This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I joined yesterday for it! Went full membership to get everything. Lots of good info.And the really nice thing about the ugly formatting and complete lack of design is that it looks like I'm working when my boss walks by!IHEARTFF said:
"yup boss, just crunching some data!" And I'm not really lying.
That's classic - come to think of it, maybe that formatting is how I got away with creating it my first year...hmmmI joined yesterday for it! Went full membership to get everything. Lots of good info.And the really nice thing about the ugly formatting and complete lack of design is that it looks like I'm working when my boss walks by!IHEARTFF said:"yup boss, just crunching some data!" And I'm not really lying.
Right...hardcore folks see a big difference between Thomas and Megatron, but just yesterday I saw The Sporting News draw that comparison, so it's something that the general public will latch onto. I'm a big Sanders fan and he certainly comes to the NFL with more technical skill than Wallace, but what Wallace did last year in my eyes was unusual. Especially when you consider he only had one year of quality coaching at Ole Miss. Cooper is a interesting personal story. When I attended the Senior Bowl, I came to the event thinking I would learn a lot from other people. In some cases I learned a lot, but not in the ways that I thought. I realized that the best way to learn really does come from watching film as critically as possible. If you're musician, it's like transcribing a solo. If you do it enough, you get the notes under your fingers, you hear what a good sound is, you get a better feel for rhythm, you hear the harmony better, you get a feel for interplay, etc. So when I would listen to others at the Senior Bowl talk about players, it became apparent very quickly who watches and really studies a game with a critical eye (slowing it down, playing it frame by frame, looking for the small techniques and whether they are executed well, etc.). Cooper was one of those players that I think is easy to miss for anyone. When I watched him at the Senior Bowl, I thought he looked like one of the better players on the field. A prominent guy who I think does a good job analyzing players thought he looked lazy, slow, and lacked intensity in practice. I saw a guy where things looked easy for him. Remember, there's a zillion players doing things at the same time, so I'll give this guy the benefit of the doubt that he saw one or two plays where Cooper wasn't playing at his highest intensity and he drew this conclusion, which I think is a dangerous thing to do-but that's a different subject. The next day when Cecil and I met up with Daniel Jeremiah, Cecil asked Jeremiah who he liked. Two of the four-five players he mentioned that he felt were the best on the field at Mobile (at their positions) were Cooper and Dixon, although Dixon's character concerns likely drop his value at the draft. I was talking to Cecil about Dixon before Jeremiah mentioned him. I hadn't said much about Cooper, but hearing a (former) NFL scout pretty much sum up Cooper's game the way I saw one of those moments where I felt like I was watching the right things. By the time Cooper's career at Florida came to an end, I think he vastly outgrew that offense and Tebow simply didn't have the skill to use Cooper to the WR's full potential. Cooper is going to be one of those guys that makes the tough catch in traffic and wins the ball at the sideline and in the end zone in single coverage. If he gets open in zone, he's going to break a tackle or two and get another 10-15 yards. I would not be surprised within 2-3 years if he is a 50-60 catch receiver with 5-6 scores and with a high-octane passing team, he could do a lot more. If I were Scott Linehan and Jim Schwartz, Cooper would be on my list to complement Calvin Johnson, because he has enough speed to get deep and alter the defense's desire to bracket Megatron, but he's a reliable threat over the middle and has the size to be a strong blocker. Cooper is a guy Detroit can probably get in round three and he'll be starting by the end of the 2010 season if he stays healthy.
Thanks Benson...correct, the only player with a great arm is likely to be switched to RB, which is Juice Williams. And that is if he even sticks long enough after getting a free agent invite. What I think Bradford has that helps him a lot is anticipation. His anticipation on intermediate and deep throws is good enough that with his above average (but not great) arm strength makes him very effective with stretching the field.
It's unlikely I will be able to do in the next 2-3 years. I would enjoy the opportunity, but the time and resources just aren't there.
