Stride Analysis (1 Viewer)

[Bob Magaw]

a few questions for the SP...

1 - what does stride mean when scouting WRs?

2 - is it important, & if so why?

3 - think of some examples (positive & negative), for both vets & rookies...

4 - could this be helpful in projecting success for collegiate players & rookies, & how well their OVERALL skill set will translate to the NFL...

* certainly there are a host of other factors among the many attributes/traits which contribute to WR success, & this is just one... the impetus for this thread was a recent thought when watching maclin's highlights was that he seemed to be a bit of a long strider (harvin, conversely, imo seemed noticeably quicker in & out of his breaks at his pro day)... not to say he may not be great, as i like a lot of things about him... it didn't give me pause about drafting him in general, but enough to want to investigate & explore these matters in more depth, with the help of the parallel processing, 1,000-eyed supercomputing monster that is the SP...

i have some of my own embryonic ideas on this subject, but would first like to solicit other opinons, untrammelled as it were by my potentially half-baked notions...

for starters, though, we can also address how matters of stride intersect/overlap with route running...

in that realm, holt is a great example of text book form...

robiskie would have to be at least ONE OF, if not the best schooled (duh! ) technicians as a route runner among the class of '09...

input appreciated...

 

[EBF]

I think you've touched on an important idea. This year I've started to pay a lot more attention to body proportions in WR prospects because I think it plays a role in determining mobility/quality of movement. It's kind of hard to put this idea into words, but I've noticed that most of the successful WRs in the NFL have a certain precision of movement that many of the draft failures lack. I think it stems from good body proportions/base strength.

You mentioned Harvin and Maclin. That's a good example of a good body and a flawed body. Harvin's legs are a good length for his body size. When you watch him run, you should notice how smooth his stride is. It just looks right. Maclin is a little more of a long strider. He's more of an ostrich. Ted Ginn is an even more flagrant example. He's all legs. Watch the first clip in this highlight and you should see what I'm talking about:

I've seen people compare Harvin to Ginn and I hate it because they're built nothing alike.

I'm starting to break WRs into three style categories based on successful archetypes:

Power - Possession WRs who succeed because of size and strength

Hines Ward, Terrell Owens, Anquan Boldin, Michael Crabtree, Dwayne Bowe, Jerricho Cotchery, Hakeem Nicks, Marques Colston

Speed - Jitterburg WRs who succeed because of speed and quickness

Santana Moss, Eddie Royal, Steve Smith, Percy Harvin, DeSean Jackson

Finesse - Thin WRs who succeed because of route precision

Torry Holt, Chad Johnson, Reggie Wayne, Marvin Harrison, Isaac Bruce, Brandon Tate, Donald Driver, Derrick Mason

Obviously there's some overlap. Some speed WRs also have finesse qualities. Lee Evans and Laveranues Coles could probably fit into either category. And some of the speed WRs have power qualities. Santana Moss and Steve Smith are very strong for their height. But in general, I tend to be skeptical of a prospect who doesn't fit into at least one of these molds. Look at Dwayne Jarrett. He's not a power WR because he's not strong and he's not a finesse WR because he's not fast. So what is he? A bust. Peter Warrick had a power WR's speed trapped in a finesse body. Bust.

If you're slow, you'd better be strong. And if you're small, you'd better be fast. That's the rule of thumb that I use with WRs. But what you notice is that even across categories, all of these players have good body proportions and running strides. From the slow guys like Boldin to the fast guys like Harvin, almost all good WRs are smooth. They can shift their weight with ease and cut on a dime. They have fluidity of movement that many draft failures lack.

Looking at this year's rookie class, I think Maclin and Heyward-Bey present obvious bust concerns because they don't play quite as fluid within their body types as the other top WR prospects. Brandon Tate and Percy Harvin are smoother than Jeremy Maclin (who isn't as bad as Troy Williamson, but isn't as good as Chad Johnson either). Michael Crabtree and Hakeem Nicks are smoother than Darrius Heyward-Bey. DHB is a good athlete, but he can't cut on a dime and change directions instantly. Harvin, Tate, Nicks, and Crabtree can. Incidentally, they're the WRs I recommend targeting.

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

I haven't studied it in depth, but for the last few years I have been wary of the taller WRs. I don't ignore them, but many of them seem to need to throttle down or round off their routes, and thus have trouble separating. They also, GENERALLY speaking, don't have that instant-on acceleration or suddenness that aids so well in gaining separation.

I think this is a bigger issue with tall WRs that are overly bulky in the upper body.... think David Boston. It's a center of gravity/physics thing.

Obviously one should take WRs on a case-by-case basis. Stride is just one piece of the puzzle, as stated above.

 

[Bob Magaw]

thanx for the salient, incisive & insightful feedback, as always, EBF & lott...

these thoughts will no doubt spark off some ideas...

first a ponder, & i promise to get back to you (& the thread) with my feedforward...

* i've thought for a while that there are a heirarchy of positional traits/attributes, with some more important than others...

the holy grail would be to find some master ones that have greater ripple through effect & overall impact... but this has been more of a loose idea (conceptual equivalent of being on the "tip of the tongue"), & hard to attack the problem even in terms of an APPROACH, let alone in an overarching, coherent, unified, systematic & inter-connected way...

** maybe this is from just beginning to watch former NT leonard bernstein's luminous THE UNANSWERED QUESTION, in which he makes masterful connections between linguistic & musicological "archetypes"... again, back to master "keys"... whether looking at sounds structured into meaning, notes organized from an ocean of possibilities, or patterns of physical form & force, meaning is there for those with the eyes to see it (& it helps to have the inclination to look for it in the first place)...

it also helps to have a board like this, with the real possibility for what i like to refer to as collaboratively augmented intelligence... even if looking at the same "thing" or subject, it is inevitable that even intelligent & perceptive observers would attend to & notice different aspects of a problem, and can in a real sense know more collectively than would be possible alone (though that works both ways... bloom amplifies the football IQ of thousands... who can represent thousands of data re-entry points in bloom's web of associations... and the aggregate IQ spirals upwards at a higher plateau level)...

but i digressed... i do think when different people notice similar things (resonance?), it does make you feel you are onto something, or on the right track...

 

[puckalicious]

I think you've touched on an important idea. This year I've started to pay a lot more attention to body proportions in WR prospects because I think it plays a role in determining mobility/quality of movement. It's kind of hard to put this idea into words, but I've noticed that most of the successful WRs in the NFL have a certain precision of movement that many of the draft failures lack. I think it stems from good body proportions/base strength.

You mentioned Harvin and Maclin. That's a good example of a good body and a flawed body. Harvin's legs are a good length for his body size. When you watch him run, you should notice how smooth his stride is. It just looks right. Maclin is a little more of a long strider. He's more of an ostrich. Ted Ginn is an even more flagrant example. He's all legs. Watch the first clip in this highlight and you should see what I'm talking about:

Great post. I would add Welker to the Finesse group example. What do you call a WR that is great at all 3? Calvin Johnson. Well maybe Finesse is his weak point if you could call it that.

 

[Ruffrodys05]

I wish I could start threads that bring such interesting and thought provoking ideas to the forefront of mainstream FF. While I have no true thoughts on the subject I am intrigued and will be following this thread closely because i am undoubtedly going to learn something here and it may help me win another championship.

Great thread Bob! Great analysis EBF! You lost me last year with the BMI spiel (I just wasn't buying it), but I certainly respect your insight into the game of football and the player(s) qualities.

Rody

 

[bcr8f]

One advantage for Greg Jennings and all the Packer receivers is in close quickness. They value it more than speed. The ability to avoid defenders and get open with several defenders nearby. They also value hands catching away from the body.

It isn't the same as stride, but Jeenings does use a short stride and flys through his breaks.

Dillard is one of these guys.

