32 Counter Pass
Footballguy
Agree. Outstanding!Flying Elvis said:Awesome effort. Thanks!
Especially nice this year for a wr starved superflex I have with picks 8, 14 and 20. One more data point to guide me is always appreciated.
Agree. Outstanding!Flying Elvis said:Awesome effort. Thanks!
Especially nice this year for a wr starved superflex I have with picks 8, 14 and 20. One more data point to guide me is always appreciated.
It isn't profound that guys who produce in college are more likely to be productive pros, what is being done here is attempting to quantify that productivity in a fashion that takes into account different offensive systems, etc. What exactly is considered the line where you are considered highly productive vs. not is the question here, not that more productive is better.Am I the only one who doesn't find this stuff profound? Guys who produce in college are more likely to produce in the NFL. Kind of obvious, right ? It stands to reason a 34% dominator score is better than 22.0%. Quantifying how much better would be more useful.
Doucheness unintended.
Pro days times are 0.5 sec faster than combine times so he is a little slower than that reflects but he is still plenty fast given his size.Arcega Whiteside ran a 4.8 - 4.49. Plenty fast enough. He was as close to money as any player LY. If Shaw wasn’t so conservative AW would have had even bigger numbers. He will shoot up the draft boards with a good landing spot (Pats, Eagles, 9ers,)
I think the key is the age aspect. For example, one might look at Hakeem Butler's numbers and dominator and come to the conclusion he was a more dominant college player than OBJ. He had more yards and a higher dominator. The issue is we are comparing a 22 year old senior season with a 21 year old junior season. A better comparison between the 2 would be comparing what Butler did as a junior to what OBJ did as a junior or trying to wrap our heads around the idea that at age 22 Butler was beating up on the Big 12 and OBJ was a Pro Bowler in the NFL. This is one of the reasons I really like Harry over Butler. Their last year stats look similar but Harry was a 3rd year 20 year old and Butler was a 4th year 22 year old.Am I the only one who doesn't find this stuff profound? Guys who produce in college are more likely to produce in the NFL. Kind of obvious, right ? It stands to reason a 34% dominator score is better than 22.0%. Quantifying how much better would be more useful.
Doucheness unintended.
Exactly. 800 yards on Rutgers is really impressive because they only threw for 1600 yards last year. 800 yards for Washington State is nothing since they threw for 4800 yards.It isn't profound that guys who produce in college are more likely to be productive pros, what is being done here is attempting to quantify that productivity in a fashion that takes into account different offensive systems, etc. What exactly is considered the line where you are considered highly productive vs. not is the question here, not that more productive is better.
Yeah, the basic premise is that if you perform at a high level at a younger age, that typically signifies success in the NFL. A good recent example was Juju, he was great when he was 19, and even though he had a down junior year, he's been great in the NFL (obviously landing spot also matters). Calvin Ridley it remains to be seen how successful an NFL career he has, he was dominant, but at an older age. And it's more expected that a player who's 22 - 23 should perform better against players that are 18 - 19 because they have more experience.Am I the only one who doesn't find this stuff profound? Guys who produce in college are more likely to produce in the NFL. Kind of obvious, right ? It stands to reason a 34% dominator score is better than 22.0%. Quantifying how much better would be more useful.
Doucheness unintended.
The conclusion is probably sound, no issue avoiding guys with older breakout age. But the threshold thing though doesnt tell us much. These 2 things being correlated, bad results on the far end are expected. So you can set your threshold wherever you want to rule out whichever players you want. Or you can do the same thing with any correlated data: 40 time, height, weight, arm length...... Although I admit breakout age and dominator should have better correlation.You're reading this backwards. This isnt to say who will do well. There are a lot of guys with high dominator% who dont go on to do well in the NFL.
This is a way to rule out those highly unlikely to achieve wr1 or even wr2 status.
Doucheness unintended here as well: it's a hard concept to wrap ones brain around. It's not a predictor of success, rather a predictor of failure of reaching wr1 status. Just because you have a 30% dominator does not mean you will finish in the top 12, but a score below 25% and/or a late breakout age means you are highly unlikely to finish in the top 12.
I believe it is based on all those who get entered into the the system which would include drafted players and UDFA. For example guys like KD Cannon and Andy Jones are in there. It’s not taking into account every college player. A 5th senior with 400 yards and no pro prospects aren’t included. As for never reaching 20th percentile, Martavis Bryant is an example. He just doesn’t have a breakout age listed. His best season at Clemson was only 18.5%. That’s a very rare case where he was a pro prospect but was sharing the field with Watkins, Humphries, Mike Williams, Jordan Leggett and Charone Peake. That’s a total of 6 NFL pass catchers on a team and is a good reason to make Bryant a rare exception when looking at breakout and dominator...although Bryant’s career has just been ok and he’s never been better than a WR3 so maybe the warning signs were right here.Can someone explain how the percentile for breakout age is figured up? Is it based on all college receivers or those drafted into the NFL? Does it include UDFAs?