Great question about the rankings. Here's what I'm thinking. I'm going to give you a step-by-step idea of what I'm doing. First, I watch the games and write down what you see in the profile sections of the checklists. As the game progresses and I'm writing these notes, I begin to score the checklists. Once I'm done with the game, I review the notes, maybe even go back to a certain play to re-watch, and then finalize the scores and write the overall strengths and weaknesses sections. This takes months as I watch as many players as I can. Next, I create a report of players and their scores. I re-read what I have written to determine the potential for each player. I suggest when you look at the score for a player, you consider it with three possibilities: 1. Does the player have room to improve? The areas where I scored no, were these areas scored no because I didn't have an opportunity to watch the player perform these areas or were they technique issues that are addressable with better coaching and more time devoted to practice? If so, I generally see that player having upside. For example David Gettis might have a score below 80, but he has enough areas I scored no that could develop into "yes" with more coaching that his overall score would be in the low 90s. That means to me that he has a high ceiling of potential. 2. Is the player's skills maxed out? An example opposite of Gettis might be a guy with a score in the mid 80s, but he lacks the speed, size, and strength to likely improve his ability to get deep, break tackles, or gain yardage after contact. These are skills that I think will always limit him. Therefore, he might have a higher score than Gettis currently, but his potential to improve his far more limited. 3. Does the player have a mix of skills that can be developed and gives him a high upside, but he has some one or more issues that might always limit him: speed, character issues, injury history, inconsistencies not explainable with technique? This is what I call a boom-bust player. Once I'm finished assigning these designations of upside, boom-bust, and maxed, I begin ranking the players. I will often rank players with lower overall scores at a higher spot when there are situations where there is high upside for that player. I will compare the players I'm ranking him near. I basically theorize how likely they can improve their deficiencies and what their max score would be if they developed. Generally, whoever has the highest upside is likely to be ranked above the other. If the player I'm comparing is boom-bust or maxed, it's less likely he will be ranked above an upside player with a higher overall score. If so, that other player's upside must be limited enough for me to make that call. On to Finley...Finley is a good example of how my approach has changed in small ways as I have continued to develop this project. His score was a 75 overall, which categorizes him initially as a reserve with potential to develop. I'd say he's done that, but showed more upside than I considered him to have. I didn't think he had the speed to be a dynamic NFL receiving TE. I had him rated along a spectrum with Kellen Winslow II as his upside, but I didn't think he had that high of a ceiling. One of the things I didn't do that year was rank players by potential like I just explained above. Finely would have been ranked higher due to his upside - probably below Martellus Bennett (conservatively at No.6 overall) if I were factoring in potential the same way I did this year and a good bit last year. Finley's upside was always higher than his ranking, but I thought his lack of skill as a blocker would limit him. Here's what I had on him: Weaknesses: He's not very fast and his burst did not look impressive. He's a straight line runner who goes down easily. He needs to work on his balance and leverage as a blocker. He dropped the only pass where he faced some opposition for the football. It was potentially a huge play in the game. He looks like he could get over powered in the NFL with his current size. If he can add another 10-15 pounds without losing any of the speed he currently has, he could be a decent short-to-intermediate threat in a few years. Right now, he'll make a team but won't see the starting lineup right away. I honestly believe at best he'll be a role player.Strengths: Finley has potential to be a solid, NFL tight end. He catches the ball easily on most throws and sets up his routes effectively. He has decent build up speed and makes a good effort as a blocker in the ground and aerial attack. He has some good on-field IQ: he adjusted routes to his scrambling QB, set up a screen very well, and found a way to help block down field despite not being able to turn back to the defender he was shielding from his QB.I could make somewhat of an argument that Finley is playing so well because the Packers aren't using him as a true TE and they have an incredible young QB who can throw players open. While some of that is true, I can honestly say I underestimated Finley's athleticism and I probably needed more looks at his game. I also had the mindset that this "split the TE wide" was not going to be as much of a movement as people made it out to be. I still think this is reasonably true, because I think if Dustin Keller or Fred Davis were in Green Bay, they would be as good or better than Finley right now. So I think situation has a factor, but I still underestimated his athleticism.