 

[lyon812]

Kenny Britt is notoriously absent from the "Power" category. He's a solid route runner, gets open consistently, fluid moving across the field. How would you view his stride?

 

[massraider]

I haven't studied it in depth, but for the last few years I have been wary of the taller WRs. I don't ignore them, but many of them seem to need to throttle down or round off their routes, and thus have trouble separating. They also, GENERALLY speaking, don't have that instant-on acceleration or suddenness that aids so well in gaining separation.

Me too. Fantasy/football fans every year read the triangle numbers for some of these guys, and imagine unstoppable, easy jump balls every week, as Ramses Barden or James Hardy out-jumps some 5'10" CB. Yawn. Never happens.

 

[massraider]

I haven't studied it in depth, but for the last few years I have been wary of the taller WRs. I don't ignore them, but many of them seem to need to throttle down or round off their routes, and thus have trouble separating. They also, GENERALLY speaking, don't have that instant-on acceleration or suddenness that aids so well in gaining separation.

Me too. Fantasy/football fans every year read the triangle numbers for some of these guys, and imagine unstoppable, easy jump balls every week, as Ramses Barden or James Hardy out-jumps some 5'10" CB. Yawn. Never happens.

 

[Wu-banger]

great insight and ideas in here.. but I think all this does is breakdown the style of a WR , not his ability to succeed.

Moss , TO , Megatron all have long strides .... and work well on the outside. They can succeed inside (if they choose) due to body positioning and quick hands and balance.

Steve Smith , Santana Moss , DeShaun Jackson are good inside because of their quicks , and cutting ability and can use those traits outside to gain seperation.

It seems that the other factors that combine with these two types of WRs are more important.

As a "stride" WR it helps more if you have good streghth , balance , and "ball skills" to make an overall package.

..this is why a guy like Teddy Ginn struggles IMO.

As a "quick" WR you need a second gear, sharpe routes, and good hands.

So when I break down whether a WR will succeed or not I factor in the "X" attributes that go along with their body or "game" type to predict success, because without them they are limited in their upside.

 

[EBF]

Great post. I would add Welker to the Finesse group example. What do you call a WR that is great at all 3? Calvin Johnson. Well maybe Finesse is his weak point if you could call it that.

I was thinking about Calvin and where he would fit in. I would probably call him a power/finesse hybrid. Even though he has great speed, I don't think he fits into the speed group because he doesn't have great lateral quickness/make-you-miss skills. "Speed" might be a misleading name for that group since their game is more about quickness/burst. I would put Welker in that bunch, not in the finesse group.

 

[EBF]

Moss , TO , Megatron all have long strides .... and work well on the outside.

One important note about those guys:Randy Moss - 6'4"Terrell Owens - 6'3"Calvin Johnson - 6'5"I think it's okay to have a long stride if it's in proportion with your body. Burress, Colston, and Keyshawn all have long strides, but it's offset by their long frame. So I wouldn't really call them "long striders" since their bodies are balanced overall.

 

[EBF]

Kenny Britt is notoriously absent from the "Power" category. He's a solid route runner, gets open consistently, fluid moving across the field. How would you view his stride?

I think he runs pretty well for a tall guy. The main knock on him is inconsistent hands.

 

[ScottNorwood]

 

[coolnerd]

how many of you are nfl scouts? serious question.

This is a question with an obvious answer. It does not mean that amatuer "scouts" don't make keen observations, but of course anyone reading needs to have some level of caution. Anyway, doubt an active, employed scout would take the chance of posting his thoughts on current players on a messag board.

 

[Matt Waldman]

This is a nice thread idea. EBF makes good points about the types of receivers we see on the field and categorizes them well. I'm not sure I'm completely on board with the notion the body type of a player is the reason he runs good/bad routes. I think it comes down to work. There is a ton of technique involved with running every kind of route, but a lot of receivers in college don't work on these techniques and get away with it because they are so athletic.

I think in the case of players like Ted Ginn, Robert Meachem, Craig Davis, etc., they were players who got to the spot the quarterback needed to get the ball to and that was good enough.

It's not good enough in the NFL.

It's also maybe why there's some common sense to all of this. If you are an average sized WR with decent, but not great speed or a smaller receiver with quickness then the best chance to get open is to be a great route runner. It's not that the body type dictates the route skill. It's the fact that this body type lacks the advantages of guys who have great speed, leaping ability, or size to out muscle players.

I think this type of analysis is very worthwhile, but I think if you use it as a major predictor for success/failure it won't work. Certainly if you look at a guy like Ginn who came to the NFL without great hands or route skills, but excellent after-the-catch skills and toughness to make the play in traffic (sounds lot like Heyward-Bey in some respects...hmmm) then analyzing his stride and seeing it hasn't changed is a gateway to seeing that his routes haven't either. That should raise a red flag.

If you grab a basic coaching guide and learn what kind of steps a receiver should be taking out of a certain breaks and how he can effectively/ineffectively begin a release off the line, I think that will tell you exactly what you need to know.

There always exceptions to the rule. This generation's is Randy Moss. He is the only player deserving of the moniker "The Freak."

 

[Biabreakable]

I'm not really sure what to say here. This can seperate a style of the WR play.

Guys who take more steps as opposed to the long striders may be more adept at working underneath and out of the slot. Guys who are longer striders may work the ball deep and outside more.

Both kinds of players can be stars. But looking at a the way a rookie runs can give you an idea of how the team might use him in their offense.

 

[EBF]

This is a nice thread idea. EBF makes good points about the types of receivers we see on the field and categorizes them well. I'm not sure I'm completely on board with the notion the body type of a player is the reason he runs good/bad routes. I think it comes down to work. There is a ton of technique involved with running every kind of route, but a lot of receivers in college don't work on these techniques and get away with it because they are so athletic.

I think route running can be refined through practice and hard work, but I think a player's ceiling is determined entirely by his natural gifts. I don't think hard work makes talent and I don't think coaching makes talent. I think those things help maximize the ability that pre-exists within the player. Michael Jordan isn't the best basketball player ever solely because of hard work. He's the best basketball player ever because he was born with a freakish amount of natural talent and he worked hard to maximize it. Countless other players with a similar work ethic never achieved his success because they didn't have the inherent skills. So to an extent, I don't think it's correct to say that bad technique is the difference between players who fail and players who succeed. I think raw talent plays a huge role in determining success/failure. You can't teach a bear to run like a cheetah. Function follows form. A player's function is limited by his form. Dwayne Jarrett has all the football talent in the world, but he'll never be a good NFL WR because he doesn't have the right physical gifts. I don't think a sound body type is sufficient for NFL success, but I do think it's necessary. I think it's possible to look at some of the receivers in this class and say they're doomed from the start because they don't have the physical talent necessary to achieve success in the NFL.

 

[Matt Waldman]

This is a nice thread idea. EBF makes good points about the types of receivers we see on the field and categorizes them well. I'm not sure I'm completely on board with the notion the body type of a player is the reason he runs good/bad routes. I think it comes down to work. There is a ton of technique involved with running every kind of route, but a lot of receivers in college don't work on these techniques and get away with it because they are so athletic.

I think route running can be refined through practice and hard work, but I think a player's ceiling is determined entirely by his natural gifts. I don't think hard work makes talent and I don't think coaching makes talent. I think those things help maximize the ability that pre-exists within the player. Michael Jordan isn't the best basketball player ever solely because of hard work. He's the best basketball player ever because he was born with a freakish amount of natural talent and he worked hard to maximize it. Countless other players with a similar work ethic never achieved his success because they didn't have the inherent skills. So to an extent, I don't think it's correct to say that bad technique is the difference between players who fail and players who succeed. I think raw talent plays a huge role in determining success/failure. You can't teach a bear to run like a cheetah. Function follows form. A player's function is limited by his form. Dwayne Jarrett has all the football talent in the world, but he'll never be a good NFL WR because he doesn't have the right physical gifts. I don't think a sound body type is sufficient for NFL success, but I do think it's necessary. I think it's possible to look at some of the receivers in this class and say they're doomed from the start because they don't have the physical talent necessary to achieve success in the NFL.