Also, suppose the receiver never gets the 20% dominator score.
I'm not debating the probability of doing something vs probability of not doing it. They are the same thing. Hit rate + miss rate = 1. Well, they dont have the same value, but knowing one means you know the other.it's a miss detector not a hit detector. If you are still looking at this as a predictor for finishing in the top 12 or 24, you're looking at it wrong. It's a predictor for NOT finishing in the top 12 or 24.
Of course there are players who meet the criteria who dont finish in the top 12 or 24. There are probably a ton of them. That's not the point of the formula.
While true, nobody is claiming an actual percentage of probability here. We can't say this method determines the probability of a miss at x%, therefore, if a WR meets the defined criteria, he has an (100-x)% of being a WR1I'm not debating the probability of doing something vs probability of not doing it. They are the same thing. Hit rate + miss rate = 1. Well, they dont have the same value, but knowing one means you know the other.
Think of this a different way. This is not trying to be applied to all prospects to determine an exact hit/miss probability. This is not trying to be incredibly specific with "all WRs not meeting criteria have a X% chance of missing".am debating whether we have here an accurate predictor for not a top 12 finish. We don't. You can't draw conclusions about a population (receiver prospects) from a not random sample (top 12) without knowing the distributions of both. Do you know how many receiver prospects drafted in the last 10 years meet your criteria?
My stats teacher once brought up this study which showed something like 70% of car accidents happen within 5 miles of the drivers home. The author of an article in the paper falsely concluded you are at more risk of an accident close to home. Not true. You are more likely to wreck your car close to home because you are more likely to be driving there.
It's easy to find the fallacy here because you can assume the distribution of distance from the home, that you are more often close. In our case though, we cant assume the distribution of drafted propects meeting the criteria. To find out would take a while and some effort performing a data entry for more than 200 prospects. Who wants to do that in their free time? Nobody.
I think JJAW should be near that grouping as well. He’s got the dominator and breakout age. He has prototypical size and while he’s not a great athlete, he at least has average speed.Awesome thread. Dominator and breakout age are two of the more predictive indicators according to the analytics.
I'm trending towards mode and more being out on Butler. I almost never draft 23 year old rookies. Hoping the other top WRs who are younger fall. I'm much more excited about Harry and Brown and to some degree Metcalf.
Its a 30th percentile breakout age. I thought your OP was targeting 50% and above?
Why did you thank ZWK for pointing out that he did break out at age 21 in 2017?I was considering giving him a pass as I thought his breakout was 2018, and he was real close 2017, but PP has it as 2017... so not as much of a case to give him a pass.
While Butler is very intriguing, it's hard for me to get past his late breakout age
Definitely a player i am targeting in the 2nd round, especially with a good landing spot.I think JJAW should be near that grouping as well. He’s got the dominator and breakout age. He has prototypical size and while he’s not a great athlete, he at least has average speed.
Stop the slap fight stuff back and forth between you guys. Getting pretty tiresome. Focus 100% on football without shots at each other. That goes for everyone.easy there. I was thanking him for clarifying because I thought he broke out in 2018 and wanted to give him some leeway since he had a good 2017, but seemed to just miss a breakout based on what cloppbeast said in the Butler thread. So technically not my error.
no reason to get your undies in a bigger bundle than they usually are. I look forward to you riding clopp on his error in the Butler thread
Wasn't aware. Thanks.
Crazy that he might go that high given the foot injury and the crazy low weight. He's basically JJ Nelson with a foot injury.Draft capital is probably the 3rd leg of this table.
As @menobrown mentioned in the Jacobs thread, draft day invites might give us a preview. Apparently the 2 WRs invited to the draft are DK Metcalf and Hollywood Brown. I would have figured the other Brown. Maybe NFL teams are seeing DJax 2.0 in Marquise?
If Hollywood goes in the mid or late first round, does that do anything to your draft board?
I like Hollywood but not at much as NFL teams so in his case it won't. IMO NFL teams put a higher value on speed and ability to stretch the defense then fantasy football fans so that bumps up NFL stock of a guy like Brown. Probably Metcalf for that matter. I don't get fantasy points for my WR opening up the field for everyone else.If Hollywood goes in the mid or late first round, does that do anything to your draft board?