Nothing. I just had no opportunity to study him, which I believe I stated at the beginning of the QB rankings in the publication. If I don't have an opportunity to ever see him play - even in a limited capacity, I'm not going to rank him.
Thanks! I'm beginning to be known as public enemy No.1 to ink cartridges, office productivity, and honey-do lists everywhere.
Same story for QB Jevan Snead?RBs Chris Brown and Deji Karim?WR Mike Williams?I ask about these specifically, since you didn't mention them, but another resource I use - the Draft Bible - was somewhat high on them.Thanks again FBG for this tool (the RSP, not Matt himself)
A lot of info in there, but these folks are there: Mike Williams, Chris Brown, and Jevan Snead. You just have to dig a little more. I'm not especially high on any of those guys. The profiles will explain why. Karim, I explain his situation in the RB Overview and Rankings.
All I can do is speculate, but here are some possible answers why my ratings are different. The first thought might be that I see less than these guys do (although that doesn't explain why I've had players like McFadden lower, Bradshaw higher, Gradkowski higher, Clemens lower, etc.). But I don't believe that's really the case in most situations. What I do think is what you stated in your question: these guys are draft analysts and they do mock drafts based on what they are learning from sources on teams. They are projecting where they think these players will go in the draft, not how talented they are. Because Mayock, Kiper, and McShay are about guessing where a player is drafted, I think in some cases they have to emphasize the positives of a player to match why a team might be excited about him. In a sense, it's unintentional public relations for a team's choices. There will be times that these analysts will give their personal opinion about a player or draft choice that counters what's happening, but generally they just describe what the player can do that has the team excited enough to pick them. Since these guys are often trying to follow what the teams are thinking, you have to speculate what's happening within these teams. Here is what I think. Some of it is speculation, some of it is validated from talking with people at the Senior Bowl with experience as an NFL scout, etc. 1. Not all NFL organizations are equal (GMs, scouts, owners): Some teams have owners who are micromanagers. They come into the draft room in April and impose their will on picks, over ruling the work that the scouts did for that year. If you're an employee of a corporation in a meeting with the CEO about a major purchasing decision, you learn that you have to pick your spots to disagree. If you disagree too much, you could find yourself out of a job and known as a bad egg. It's political B.S., I know, but it's what people worry about in Corporate America. The NFL is part of Corporate America. The same can happen with GMs. I heard a story from someone at the Senior Bowl who said that Matt Millen was infamous for making decisions that was simply inspired from someone (not a scout) shouting a player's name from the back of the room when there were plenty of good players still on the board. That player didn't make the team and they wasted the pick. 2. How scouts are hired: Some scouts are former coaches, players, and true football men. Although Matt Millen was an excellent football player and you can see how that worked out. Some scouts are cousins, nephews, and relatives of someone in the organization and aren't. Regardless, experience varies greatly. They are still learning as they do their jobs and teams that do make picks based on their scouts might not be getting consistently good information across every position. 3. What GMs instruct scouts to value: Each team has different values. One team might value speed over physicality. Another might drop players due to their height or weight. These scouts might have strong scouting reports on these players, but they are instantly depressed in value for that team depending on their values. This is why some players inexplicably drop every year and wind up making some teams regret passing them over. 4. Grading system: Based on what I have seen from grading systems that model scouting reports from NFL teams, I believe they inherently create variation you would not want within your business. Grading human performance is a subjective thing, but there are ways you can structure scouting reports that at least put all of your evaluators on the same page. it's easier to spot and correct problems this way. Otherwise, you're fumbling around in the dark, which I believe some teams do. 4. Finances: If you're a scout, I would believe your job isn't to consider finance, public relations, and team chemistry. Maybe on