I think you have it backwards. I think the biggest mistake that people make is to believe that football players learn all their fundamental techniques and knowledge of the game in high school and college. It's not like learning the fundamentals of English grammar in elementary school and high school. Dwayne Jarrett was not a great route runner at USC. He was just bigger and more physical than his competition. He's 6-4, 219. Keyshawn Johnson was 6-4, 212. Are you telling me Jarrett's body type gets in the way? Look at both of these players side by side and they look very similar. At this level, most players have the raw talent to run good routes. If they're not fast enough, quick enough, or strong enough they wouldn't be in the NFL. That's my point. Once you get to this small of a percentage of athleticism that separates NFL players from college players, it becomes a matter of knowledge and technique. There's no reason physically that some of these players cannot learn to execute skills. I agree with you that the ceiling differs based on athleticism, but the potential to be a good, productive NFL player has more to do with understanding how to play the position and the game because they all have elite athletic skill relative to the vast majority of amateur football players. Michael Jordan was a very good player when he entered the NBA, but his physical talent didn't go up by leaps and bounds when he entered the NBA. He worked his tail off on technique as a shooter, passer, and defender. I don't know how much you really watched Jordan, because you would know that his signature move that made him practically un-guardable was a turnaround jumper that he develop as a pro and never had at UNC. He wasn't much different than Dominique Wilkins when he entered - just a more consistent shooter at that point. But Dominique Wilkins was every bit the athlete Jordan was - if not even more amazing and as good as he was, there was no comparison because he didn't work like Jordan did. If Jordan doesn't work at his game then turns into a long line of scorers who could drive the lane and hit outside jumpers when hot, but not become unstoppable: Vince Carter, Reggie Theus, Harold Minor, J.R. Rider (the list is huge of one-, two-, and three-tool players who should have been more if they worked at all facets of their game) BTW - I think Larry Bird had far less physical talent, but he had enough to make the NBA and had GREAT technique and understanding of the game. I just think you're not giving enough credit to these players for their work ethic to learn the game and learn how to play their position because the baseline of physical talent is there for these guys. This is a lot of what the combine is about. Chad Johnson and Steve Smith were extremely talented physically, but they worked their butts off on learning to play the position. Otherwise they would be like so many other players with their skills who didn't make it.

 

[awesomeness]

This is a nice thread idea. EBF makes good points about the types of receivers we see on the field and categorizes them well. I'm not sure I'm completely on board with the notion the body type of a player is the reason he runs good/bad routes. I think it comes down to work. There is a ton of technique involved with running every kind of route, but a lot of receivers in college don't work on these techniques and get away with it because they are so athletic.

I think route running can be refined through practice and hard work, but I think a player's ceiling is determined entirely by his natural gifts. I don't think hard work makes talent and I don't think coaching makes talent. I think those things help maximize the ability that pre-exists within the player. Michael Jordan isn't the best basketball player ever solely because of hard work. He's the best basketball player ever because he was born with a freakish amount of natural talent and he worked hard to maximize it. Countless other players with a similar work ethic never achieved his success because they didn't have the inherent skills. So to an extent, I don't think it's correct to say that bad technique is the difference between players who fail and players who succeed. I think raw talent plays a huge role in determining success/failure. You can't teach a bear to run like a cheetah. Function follows form. A player's function is limited by his form. Dwayne Jarrett has all the football talent in the world, but he'll never be a good NFL WR because he doesn't have the right physical gifts. I don't think a sound body type is sufficient for NFL success, but I do think it's necessary. I think it's possible to look at some of the receivers in this class and say they're doomed from the start because they don't have the physical talent necessary to achieve success in the NFL.

I think you have it backwards. I think the biggest mistake that people make is to believe that football players learn all their fundamental techniques and knowledge of the game in high school and college. It's not like learning the fundamentals of English grammar in elementary school and high school. Dwayne Jarrett was not a great route runner at USC. He was just bigger and more physical than his competition. He's 6-4, 219. Keyshawn Johnson was 6-4, 212. Are you telling me Jarrett's body type gets in the way? Look at both of these players side by side and they look very similar. At this level, most players have the raw talent to run good routes. If they're not fast enough, quick enough, or strong enough they wouldn't be in the NFL. That's my point. Once you get to this small of a percentage of athleticism that separates NFL players from college players, it becomes a matter of knowledge and technique. There's no reason physically that some of these players cannot learn to execute skills. I agree with you that the ceiling differs based on athleticism, but the potential to be a good, productive NFL player has more to do with understanding how to play the position and the game because they all have elite athletic skill relative to the vast majority of amateur football players. Michael Jordan was a very good player when he entered the NBA, but his physical talent didn't go up by leaps and bounds when he entered the NBA. He worked his tail off on technique as a shooter, passer, and defender. I don't know how much you really watched Jordan, because you would know that his signature move that made him practically un-guardable was a turnaround jumper that he develop as a pro and never had at UNC. He wasn't much different than Dominique Wilkins when he entered - just a more consistent shooter at that point. But Dominique Wilkins was every bit the athlete Jordan was - if not even more amazing and as good as he was, there was no comparison because he didn't work like Jordan did. If Jordan doesn't work at his game then turns into a long line of scorers who could drive the lane and hit outside jumpers when hot, but not become unstoppable: Vince Carter, Reggie Theus, Harold Minor, J.R. Rider (the list is huge of one-, two-, and three-tool players who should have been more if they worked at all facets of their game) BTW - I think Larry Bird had far less physical talent, but he had enough to make the NBA and had GREAT technique and understanding of the game. I just think you're not giving enough credit to these players for their work ethic to learn the game and learn how to play their position because the baseline of physical talent is there for these guys. This is a lot of what the combine is about. Chad Johnson and Steve Smith were extremely talented physically, but they worked their butts off on learning to play the position. Otherwise they would be like so many other players with their skills who didn't make it.

 

[EBF]

I see where you're coming from, but I don't agree with your central point. I think great football players are born, not made. I don't think Chad Johnson works significantly harder than guys like Mark Bradley, Reggie Brown, and Mark Clayton (who all had similar pedigrees entering the league). I just think he's substantially more gifted. He has better coordination and better body proportions. Those guys can work as hard as they want and they'll never be as good as him because they simply aren't as talented.

If technique was so important, you would see players emerging from long gestation periods to become stars after several years of mediocrity. But that's generally not what happens (at least not with RB, WR, and TE). Most players (excluding QBs) who will be good eventually are good early. Torry Holt, Larry Fitzgerald, Randy Moss, Calvin Johnson, Steve Smith, and Antonio Bryant were effective almost immediately. Chad Johnson is a great example. He kicked around at a junior college, only played one year of NCAA ball, and became a 1,000 yard WR by his second season in the league. And how about Antonio Gates? He didn't even play college football and was arguably the best TE in the NFL by his second season. I don't think you can attribute that to technique.

These guys dropped out of the womb with incredible natural talent. Sure, there are some immensely talented athletes who never fulfill their potential because they don't work hard, but I think it's incorrect to suggest that the difference between the average successful X round draft pick and the average unsuccessful X round draft pick is technique. I think talent is the main factor and I think talent is out of the player's control.

Moreover, I don't think technique and body type are two different things. I think they're related. This goes back to the point of my first post. Your body type determines how you move. Someone like Ted Ginn will never be able to run the precise routes of Isaac Bruce not because he doesn't understand the techniques, but because he doesn't have the balanced body proportions that will allow him to make the smooth movements. You throw a pigeon off a building and it will fly. You throw a fish off a building and it will fall. Their physical structures determine the functions they can perform.

