nick-whalen/

A lot of research time put in here.

I never really thought of "elusiveness" in this way but I was wondering what you guys thought and if this article changes your mind on how we should look at "elusiveness"?

 

[Bracie Smathers]

Before someone else jumps in with a similiar musical reply.

Edwin Starr- War (Lyrics)

War, huh, yeah
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Uh-huh
War, huh, yeah
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Say it again, y'all

War, huh, good God
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me

Ohhh, war, I despise
Because it means destruction
Of innocent lives

War means tears
To thousands of mothers eyes
When their sons go to fight
And lose their lives

I said, war, huh
Good God, y'all
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Say it again

War, whoa, Lord
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me

War, it ain't nothing
But a heartbreaker
War, friend only to the undertaker
Ooooh, war
It's an enemy to all mankind
The point of war blows my mind

War has caused unrest
Within the younger generation
Induction then destruction
Who wants to die

Aaaaah, war-huh
Good God y'all
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Say it, say it, say it

War, huh, yeah
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me

War, it ain't nothing but a heartbreaker
War, it's got one friend
That's the undertaker

Ooooh, war, has shattered
Many a young mans dreams
Made him disabled, bitter and mean
Life is much to short and precious
To spend fighting wars these days
War can't give life
It can only take it away

Ooooh, war, huh
Good God y'all
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Say it again

War, whoa, Lord
What is it good for?

Absolutely nothing
Listen to me

War, it ain't nothing but a heartbreaker
War, friend only to the undertaker
Peace, love and understanding
Tell me, is there no place for them today
They say we must fight to keep our freedom
But Lord knows there's got to be a better way

Ooooooh, war, huh
Good God y'all
What is it good for?
You tell me
Say it, say it, say it, say it

War, huh
Good God y'all
What is it good for?
Stand up and shout it
Nothing

 

[MAC_32]

Elusiveness is about 1,000 times more relevant than the 40, but since it cannot be sufficiently quantified too many people ignore it and pay attention to borderline irrelevant metrics like the 40 instead.

 

[werdnoynek]

Elusiveness is about 1,000 times more relevant than the 40, but since it cannot be sufficiently quantified too many people ignore it and pay attention to borderline irrelevant metrics like the 40 instead.

 

[doowain]

Before someone else jumps in with a similiar musical reply.

Edwin Starr- War (Lyrics)

War, huh, yeah

What is it good for?

Absolutely nothing

Uh-huh

War, huh, yeah

What is it good for?

Absolutely nothing

Say it again, y'all

is so much better.

 

[Concept Coop]

#1 overall player in my fantasy tag league.

But seriously, very much buying into the hype on this kid.

 

[I was in the pool]

Running regression on the past decade of drafted RBs....40 times, when adjusted for weight, have a decent level of predictive value for their NFL fantasy future. Just one thing out of many to consider for incoming rookie RBs.

 

[Xue]

40 times are unreliable unless you measure them yourself.

 

[tdmills]

I wrote this article, it would be nice to get some feedback on the actual article. Was it enjoyable, any topics for future articles, etc.

 

[coachbobbyfinstock]

Elusiveness is about 1,000 times more relevant than the 40, but since it cannot be sufficiently quantified too many people ignore it and pay attention to borderline irrelevant metrics like the 40 instead.

I'm not sure I agree with this statement at all (im speaking specifically about the RB position). What rb's do you consider elusive? What rb's do you consider fast (which would indicate a good 40 time)?

 

[MAC_32]

Elusiveness is about 1,000 times more relevant than the 40, but since it cannot be sufficiently quantified too many people ignore it and pay attention to borderline irrelevant metrics like the 40 instead.

I'm not sure I agree with this statement at all (im speaking specifically about the RB position). What rb's do you consider elusive? What rb's do you consider fast (which would indicate a good 40 time)?

In this draft class Knile Davis is the classic case of the workout lying. Watch the tape. Montee Ball is his polar opposite, slow 40 but subtle cuts in tight windows will make him a much more effective ball carrier at the next level. I expect both to be drafted about the same time.

 

[SSOG]

Running regression on the past decade of drafted RBs....40 times, when adjusted for weight, have a decent level of predictive value for their NFL fantasy future. Just one thing out of many to consider for incoming rookie RBs.

Yeah. 40 times aren't destiny (I was mentioning elsewhere that Mike Shanahan has coached seven 1,000 yard backs, and five of them ran slower than a 4.6), but they do provide valuable information. If everything else is perfectly equal (size, vision, instincts, agility, elusiveness, etc) a back who runs a 4.4 will be better than a back who runs a 4.6. And those are just the mid-ranges- at the extreme outlier high end, (think: Chris Johnson, Jamaal Charles), just the threat that the RB's speed presents can change the way defenses play, whether that threat is ever realized or not (think about all the arguments people make about Mike Wallace being better than the stats suggest because the threat of his speed blows the top off of every coverage).

Of course, all else is rarely ever equal. In the case of a guy like Knile Davis or Mario Fannin who has elite speed and terrible everything else, that speed alone is not going to be enough to make him a serviceable pro. But that's true about any single trait. A guy could have the best instincts of anyone who has ever graced the face of the earth, but if he runs a 5.4, he'd never make it out of training camps.

 

[Drop]

I wrote this article, it would be nice to get some feedback on the actual article. Was it enjoyable, any topics for future articles, etc.

Do you have any stats for yards after eluded tackle?

If Tavon Austin catches the ball and makes 1 guy miss then goes 60 yards it won't register as well in your system as if he makes the same catch then makes 1 guy miss then goes 10 yards makes a second guy miss then gets tackled 20 yards later. He may have made the first guy miss so fast that he was able to shred all other defenders angles and just go, but the second case will result in 2 eluded tackles on 1 reception as apposed to 1 eluded tackle on 1 reception in the first scenario. Which case would you rather have in terms of winning though?

Eluded per reception is not as good as eluded per opportunity to elude, because they may have 3 chances on 1 play. You also have to account for quality of eluded tackle. For instance if there are 3 players capable of tackling, but only 1 actually gets a chance because of the speed in which he is beat with respect to angles it says something about the offensive players ability that isn't reflected by the stats. There is a difference between beating a guy 1 on 1 in the open field and beating 3 players who have an offensive player boxed in.

I am curious to see the stats for multiple eluded tackle plays too.

For the adj total it lists Patterson at 42, Austin 105, Woods 66. However in the Total Plays chart Woods is listed as "Eluded/Play" = 77. Woods is also given "Eluded" as 38 and the pct is listed as 45%. 38/77 = ~49% and 38/66 = ~58%, so I don't understand how you got the figures posted.

Is this something that you are going to continue developing?

 

[mbuehner]

Running regression on the past decade of drafted RBs....40 times, when adjusted for weight, have a decent level of predictive value for their NFL fantasy future. Just one thing out of many to consider for incoming rookie RBs.

I question the element of self fulfilling prophecy here. Better 40 = better draft position = more opportunities on the field. Did you control for draft round by any chance? Even a terrible 1st round bust is likely to have better stats than most based on sheer carries.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Focusing only on tackles 'eluded' is like looking at any measurable in isolation. You need to consider the entire package.

And regardless of whether a guy breaks a tackle, outruns a would-be tackler, or dances around a defender it all shows up in his stats (at least with a big enough sample size it does).