some level, but not nearly as much as a GM, coach, or owner. So if you're in a draft room and it's time for your second round selection, you might have 4-6 players to choose from that the scouts recommend. And remember what I said about the variation within scouts' thinking. Then you have who the GM might like based on his overall philosophy on some overall factor, which could wind up eliminating 3-4 of those players the scouts recommended. At least one of those 3-4 players could be a really good player who never even gets considered seriously. Then you have the coach who might believe more in a current player than a GM and doesn't want to draft the guy the GM likes because he thinks the team would benefit going in a different direction. Then there's the owner, who might have watched a player in high school and college in his hometown and he's stuck on that guy and believes his charisma, exciting style of play, and the potential for more revenue will make the team money. In some respects, I would argue that what I just described fits some of what we saw in the 2006 Draft with Tennessee. The scouts and coach liked Cutler. The OC liked Leinart. The owner loved Young. So as you can see, the draft analysts have a lot to consider when they rate players that has nothing to do with talent. I simply look at whether I think the guy can play. I don't know this for sure, but I doubt Mayock, Kiper, and McShay study the four positions I watch as closely as I do, because they are looking at far more players at every position. That's my two cents...
Check out this post for a greater explanation on Maxed Potential.If you have a 2010 FBGs subscription and want the 2009 RSP, email me and I'll tell you how to get it.
No worries.I'll have a quick go myself and see how things turn out.Anyone else who uses some sort of multiplier to sort out positions let me know what numbers you're using.
I do know that the Bloom 100 always ranks players across positions, including IDP. So that would help you see his idea of how he would intersperse the different positions, although I don't think he has a particular multiplier. You can find the Bloom 100 at Draftguys.com, although the entire 100 isn't released yet.
Thanks Matt. I have been watching some highlights of McNeal and like what I see. I hope he gets a shot somewhere.
The draft chart is more of a guide and it's simply based on a curve that similar draft charts the media has unearthed from NFL teams created. That said, I would simply say that most fantasy league owners I've competed with rarely respond to what a formula might indicate. I'm in leagues where I'm offered completely ridiculous trades with what seems like a straight face, so to me the chart is just a way to gauge your starting point with your peers. In one league it might work well. In another, you might find its not going to work. I wish I could give you a more helpful answer, but that's really how I see it.
I wouldn't assume that actually. I think he used to as lead scout on the War Room but now that he is the alternate ESPN face of the draft, I wouldn't be surprised if he just present info that other people give him and doesn't break down that much tape anymore.
I'll have initial rookie rankings available Sunday or Monday and they will be updated throughout the preseason. They will be available in the FBGs rankings. I'll post a link here though when they are up. Glad you guys enjoy the RSP. This is probably my favorite day of the daft (rounds 4-7). M
He's there. Just check the individual checklists.
Absolutely. Check out my re-draft and dynasty rankings. He played hurt and just had to get used to the speed of the game. I think of Moreno's adjustment as something that will mimic Rice, except I think the Broncos lack the defensive firepower for Moreno to be as succuessful as Rice in year two.
Good call, it's exactly what I'm writing for my first Gut Check column of the preseason...(I'm giving quick intros and ratings to undrafted players).iamgregg said:
Nothing has changed since last month with what I put in the RSP and where I have ranked him.
The thing is, the one thing that is consistently mentioned as a strength of his (which I agree with) is his balance. In that area, you gave him a score of 1 out of 9, 2 out of 9, 1 out of 9, and 1 out of 9 in the 4 games you evaluated him in.I'm not saying this is completely unjustified, but for an elite prospect, for you to go against one of his heralded strengths and continue to dock him on a major category with a lack of explanation seems off to me.So what is it exactly that you saw or didn't see that caused you to rate him extremely poorly in terms of balance? If that score was adjusted and he moves from a score of 80 to 87, does that change your opinion of him in terms of his ranking?