 

[coolnerd]

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/2009/0...-the-technique/

Seems to fit the discussion as it has developed

 

[prymetyme25]

I see where you're coming from, but I don't agree with your central point. I think great football players are born, not made. I don't think Chad Johnson works significantly harder than guys like Mark Bradley, Reggie Brown, and Mark Clayton (who all had similar pedigrees entering the league). I just think he's substantially more gifted. He has better coordination and better body proportions. Those guys can work as hard as they want and they'll never be as good as him because they simply aren't as talented. If technique was so important, you would see players emerging from long gestation periods to become stars after several years of mediocrity. But that's generally not what happens (at least not with RB, WR, and TE). Most players (excluding QBs) who will be good eventually are good early. Torry Holt, Larry Fitzgerald, Randy Moss, Calvin Johnson, Steve Smith, and Antonio Bryant were effective almost immediately. Chad Johnson is a great example. He kicked around at a junior college, only played one year of NCAA ball, and became a 1,000 yard WR by his second season in the league. And how about Antonio Gates? He didn't even play college football and was arguably the best TE in the NFL by his second season. I don't think you can attribute that to technique. These guys dropped out of the womb with incredible natural talent. Sure, there are some immensely talented athletes who never fulfill their potential because they don't work hard, but I think it's incorrect to suggest that the difference between the average successful X round draft pick and the average unsuccessful X round draft pick is technique. I think talent is the main factor and I think talent is out of the player's control. Moreover, I don't think technique and body type are two different things. I think they're related. This goes back to the point of my first post. Your body type determines how you move. Someone like Ted Ginn will never be able to run the precise routes of Isaac Bruce not because he doesn't understand the techniques, but because he doesn't have the balanced body proportions that will allow him to make the smooth movements. You throw a pigeon off a building and it will fly. You throw a fish off a building and it will fall. Their physical structures determine the functions they can perform.

My son just turned 9 yesterday and can get out of bed and run a mile in about 6 1/2 mins. I've been coaching him since he wes about 4-5 but I can honestly say that coaching really had nothing to do with it, all i gave him was the drive/motivation. My daughter has been fast since she was 3-4 and I know coaching had nothing to do with that. Some people are just born with natural ability and intangibles.

 

[prymetyme25]

a few questions for the SP...1 - what does stride mean when scouting WRs?2 - is it important, & if so why?3 - think of some examples (positive & negative), for both vets & rookies...4 - could this be helpful in projecting success for collegiate players & rookies, & how well their OVERALL skill set will translate to the NFL...* certainly there are a host of other factors among the many attributes/traits which contribute to WR success, & this is just one... the impetus for this thread was a recent thought when watching maclin's highlights was that he seemed to be a bit of a long strider (harvin, conversely, imo seemed noticeably quicker in & out of his breaks at his pro day)... not to say he may not be great, as i like a lot of things about him... it didn't give me pause about drafting him in general, but enough to want to investigate & explore these matters in more depth, with the help of the parallel processing, 1,000-eyed supercomputing monster that is the SP...i have some of my own embryonic ideas on this subject, but would first like to solicit other opinons, untrammelled as it were by my potentially half-baked notions... for starters, though, we can also address how matters of stride intersect/overlap with route running...in that realm, holt is a great example of text book form...robiskie would have to be at least ONE OF, if not the best schooled (duh! ) technicians as a route runner among the class of '09...input appreciated...

When you hear people say functional speed or runner this is mostly what they are talking about. It's pretty much broken down into Runners and Striders. Runners are guys like TO, Colston, Lynch ect.... these guys have good strides but not great for say Track & Field, but at the same time they have room to make adjustments on the fly. Now striders are guys like Eddie Drummond, Jerome Mathis, and most of your above average kick returners. These guys have great strides but are not very good runners in traffic. Thats why these guys are suited for Kick return specialist, they can spot a seem and burst though but the stride is so strong that they cant make adjustments on the fly laterally and often take too much time to gear down. Great for kick returning but sucky for receiving. Usually great striders are manufactured which means they run faster times but may not play as fast as they time. Then you have guy who run fast but run very violently like Vernon Davis, Beanie Wells ect... These guys have a hard time being good wrs because the are too wild and cant control their stride. Then you have guys who have both the LT2's and Moss's of the world these guys can switch strides in mid stream. Being able to switch from long strides to short strides makes them elite athletes in just about all sports. Basketball players are usually great at this thats why if I hear that a WR or a TE may have played basketball I might pay alittle more attention to him. I know that might be hard to follow but welcome to how my brain works

 

[stevegamer]

I think that there's a baseline of needed talent, and from there teaching makes the difference. Talent without teaching/work at your craft or vice versa: bust.

With Gates, if he barely worked on the techniques of being a TE, he'd be out of the league. He dioes have immense physical talent, and talent can get you far.

The opposite side of this coin, are receivers who are generally not considered physically "talented", but are ridiculously productive: Marvin Harrison, Steve Largent. Very good route runners, but often considered lesser talents than others picked in their draft (and I know how high Marvin was picked).

 

[Matt Waldman]

Maybe we're arguing two different things (I hope we are). You're talking about the best of the best at the position who have the great physical skills and the great technique. I'm talking about NFL players who should at least be starting quality with elite athleticism compared to all but maybe the very best in the NFL. Sure, there are guys that are best as slot players working underneath who will be 400-500 yard guys and that's it because their physical skill is at the bare minimum for NFL standards but the guys you mention - Bradley, Brown, and Clayton are hardly in that category.Still, I think Chad Johnson works significantly harder than these guys you mentioned. It's been documented that he has sought counsel from every great wide receiver in the league when he was coming up and worked hard at his craft. Larry Fitzgerald was a ball boy for the Vikings and would pick Cris Carter's brain any chance he got and worked hard on his technique catching the ball. Antonio Bryant had a 700-yard season and you know why he didn't do anything else for worthwhile for another four years? He didn't work hard at his craft and Bill Parcells had enough of it. He finally got the message.T.J. Houshmandzadeh took five years to become an elite receiver....CRAFT. Derrick Mason took five years to become an elite reciever and one of the most prolific over a five-year period...CRAFT.Amani Toomer had five-straight 1,000-yard seasons in his prime. It took him five years to get his first 1000-yard season...CRAFTEd McCaffrey...you remember easy Ed, right? Not the fastest, not the strongest....by his eighth season he had his first 1000-yard season..CRAFTHines Ward...my co-workers who played intramural b-ball with Ward were better athletes than him in school...seriously.Donald Driver...four seasons before he got his first 1000-yard season or anything closeTim Brown...yeah, the Raiders star, Heisman winner with great athletic ability...five years before he had his first 1000-yard season. Then he had 10-straight - CRAFT.Cris Carter...drug issues - sure, but he didn't take his craft seriously until his fifth season and didn't have a 1000-yard season until year seven. He was pretty good.I bet if I spend a few hours, I can come up with five to six times more...Antonio Gates is a TE, not a receiver and the techniques of playing TE are very similar to posting up as a forward. Still, you're using an outlier as an argument for something you are trying to say is common. Plus tight ends are more often covered by players who aren't as skilled or expected to be as skilled in pass coverage down field. Most players show skills early, but as even the players in the link from the post above say, it's the technique that makes the difference. I think the problem with your argument is you are splitting hairs with the physical skills of players but trying to label them as if they are as different as wide receiver and defensive tackle. The wildlife argument doesn't fly with me (bad pun intended)To use your argument, all these wide receivers have the basic physical skill sets you want to see from wide receivers. If they didn't the processes used to extensively weed them out would have done so.