He was talking about this because you identified Butler as not breaking out in 2017 which was inaccurate. You acknowledged this and even thanked ZWK for the clairification then proceeded to say you were still concerned about the break out age. That makes no sense.easy there. I was thanking him for clarifying because I thought he broke out in 2018 and wanted to give him some leeway since he had a good 2017, but seemed to just miss a breakout based on what cloppbeast said in the Butler thread. So technically not my error.
I agree but things can change fast in the NFL. When Corey Davis landed with the Titans it looked a dream scenario pairing him with a young star QB in the making. Two years later and Mariota looks like a bust. Conversely, I was a bit worried about JuJu in Pittsburgh. Martavis was coming back, Brown and Bell account for 280 targets and Ben was talking about retiring. Two years and two good fantasy seasons later and it's the Juju-Ben show in Pittsburgh.Looking at mock drafts is getting quite depressing. We are getting close enough to the draft now where they are getting more accurate... I keep seeing Washington, Tennessee, and Baltimore drafting first round WRs.
All 3 of those destinations is basically a do not draft situation for me.... Although maybe I could handle Washington...
It's amazing how the wrong team drafting a player can essentially destroy that players entire career.
Mock drafts almost always overdraft RB's and WR's instead of the less sexy picks and once the draft rolls around you see more OL, DL, CB taken early while projected 1st round RB and WR will end up going in the 2nd or 3rd.Looking at mock drafts is getting quite depressing. We are getting close enough to the draft now where they are getting more accurate... I keep seeing Washington, Tennessee, and Baltimore drafting first round WRs.
All 3 of those destinations is basically a do not draft situation for me.... Although maybe I could handle Washington...
It's amazing how the wrong team drafting a player can essentially destroy that players entire career.
Yeah I have played around with the draft networks mock draft machine, it’s fine I till you get into round 4 or so and then 80% of the recommended players are RBs and WRs.Mock drafts almost always overdraft RB's and WR's instead of the less sexy picks and once the draft rolls around you see more OL, DL, CB taken early while projected 1st round RB and WR will end up going in the 2nd or 3rd.
Are you going to pick Jordan Humphrey before Deebo Samuel?Does draft capital now need to be factored in?
No but Lil’J was never really a legit draft prospect despite hit dominator and age.Are you going to pick Jordan Humphrey before Deebo Samuel?
I'm not saying this is true for everyone...but some would say that the most rational way to make a good choice, with the best processes leading to the best results over time, would be to rule out the bad choices until you have a smaller pool, raising the likelihood of making a good choice.We dont intend to rule out, but to make a choice.
Analysing a process is necessity in determining whether the subsequent choice will lead to good results. Right?Some would say that the most rational way to make a good choice, with the best processes leading to the best results over time
All but 3 of the wrs who've had a top 12 season meet the criteria of being black. Thats like 95% or something. Is this a trend? We should avoid selecting a white guy as he is likely a miss?This isnt a 100% method, but it's pretty darn good. You are certainly betting against the trends
This is exactly what I've been saying the whole time about BA and Dominator rating. Its called selection bias.(there are many more black than white wrs starting in the nfl)
You dont have to buy Country Crock from the WalMart, you can churn your own butter on your front porch. If that's what you want to do.Remember the old days, before the internet, when you bought a 3 month old FF magazine, drafted directly from their cheat sheet (likely taking a QB in rd 1), finding out your star RB had retired, or that you started a WR for 3 weeks before you found out he was on IR? Your commish would have to flip through the newspaper on Monday to read the box scores. I kinda miss those days, don't you?
Got it. Rule out high ba, low dominator, and white guys.that's not how this works. You're still looking at this as a rule in method not a rule out. I dont know how I can explain it any more than I have. it's clear you just dont understand this. best of luck to you
Got it. Rule out high ba, low dominator, and white guys.
maybe I can't articulate my point as well as Dr. Dan. I can unequivocally say he's wrong, he hasn't found what he thinks he has. The link I posted above about Survival Bias could help explain.All that to say...your posts in here aren't making much sense right now. Dan's are compelling.
So explain why a receiver being white is not a likely miss?The problem is that you are asking how many wrs do meet the criteria and dont make it into the top 12 or 24. That is irrelevant and failing to see the purpose of this. This doesn't predict hits, it predicts likely misses.
If you DONT meet the criteria, your are NOT likely to finish in the top 12.
Well Dr. Dan, this has been fun. But it's starting to feel like an argument with my wife, so I will retire. Catch you on the flip side.You're making a straw man argument