Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Most Overrated Traits for Prospects (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter mr roboto
- Start date
Donnybrook
Footballguy
Excellent feet for a QB. I remember when Sanchez was coming out some pundits (like Phil Simms) ranked him higher than Stafford. The most often quoted reason was Sanchez's excellent feet. I always thought - really? that is all you got?
Last edited by a moderator:
ConnSKINS26
Footballguy
Straight line speed at any position.
Rhythmdoctor
Footballguy
Wonderlic score. I do think a bad wonderlic score, especially for QB can be foretelling. But a very high wonderlic doesn't really predict anything. If anything, super studs seem to fall into a sweet spot of 25-35ish (out of 50). It's almost like to be great, you need to be smart enough, but not too smart as to over-think a situation. Sort of makes sense in a game of inches.
ShamrockPride
Footballguy
I guess I would say the broad jump...I don't understand how that translates to an actual football game.
Workouts & Drills
http://www.nfl.com/combine/workouts
Excerpt:
NFL combine drills explained: Broad jump
http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/2/21/8037575/nfl-combine-2015-drills-broad-jump
EBF
Footballguy
I would say size/arm strength/athleticism at QB. All valuable assets, but useless without the right mental qualities.
There seems to be an aversion to RBs on the very bottom of the height spectrum (i.e. Sproles, MJD, Rice, Bo Oliver). There have been a few scrubs like Quizz Rodgers, Quentin Griffin, and Dion Lewis as well, but in general I think when you look at the investment vs. the return on these players, there's a pretty good argument that low height in RBs is unjustly punished by the NFL draft process.
I would not say speed is overvalued at RB. IIRC there is a clear correlation between speed and FF success here despite the occasional flop (i.e. Peterson/CJ2K/Spiller/Bush/Charles/Murray vs. McFadden/Knile).
On the other hand, I don't think sheer blazing speed is required at WR. Especially if the player is big with good agility and elusiveness. Dez Bryant and Anquan Boldin are shining examples. That being said, all else being equal, of course you'd want the faster guy.
There seems to be an aversion to RBs on the very bottom of the height spectrum (i.e. Sproles, MJD, Rice, Bo Oliver). There have been a few scrubs like Quizz Rodgers, Quentin Griffin, and Dion Lewis as well, but in general I think when you look at the investment vs. the return on these players, there's a pretty good argument that low height in RBs is unjustly punished by the NFL draft process.
I would not say speed is overvalued at RB. IIRC there is a clear correlation between speed and FF success here despite the occasional flop (i.e. Peterson/CJ2K/Spiller/Bush/Charles/Murray vs. McFadden/Knile).
On the other hand, I don't think sheer blazing speed is required at WR. Especially if the player is big with good agility and elusiveness. Dez Bryant and Anquan Boldin are shining examples. That being said, all else being equal, of course you'd want the faster guy.
I think most QB's are pretty spread out. There's some good ones 35 and over (Rodgers, Romo, Luck), and also some good ones below 25 (Ben, Newton). Interesting list:
http://www.bestmastersdegrees.com/smartest-players/
But yes I agree, it doesn't really show that much.
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
MAC_32
Footballguy
The obvious ones are the 40 and size/arm strength (QB). The only position in which the 40 should mean anything is CB.
The bench can be useful for extremes (good and bad), but if it's used as anything more than a tiebreaker then decision maker's are doing it wrong.
The most under rated continues to be game tape. You can't learn everything from it, but you can learn a lot. Baseline opinion should be driven by that and in too many cases it's not.
The bench can be useful for extremes (good and bad), but if it's used as anything more than a tiebreaker then decision maker's are doing it wrong.
The most under rated continues to be game tape. You can't learn everything from it, but you can learn a lot. Baseline opinion should be driven by that and in too many cases it's not.
Cjw_55106
Footballguy
JamesTheScot
Footballguy
I think that's more a case of some super smart QB's being able to mask/overcome their physical deficiencies better than their less smart peers. But the NFL doesn't afford much opportunity to hide something forever. At some point some DC is going to make you do that thing at which you are not so good. And then everyone else copycats it.
I think you hit on an accurate point about a minimum threshold. But I think you are off on the ceiling threshold concept. It isn't about being too smart anymore than it is about being too fast. I do think the high threshold is just like the low threshold in that a very high score or a very low score is by definition an outlier. So the chances that someone would have a very high score or a very low and still have good enough ability in other attributes to be successful is going to be an even smaller subset of that initially small subset. So it's more a situation of how many stupid guys are going to also have the athleticism to overcome that stupidity and how many of the smart guys are also going to also have the athleticism to utilize that intelligence.
So having a high score isn't a detriment. It's just that there aren't many guys that have both a high score AND the other talents to make much of a statistical dent in the apparent trends.
I tend to think the 40 is over-valued for a projected bell-cow or 3-down back and arm strength is over-valued in QB's. In both, it isn't that they don't matter. They do. But it's more about needing to have at least a certain level of it, but once you get over that level, other factors start to separate the wheat from the chaff.