I see where you're coming from, but I don't agree with your central point. I think great football players are born, not made. I don't think Chad Johnson works significantly harder than guys like Mark Bradley, Reggie Brown, and Mark Clayton (who all had similar pedigrees entering the league). I just think he's substantially more gifted. He has better coordination and better body proportions. Those guys can work as hard as they want and they'll never be as good as him because they simply aren't as talented. If technique was so important, you would see players emerging from long gestation periods to become stars after several years of mediocrity. But that's generally not what happens (at least not with RB, WR, and TE). Most players (excluding QBs) who will be good eventually are good early. Torry Holt, Larry Fitzgerald, Randy Moss, Calvin Johnson, Steve Smith, and Antonio Bryant were effective almost immediately. Chad Johnson is a great example. He kicked around at a junior college, only played one year of NCAA ball, and became a 1,000 yard WR by his second season in the league. And how about Antonio Gates? He didn't even play college football and was arguably the best TE in the NFL by his second season. I don't think you can attribute that to technique. These guys dropped out of the womb with incredible natural talent. Sure, there are some immensely talented athletes who never fulfill their potential because they don't work hard, but I think it's incorrect to suggest that the difference between the average successful X round draft pick and the average unsuccessful X round draft pick is technique. I think talent is the main factor and I think talent is out of the player's control. Moreover, I don't think technique and body type are two different things. I think they're related. This goes back to the point of my first post. Your body type determines how you move. Someone like Ted Ginn will never be able to run the precise routes of Isaac Bruce not because he doesn't understand the techniques, but because he doesn't have the balanced body proportions that will allow him to make the smooth movements. You throw a pigeon off a building and it will fly. You throw a fish off a building and it will fall. Their physical structures determine the functions they can perform.

 

[Matt Waldman]

BTW, EBF - I always enjoy debating with you, you make good points.

 

[EBF]

You say technique and hard work. I say opportunity and talent. You can't produce if you're not getting playing time. Many of the players you mentioned didn't produce for the simple reason that they were buried on the depth chart. For all we know, Housh could've produced right away if he had been given the opportunity. That didn't happen because he was stuck behind Warrick, in whom the team had a significant investment. Ditto Chad. Had it not been for Michael Westbrook's presence on the roster, he might've been an instant star as opposed to a second year breakout.

Everyone has always known that Antonio Bryant was a starting caliber talent. It wasn't craft/technique/hard work that held him back in Dallas. It was opportunity. He wasn't one of Parcells' guys, so when Parcells came on board Bryant was forced to take a backseat to Keyshawn and Glenn. That doesn't mean he couldn't have produced if given an opportunity. Judging by his rookie year, he could have. The talent was always there. He just needed an opportunity to produce.

You would expect late round picks like Houshmandzadeh, Driver, and Ward to take a little bit longer to break out because they aren't handed starting jobs on a platter like a lot of first and second round picks. It's easier for teams to not know what they have in a late round pick because they're more caught up in proving their expensive first round picks and free agent signings were correct. It's rare that you get a Colston situation where a team has so much faith in a late round pick that they trade away their starter to clear a path for him. More often than not those guys don't get handed early opportunities.

The Bryant situation in Dallas is actually a good example of this. Parcells probably suspected that Bryant could be great, but why take the risk when you can acquire Terry Glenn and Keyshawn Johnson? Bryant got jobbed. He knew it and that's why he was so pissed off. It was an ego clash. Parcells shipped Bryant away for Quincy Morgan. Since then he's recorded multiple 1,000+ yard seasons. Did he learn from his mistakes and hone his craft? Nah. He's the same dude he's always been. He just finally found some situations where he could be the top target.

I disagree with the idea that hard work is all that separates a successful NFL prospect from a failed NFL prospect. I guess in some respects it's just a different philosophy. I have a more fatalist/determinist outlook on things in general. The "you can achieve whatever you set your mind to" idea is a myth propagated because it's far more comforting than the alternative. I believe most NFL prospects are doomed to fail before they ever step foot on the practice field because they lack the physical talent needed to do their jobs at a high level. I can look at a guy like Ginn and safely say that he'll never be a reliable WR1 because he doesn't have the goods. Doesn't matter if he spends the next decade on the practice field. He just doesn't have the necessary tools.

You talk about Fitzgerald's ball boy story and Chad being a hard worker. What about all the hard workers who fail? What about Troy Williamson? By all accounts he busted his balls trying to conquer his problems. Didn't work. You don't hear about failures because they don't make nice copy in newspapers. People would rather sell the urban legends about Michael Jordan hanging from monkey bars than talk about the guy who gave it his all and failed miserably.

I think there are plenty of talented players who fail because they're lazy and they don't put forth any effort once they get paid, but I also think there are plenty of players who are DOA from the day they get drafted because they don't have the necessary gifts. I think this is a familiar concept to people who played sports growing up. There were always some kids who were just good at sports. Didn't really matter if they had much practice. Throw them on the field and they made plays.

The same thing exists in the NFL. Even among first round prospects, there are some guys who can play and some guys who can't play. You tend to find out pretty quickly which group a player belongs in. Look at last year's class. No one thought Eddie Royal was going to be an instant star. He was raw, he wasn't productive in college, and he was considered nothing more than a return man. But what the skeptics overlooked is that he had all of the natural talent needed to excel at the position. So even though he never had more than 500 receiving yards in a college season, he came in, won a starting job, and dominated immediately. That's not technique. That's just talent.

I actually think technique and practice are almost irrelevant when it comes to the skill positions like RB and WR. Coaches can tell a player where to run, but they can't tell him how to run. He either has the ABILITY to run well and make plays or he doesn't. The only thing a coach can do is funnel that pre-existing ability in a particular direction.

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

I think we are almost entirely off the stride argument at this point...

I think most people run a certain way, and there is little to do to change that. It's just natural for a guy to be a long strider or a short strider... and part of that is physical stature and body proportion. Certainly technique is involved; you can make a guy a better route runner than he is, but not necessarily a great, or even good, route runner if the physical capability isn't there.

It is simple physics that a body with a lower center of gravity will be able to cut better and more sharply, all other things being equal. Randy Moss cannot do the things that Wes Welker can do, he simply is not built that way. Obviously Welker cannot do the things Moss does, either.

A big, tall WR has to have elite athleticism to be a great all around route runner. A stop and go route does not require Welker's waterbug short area skills... but Randy Moss won't be able to do a triple fake and then accelerate to top speed in 2 1/2 steps in the small area Welker often works in.

I think it is generally more difficult for a taller guy to become an above average route runner. Tall guys generally don't have the most important ingredient for WR success, suddenness and explosion, especially out of cuts. If a tall guy has just average WR speed and athleticism, I won't bother looking at him.

Again, though, this is just on ingredient. There are a litany of attributes to examine. And I am certainly not saying short WRs are more likely to succeed than tall ones.

I will say, though, that in this year's rookie WR crop, I have grown to really like Mike Thomas. I'm not "high" on him like I think he is a surefire stud, but I appreciate what he brings to the table, suddenness AND speed. Once upon a time I would not have looked at him because he was too short. But he has the potential to be a more explosive Wes Welker, IMO.

 

[Bob Magaw]

nice debate between matt & EBF...

EBF, a cursory glance at your breakdown/model seemed like a useful NFL WR beastiary/classificatory system...

i think to vet it further, it would be instructive to see if you can find just as many contra-indicators (comp players with similar constellation of traits/attributes that failed)... if we can find just as many in either, than that would put us back to square one...

i do like nicks a lot because for me he represented a happy medium, overlapping & intersecting with a lot of the diverse skill sets you documented & codified... when i look at him, he has everything but breakaway speed... but you could say that about a lot of of NFL WRs that have been very successful...

maclin in some ways prompted this thread for me... i will say that after seeing him some more, while he does seem like more of a long strider type, as EBF noted, calvin johnson is proof long strider can succeed at a high level... while he may not have the barry sanders-esque, stop-on-a-dime, ankle-breaking, instant COD of harvin, he did impress me with his movement skills, elusiveness & open field running instincts... the kid may have the knack for running to daylight that the great ones have... if so, his size/speed measurables are not in doubt, & that could make for a potent combination at the next level... i feel more confident in maclin having an exceptional career since i began this thread, after further review...

 

[Drop]

I recommend reading this book:

"Talent Is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else" by Geoff Colvin

http://www.amazon.com/Talent-Overrated-Sep...s/dp/1591842247

 

[Drop]

This is exactly why we need fans to demand a change in the way games are filmed and presented to the public.

Truthfully we don't get to see the vast majority of the routes run by WRs.

How can we get into the intricate workings of the game when we don't see the majority of the action we try to understand? We see highlights mostly and lowlights occasionally, but we lack the baseline plays to really get proper science on players.

I think it would be more helpful to classify players in terms of the quality and variety of situational footwork they use. Just because a player has a certain picturesque stride doesn't mean that's the only running style they use. Realistically guys are changing speeds and strides all the time. We need the full context of what they are doing to understand why they are doing it and then we can determine what is fundamentally superior, inferior, or equal. There is so much that factors into the game that proper variable isolation becomes the key to better knowledge.

I don't really know that stride analysis directly translates to quality of route running or WR success in general, although there is obviously some correlation up to a point because you can definitely do it wrong. At the NFL level I feel that quality routes are about getting open and you mostly accomplish that by sudden change of direction and how well you disguise it. At that point it's a matter of the WRs explosion to break from the defender's range with respect to the QBs ability to identify the situation and throw the ball properly. All those things (and more) have to mesh quickly for success at the NFL level. You can get away with less on other levels though which confuses many observers of the game in terms of how they fundamentally see skill sets and equate them to NFL success.

Whenever you go up a level in competition your weaknesses get exposed exponentially, so when guys have great success at one level you can't expect that to continue unless they have a complete enough game to allow them to use their strengths properly. Even then their strengths won't be as strong. Players that keep getting better are the ones who constantly improve their weaknesses just as much as their strengths.

 

[Bob Magaw]

i'll ask a few related, sub-questions...

1) it pertains to smooth, seamless, unbroken routes, where the best WRs don't have to gather themselves... or to say essentially the same thing a different way, regarding being able to run through the route maintaining a near constant top speed (or close to it)...

2) another important characteristic of WR excellence is obviously separation, connected to what we call burst, suddenness, instant acceleration, feet quickness, cutting ability, general agility...

i should also add that some WRs like calvin johnson are such dominant physical specimens that even if they don't yet have mature, fully developed route running skills, they are such a physical mismatch against CBs that they can still excel & thrive in spite of that...

what are some of the best WRs you've ever seen in the first category, as well as good contemporary examples (young & old)... same for the second category...

it would also be helpful if some of this could be tied into the incoming rookie class (best exemplars)...

for first category, i think i have mentioned torry holt in his prime as one of the best i've seen (had great mentors in bruce & WR positional coach henry ellard... i don't want this to be just a list of best WRs ever (rice would have to show up here), but harrison was excellent at this... fitzgerald came into the league technically advanced & seems to be the kind of player that strives to get better every year, so he could soon be one of the best...

among rookies, i expect robiskie to enter the league with advanced, mature route running skills (dad a NFL WR positional coach)...

as to the second category, harrison again got very good separation in his prime... harrison was both fast AND quick, as clearly raw speed doesn't in itself guarantee success at the next level (see the raiders)... derek mason in his prime seemed to be open a lot... randy moss is of course freakishly fast but also amazingly agile & quick for a 6'4" athlete (all state, star hoops player in west virgina? also one of the fastest players in the league at any position when he was younger, may not be quite that fast any more)...

possibly already mentioned upthread, but after watching their respective pro day workouts, harvin (despite not being a full time WR & nearly splitting time as a RB at florida), looked like a more polished route runner than jeremy maclin, and more explosive into & out of his breaks (not that maclin looked slow or bad, but harvin imo looked noticeably sharper)...

* some WRs like DET rookie derrick williams may have separation ability, but still may not have what it takes to be more than a slot WR, & may be lacking a key attribute/trait to ever start outside (like conventional pro size)... in this case, not sure that is so one way or the other, but just illustrating the point (though i'll hazard a guess that he doesn't start outside any time soon, if ever)...

** additional aspects related to separation that just occurred to me...

1) changing speeds... just like this can be devastating in baseball when a power pitcher has a nasty change up, & can keep batters off balance & keeping them guessing by mixing speeds, WRs have the advantage over DBs in that they KNOW WHERE THEY ARE GOING... some ways to expoit this inherent, intrinsic advantage are to not have tells... there is a sense where it is bad to have to gather... but intended changes of speed can be beneficial... this is also similar to stop-start ability in a RB... TO is very good at changing speeds...

2) field awareness & football smarts (again, holt is like a coach on the field, maybe mentored on this by ex ram teammate marshall faulk, who was legendary for his film study work ethic, preparation & professionalism)... you admittedly have to beat ONE guy, but it doesn't matter if you plow into a second guy in doing so... so not just beating the CB, but avoiding the safety (it must help holt that he knows where every defender on the field is)... not just finding the dead spots in the zone, being able to run between & through coverages... kind of like a RBs instincts & ability to run to daylight, not everybody has it, or to equal degree, but the great ones generally have this quality in abundance...

rice was of course a master at this... same with cris carter, who wasn't a speed merchant but had deceptive quickness (& if he didn't get obvious route separation, he had a knack for in close micro-separation... ie - the knack of a power forward to body up & get position for the rebound... fitzgerald must have been paying attention as a MIN ball boy, as he definitely has this knack, & not only probably the best at that now, but one of the best i've ever seen)...

 

[kremenull]

I think you've touched on an important idea. This year I've started to pay a lot more attention to body proportions in WR prospects because I think it plays a role in determining mobility/quality of movement. It's kind of hard to put this idea into words, but I've noticed that most of the successful WRs in the NFL have a certain precision of movement that many of the draft failures lack. I think it stems from good body proportions/base strength.

You mentioned Harvin and Maclin. That's a good example of a good body and a flawed body. Harvin's legs are a good length for his body size. When you watch him run, you should notice how smooth his stride is. It just looks right. Maclin is a little more of a long strider. He's more of an ostrich. Ted Ginn is an even more flagrant example. He's all legs. Watch the first clip in this highlight and you should see what I'm talking about:

I'm baffled by this statement....Maclin is not fluid/smooth??? This kid has one of the most effortless looking strides I'VE EVER SEEN. Almost no upper-body "jerk" movements when he's in full stride, and that's is observed even on his long runs. That is rare, and as fluid/smooth as a track star. If his stride is a bit longer than some of the others that you mention, it is irrelevent due to the fact that Maclin changes directions in a snap just as well as these other guys can, without a doubt. And at top speed no less. When I observed his personal workout as well, I noticed that the kid was able to throttle down very well and sink his hips better than advertised, and that was with a slight injury (leg).....Still some work to do? Sure. But I can't see how anyone would say if he busts it's because of his lack of fluidity/smoothness.

 

[thecardiackid]

Interesting stuff here.And this nugget is almost sig worthy.

The "you can achieve whatever you set your mind to" idea is a myth propagated because it's far more comforting than the alternative.

 

[Catbird]

Great thread! Almost all relatively uncharted territory and feeling kind of from the hip and opiniony, but many great thoughts and perspectives.

On the central points of contention, I come down more closely with EBF, but don't think its talent versus technique in an all or nothing analysis (although I don't think anyone is really claiming it is). But to be a top WR talent you have to have the fluidity of motion in cuts and traffic (over speed - but that never hurts ). I am liking the strength, finesse, power models (or more than one). And I think you can see that early on in a guy.