I think if you run a study of the metrics, you'd find a range in any attribute where the historical studs at a position fall.
But the problem is, there are also going to be a tremendous number of duds that also fell in that range. So that, I believe, tends to support the threshold theory. You need to have at least a certain amount of something to be successful, but the presence of that thing still doesn't guarantee success. Falling outside of the range helps in predicting failure, but falling within the range doesn't really help in predicting success in a choice between multiple contestants.
So when draft day comes, you might be able to exclude some player from consideration because he falls outside those ranges, but you still have to make a call between multiple guys who do fall within that range, some of which will be hits and some of which will be misses.
I think the height and weight numbers are over-used as well. How many times do we see a player's name, then his height and weight listed, as the sole descriptors in the news blurb or list? It's almost like a name - rank - serial no. type thing. Like we're thinking, "He must deserve that new contract because he's _____ tall and weighs ________!" or "I'm drafting the ______ tall RB who weighs ________."
massraider
Footballguy
Ya know.......if no one thinks the Wonderlic means diddly, than it's not really overrated.
Most traits should be measured to see if the prospect has enough to stay alive on the field.
After that, give me a profound love of the game, a deep commitment to improvement, a willingness to accept coaching, and a track record of persistence.
If you also happen to be a QB, slap the ability to make good, quick decisions on the list.
After that, give me a profound love of the game, a deep commitment to improvement, a willingness to accept coaching, and a track record of persistence.
If you also happen to be a QB, slap the ability to make good, quick decisions on the list.
JamesTheScot
Footballguy
I think it's a weight aversion, not a height aversion. The guys that come in at lighter weights just tend to be shorter. But that much muscle on a compact frame (BMI) doesn't hinder their performance as a RB, so their performance has up to that point been able to overcome the weight bias. I think a 6'2" RB weighing 190 #'s is going to face more skepticism than will a 5'9" RB at the same weight. I think most are BMI savvy enough to know the little guy's compactness is an advantage over the tall guy in that comparison. But people would still wonder if he's too small.
BoltBacker
Footballguy
Well, they all say the entire combine in general means diddly, but much of the deck gets shuffled shortly there after despite what they say.
Khy
Footballguy
Not really an over-rated trait per se. But I'm really sick of hearing:
"He's too small, he's going to get hurt all the time" as an argument against WRs and RBs and to some extent DEs. Seems like every friggin year there's at least 1 guy at each position who has this knock against him and it almost never pans out to be true. Last year it was Odell Beckham and we all know how that panned out. Two years ago it was Tavon Austin, obviously we all know how that panned out too. Although, I'm still a firm believer that's more Brian's fault (Schottenheimer that is, I've resorted to calling him Brian as I don't believe he deserves the respect to be called anything else).
"He's too small, he's going to get hurt all the time" as an argument against WRs and RBs and to some extent DEs. Seems like every friggin year there's at least 1 guy at each position who has this knock against him and it almost never pans out to be true. Last year it was Odell Beckham and we all know how that panned out. Two years ago it was Tavon Austin, obviously we all know how that panned out too. Although, I'm still a firm believer that's more Brian's fault (Schottenheimer that is, I've resorted to calling him Brian as I don't believe he deserves the respect to be called anything else).
cstu
Footballguy
Vertical jump, especially for RB's.
Unless you are really short (5-8ish) or really heavy (230ish) all I want to see is a 33" vertical. Beyond that I don't see much predictive value. I find a high vertical only useful to confirm what I've seen on tape, not to move guys up.
Unless you are really short (5-8ish) or really heavy (230ish) all I want to see is a 33" vertical. Beyond that I don't see much predictive value. I find a high vertical only useful to confirm what I've seen on tape, not to move guys up.
Last edited by a moderator:
EBF
Footballguy
Well, that's a unicorn because there are no 6'2" 190 pound RBs. It would be almost impossible to excel even at the college level with that body type at that position. Like a 5'8" DE or something of that nature. They simply don't exist.
I can think of some light RBs who have been picked in the first round in the past 15 years (CJ2K, Spiller, Bush, Best). On the other hand, I cannot think of any RBs below 5'9" who have been picked in the first round. Sproles, Rice, and MJD were all passed over even though they had strong college production and typical weight-per-height ratios. To me there seems to be a reluctance to spend first round draft picks on RBs who are too short, even if they have everything else. It seems like it could be a legitimate market inefficiency given what those players have shown in the NFL.
Branden Oliver is a different beast as a UDFA with less impressive NFL credentials, but in terms of what he cost in the draft and what he has accomplished today, he's another who seems to support the idea that the NFL undervalues short-but-thick backs in the draft.
Last edited by a moderator:
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Donnybrook
Footballguy
The most overrated negative trait IMO is running "too upright" and the eventual comparison to Chris Brown. It seems almost every running back approaching 6' 1" is accused of running too high. I recall people saying this about Steven Jackson, ADP, James Starks, Demarco and Lavavius Murray. A tall running back running too upright is something I don't put too much stock in.
jurb26
Footballguy
Running upright has nothing to do with height. That's he issue IMO.