Then, work and technique and desire determine where you take that talent. Most of the greats. it seems to me, have lots of both. Some just have sher talent but those are few and thus limited in how far they go and for how long. I don't think many without the fluidity or talent set ever make it despite tremendous desire and work. They can get into the league and play - and they can be tremendous teammates and great motivators to have around, but seperated from teh stars by motion. Physical talent, whether fluidity or efficiency of movement or whatever you call it has to be there. Work and attitude and technique make of it what you do. I won't be taking any rookie WRs who don't show that fluidity AND some sense of work ethic any time soon. If that means I iss an occassional Randy Moss ... I'll still be right 4 times out of 5 (which is far better than my track record has been).

 

[teamroc]

I haven't studied it in depth, but for the last few years I have been wary of the taller WRs.

oint.6'4+, big WRs were all the rage.But there has been very mixed results. Calvin Johnson was really going to be a trend setter in terms of drafting big WRs. A lot of people talked about how if he is a disappointment, the value people place on size for the WR position would drop off. Now he's done very well, so people still put a lot of stock in it. But about 5 years ago guys could who "win a jump ball" were taken 30-45 spots ahead of where they should have been taken. Things have come back to earth, but the big, strong, fast, tall WR have not produced dominating results.Are you a football player, are you fast, do you have good hands. Height has nothing to do with any of those.There isn't a really good WR who is held back because of his height. Steve Smith dominates, and I'm not sure him being 6'3 would change much. Maybe make him more injury prone. Scouts like to rely on measurables, because it covers their ###. But the Pats really changed how people drafted, because they focus more on the mental side. They draft football players. Wes Welker (who they didn’t draft) is a good example of a football player. You make him any height, any size, any position, he'll find a way to get on the field. There are 10,000s of physically talented guys, who are bagging groceries. Jeff George was a HOF QB in shorts and a t-shirt. You could go watch him practice, and you'd think he was one of the most amazing QBs you've ever seen. Jeff still probably has a better arm then 90% of the NFL. That guy was just pure physical skill. The problem was, he was an idiot. Everyone drafted in the first 5 rounds has physical tools. In pads, they call all run fast. It's the mental side, that will dictate whether you're good or bad. Period. At least in terms of FF, where we're dealing with the elite players. Everyone on a FF roster generally has the physical tools, their success is character, heart, intelligence. You'll never come up with enough measurables to mean jack ####. They use them because if they didn't, they'd be handing people 50million dollar contacts based on film, and interviews. Scouts would love it. But owners got rich by not doing that. People just won't pay a guy 50 million unless you can point to a sheet of paper, with a big list of numbers of why they are going to be a success. But all the scouts know that doesn't add up to anything if the guy doesn't have heart, pride and the desire to be the best. Pretty much all the "research" on combine numbers, its more of less useless. Too many variables, too small sample sizes. You could find someone who's never played football in their life, and they could come in and crush at the combine. They could put up the best numbers ever seen. But they wouldn't make the cut in college football, much less the NFL. So if a track athlete could come in and blow away the best NFL prospects at the combine, why exactly are the combine numbers all that useful? The good NFL teams use the combine as tie breakers, and to make sure there isn't a serious flaw with a prospect. So taking stride analysis, trying to find trends, is cute and all. But it will give you no insight to a players future success in the NFL. None. Zero. Nothing. So as long as you understand that, go nuts.

 

[EBF]

I haven't studied it in depth, but for the last few years I have been wary of the taller WRs.

oint.6'4+, big WRs were all the rage.But there has been very mixed results. Calvin Johnson was really going to be a trend setter in terms of drafting big WRs. A lot of people talked about how if he is a disappointment, the value people place on size for the WR position would drop off. Now he's done very well, so people still put a lot of stock in it. But about 5 years ago guys could who "win a jump ball" were taken 30-45 spots ahead of where they should have been taken. Things have come back to earth, but the big, strong, fast, tall WR have not produced dominating results.Are you a football player, are you fast, do you have good hands. Height has nothing to do with any of those.There isn't a really good WR who is held back because of his height. Steve Smith dominates, and I'm not sure him being 6'3 would change much. Maybe make him more injury prone. Scouts like to rely on measurables, because it covers their ###. But the Pats really changed how people drafted, because they focus more on the mental side. They draft football players. Wes Welker (who they didn’t draft) is a good example of a football player. You make him any height, any size, any position, he'll find a way to get on the field. There are 10,000s of physically talented guys, who are bagging groceries. Jeff George was a HOF QB in shorts and a t-shirt. You could go watch him practice, and you'd think he was one of the most amazing QBs you've ever seen. Jeff still probably has a better arm then 90% of the NFL. That guy was just pure physical skill. The problem was, he was an idiot. Everyone drafted in the first 5 rounds has physical tools. In pads, they call all run fast. It's the mental side, that will dictate whether you're good or bad. Period. At least in terms of FF, where we're dealing with the elite players. Everyone on a FF roster generally has the physical tools, their success is character, heart, intelligence. You'll never come up with enough measurables to mean jack ####. They use them because if they didn't, they'd be handing people 50million dollar contacts based on film, and interviews. Scouts would love it. But owners got rich by not doing that. People just won't pay a guy 50 million unless you can point to a sheet of paper, with a big list of numbers of why they are going to be a success. But all the scouts know that doesn't add up to anything if the guy doesn't have heart, pride and the desire to be the best. Pretty much all the "research" on combine numbers, its more of less useless. Too many variables, too small sample sizes. You could find someone who's never played football in their life, and they could come in and crush at the combine. They could put up the best numbers ever seen. But they wouldn't make the cut in college football, much less the NFL. So if a track athlete could come in and blow away the best NFL prospects at the combine, why exactly are the combine numbers all that useful? The good NFL teams use the combine as tie breakers, and to make sure there isn't a serious flaw with a prospect. So taking stride analysis, trying to find trends, is cute and all. But it will give you no insight to a players future success in the NFL. None. Zero. Nothing. So as long as you understand that, go nuts.

Can't say I agree with you. Many players who get drafted don't have the ability to succeed. Jeff George is a good example of a player who failed despite having all of the physical tools to be successful, but it's important to note that he played QB (the one position where intangibles seem to trump all other factors). Success at positions like TE, RB, and WR is much more dependent on raw physical talent. A player still has to have a certain amount of instincts and work ethic to be successful, but he won't be great without the proper physical skill set.

 

[renesauz]

This is a nice thread idea. EBF makes good points about the types of receivers we see on the field and categorizes them well. I'm not sure I'm completely on board with the notion the body type of a player is the reason he runs good/bad routes. I think it comes down to work. There is a ton of technique involved with running every kind of route, but a lot of receivers in college don't work on these techniques and get away with it because they are so athletic.

I think route running can be refined through practice and hard work, but I think a player's ceiling is determined entirely by his natural gifts. I don't think hard work makes talent and I don't think coaching makes talent. I think those things help maximize the ability that pre-exists within the player. Michael Jordan isn't the best basketball player ever solely because of hard work. He's the best basketball player ever because he was born with a freakish amount of natural talent and he worked hard to maximize it. Countless other players with a similar work ethic never achieved his success because they didn't have the inherent skills. So to an extent, I don't think it's correct to say that bad technique is the difference between players who fail and players who succeed. I think raw talent plays a huge role in determining success/failure. You can't teach a bear to run like a cheetah. Function follows form. A player's function is limited by his form. Dwayne Jarrett has all the football talent in the world, but he'll never be a good NFL WR because he doesn't have the right physical gifts. I don't think a sound body type is sufficient for NFL success, but I do think it's necessary. I think it's possible to look at some of the receivers in this class and say they're doomed from the start because they don't have the physical talent necessary to achieve success in the NFL.

But...didn't you take a similar stand on BMI?I think I align much more closely to Matt here, but I do see this as yet another evaluation tool...just not a critical one.

 

[Bob Magaw]

You'll never come up with enough measurables to mean jack ####. They use them because if they didn't, they'd be handing people 50million dollar contacts based on film, and interviews. Scouts would love it. But owners got rich by not doing that. People just won't pay a guy 50 million unless you can point to a sheet of paper, with a big list of numbers of why they are going to be a success. But all the scouts know that doesn't add up to anything if the guy doesn't have heart, pride and the desire to be the best. Pretty much all the "research" on combine numbers, its more of less useless. Too many variables, too small sample sizes. You could find someone who's never played football in their life, and they could come in and crush at the combine. They could put up the best numbers ever seen. But they wouldn't make the cut in college football, much less the NFL. So if a track athlete could come in and blow away the best NFL prospects at the combine, why exactly are the combine numbers all that useful? The good NFL teams use the combine as tie breakers, and to make sure there isn't a serious flaw with a prospect. So taking stride analysis, trying to find trends, is cute and all. But it will give you no insight to a players future success in the NFL. None. Zero. Nothing. So as long as you understand that, go nuts.

i think you missed the point of the thread...stride analysis is intended to be a COMPONENT of a more comprehensive & systematic analysis, just one tool in the tool kit... your comments were a straw man argument, knocking down points of your own that nobody else made...but just as it would be misguided to COMPLETELY ignore intangibles, the same could be said for completely ignoring all physical traits & attributes...we probably won't see many 4'11" 330 lb WRs any time soon...there is a certain presupposition in this thread that we are comparing sets or samples of players that have a minimum of athleticism & WR ability to either be in the NFL already, or in position to be drafted... naturally, among those, we will have some information about a players character & work ethic to COMPARE against & within those sets/samples... one reason i avoided manningham in my drafts (some things about him creeped me out, though he is said to have some natural talent & physical ability).. just a few posts ago i wrote about how holt has an advantage over some WRs in that he cultivated a faulk-like understanding of where everybody on the defense (& field for that matter) is supposed to be, based on prodigious film study...i do agree with you that some teams ignore film of a player's body of work & overemphasize track short drills at their own peril (see mike mamula).. organizationally, the raiders, & specifically al davis, since he is the puppet master, are poster children for this unfortunate institutionalized blind spot/tunnell vision...this reminds me of one of the tales of nasrudin... a man is walking along a street when he sees another man methodically but drunkenly searching under a lamp post... he asks what he is looking for... my car keys, the drunk responds... oh, did you lose them here... i'm not sure, but the light is better... QB is a good example of how much bigger of a role intangibles play in success at the next level at that position... since psychology & neurology writ large are still in their relative infancy, it shouldn't come as a massive surprise that many teams seem to be confounded by the "INNER" qualities need at the position, not amenable to quant-type field testing...this is why UFAs like warner & romo, & later rounders like brady & bulger (both 6th rounders) have succeeded... i have done positional pedigree correlations in the past few years, & QB is one of the positions where it matters least... RB & WR, more so (though these aren't deep searches, & may be somewhat anecdotal... i intend to continue to monitor on an ongoing basis)...but again, we have some basis of comparison... and if we aren't assuming all WRs are chris henry like head cases, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, among two WRs with heart & desire, if one strives for holt-like, mature, developed, polished route running perfection, & another never seems to GET IT, & continues to have tells that easily enable DBs to jump their routes, & has to gather his steps when getting in & out of his route, wasting valuable time through a profound lack of an economy of motion... than i am going to have higher expectations for the former, & target them in drafts and in dynasty acquisition strategies, & avoid the latter...now that i have attempted to clarify things, if we STILL disagree on that, i will just have to agree to disagree in advance...

 

[ScottNorwood]

It's all about the stride

 

[higgins]

 

[ninerfanatic492000]

so i imagine a 6'2" 195lbs(soaking wet)finesse longstrider who ran like a 4.6 40 from a tiny college would prolly have a lot to overcome. thank god my niners didn't firmly believe in stride analysis in 1985, of course tho walsh didn't really care about athletic measuring sticks. i guess killer Determination/intelligence/addiction to perfecting your craft can overcome some things

 

[EBF]

so i imagine a 6'2" 195lbs(soaking wet)finesse longstrider who ran like a 4.6 40 from a tiny college would prolly have a lot to overcome. thank god my niners didn't firmly believe in stride analysis in 1985, of course tho walsh didn't really care about athletic measuring sticks. i guess killer Determination/intelligence/addiction to perfecting your craft can overcome some things

If Jerry Rice had lacked natural talent, he wouldn't have been a first round pick. No doubt his legendary work ethic played a big role in his success, but it was married to rare natural ability. That's why he was a great one. There are lots of guys who work hard and don't succeed. The notion that prospects only fail because they don't work hard is silly. Some people are just flat out better than others. Look at Marques Colston. He has been much more effective than any other WR drafted on the second day in 2006. Is this because he works harder than them? No, it's because he's more talented. If Colston can be much more talented than players drafted in a similar range, why isn't it possible for some 1st-3rd round picks to be much more talented than players drafted in a similar range? The reality is that even within a narrow draft range some prospects are much more gifted than others. Doing well in your rookie drafts is largely about separating the legit talents from the frauds. Some players fail because they're lazy, but many fail because they simply don't have the raw ability needed to succeed.

 

[ninerfanatic492000]

so i imagine a 6'2" 195lbs(soaking wet)finesse longstrider who ran like a 4.6 40 from a tiny college would prolly have a lot to overcome. thank god my niners didn't firmly believe in stride analysis in 1985, of course tho walsh didn't really care about athletic measuring sticks. i guess killer Determination/intelligence/addiction to perfecting your craft can overcome some things

If Jerry Rice had lacked natural talent, he wouldn't have been a first round pick. No doubt his legendary work ethic played a big role in his success, but it was married to rare natural ability. That's why he was a great one. There are lots of guys who work hard and don't succeed. The notion that prospects only fail because they don't work hard is silly. Some people are just flat out better than others. Look at Marques Colston. He has been much more effective than any other WR drafted on the second day in 2006. Is this because he works harder than them? No, it's because he's more talented. If Colston can be much more talented than players drafted in a similar range, why isn't it possible for some 1st-3rd round picks to be much more talented than players drafted in a similar range? The reality is that even within a narrow draft range some prospects are much more gifted than others. Doing well in your rookie drafts is largely about separating the legit talents from the frauds. Some players fail because they're lazy, but many fail because they simply don't have the raw ability needed to succeed.

well i'm gonna go out and say situation and need helps quite a few WR's success(atleast early success). i may be one of the few that think Meachum still has a ton of ability. however i don't think his traits fit into what Drew Brees needs/wants like Colston and Lance Moore. Brees likes his guys to be such spot and time on his short/intermidiate timing patterns. and of course Colston's Size and target area appeal to Brees when he needs to get the ball out in a hurry.i think Meachum is more of TO like player that doesn't run great routes and possibly not the greatest of hands but can make the exceptional catch and be a force once he gets the ball into his hands.

 

[Bob Magaw]

i never thought of rice as a long strider (in the sense that he could effortlessly cut at full speed without losing much/any momentum... he could break off his route and come back to the ball very smoothly)?

nobody, probably not ever rice or walsh, could have guessed HOW well his intangibles would translate to the NFL... but walsh no doubt looked at film... i have to confess not seeing tape from college days, but his physical ability roared off the screen in his pro highlights, so i'm guessing it stood out before... he definitely had far more talent than just a try hard guy... while he wasn't stopwatch fast, nobody caught him from behind, indicating phenomenal burst and short area acceleration...