YouTube Scouting (1 Viewer)

[Matt Waldman]

We had a question the other night on the Audible that I wished I answered a little better so I'm going to mention it here. I think it has a chance to spawn some debate so I'm going to post a more detailed response here.

The question was basically about the value of YouTube to evaluate players and specifically RBs. I'm paraphrasing some of the responses so I might be a little inaccurate in how I attribute what Bloom mentioned on-air.

First, I want to mention that I think YouTube has a lot of positives for someone wishing to find out more about a football player. Bloom did his usual (great) job of explaining that you get to see a lot of good techniques that a player has in his positional tool shed. You can see if a player has a strong arm, speed, agility, hands, and whether he can make big plays.

But YouTube is really best served as a portfolio of highlights. Highlights are naturally meant to be exciting for the viewer. And as they say, the devil is in the details. When you watch a game, it's often the smaller plays that don't jump out to the average viewer that really mean the difference between a guy being a big-time college player and a guy being a big-time pro prospect.

On You Tube, you don't see many plays like a 2nd and 7 pitch play where a runner gains only 2 yards against a defense that strings out the play perfectly, or you don't see 1st and 10 I-formation runs where there's great penetration or containment and the runner gets back to the line of scrimmage. The reason is these plays aren't exciting on the surface and difficult for the casual viewer to see their value, but you can learn a lot from these plays.

Small plays in situations I described above can tell you which players have enough vision and skill to make quick decisions that help them make the most of a well-defended play. They can also show you which players take huge risks with the football and forgo the positive yardage for the hope of a huge play in a situation where the odds are stacked against them and the result is a loss of yards that places their team in a bad position.

Matt Forte and Joseph Addai were players I liked because they always turned potentially negative plays into positive plays. It is the same reason I'm a Moreno fan. This skill is so important in the NFL.

Sigmund Bloom is right-on when he says that you look for guys who can make big plays and that's what's ultimately what you need in fantasy football. But I would add that you also need guys who can make the small plays and minimize bad plays. These small plays give their teams more chances to succeed offensively. And if a player is able to do this effectively, he in turn gets more attempts with the ball.

Sometimes you can look at a player on YouTube and see him make great highlight reel plays, but you aren't seeing the full context of the game. A player could make four highlight reel plays in a game and on the box score he has 12 carries for 98 yards and a score. One could think "Wow, if the team gave him more chances, he would have really racked up the numbers and helped the team win!"

But in the context of the game, maybe this player made enough bad decisions (it only takes two or three in a game to have a significant impact) that he cost himself more carries because the offense lost opportunities to stay on the field.

In fantasy football, I value players who can make big plays and a 12 attempts for 98 yards and a TD is a stat line I wouldn't mind seeing on a weekly basis. But I value players more who can makes the most of their opportunities. It's a subtle difference in how I state it, but I'd rather have a guy who is seeing 15-20 attempts, because he does the small things to earn more looks at the ball and odds are in his favor to get your more points over the long haul. Teams trust these players to be the bell cow producer and that pays dividends. YouTube isn't a natural fit for this - unless of course, you're watching Bloom and Lammey break down a play on a DraftGuys TV segment.

That's my .02

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

I believe in one single truth... Your Eyes Dont LieThat being said if you only watch the "highlights" then you arent seeing everything to be seen. Youtube is nice for seeing a few minutes of a player and thats about it.If you watched every Penn St. game this year you should have a definite feeling on D.Williams and how he can fit on an NFL team. However if you watched 3 youtube clips of him from lets say the Illinois game you may feel he should be drafted much higher then he will be.

Sometimes you can look at a player on YouTube and see him make great highlight reel plays, but you aren't seeing the full context of the game. A player could make four highlight reel plays in a game and on the box score he has 12 carries for 98 yards and a score. One could think "Wow, if the team gave him more chances, he would have really racked up the numbers and helped the team win!"

 

[gheemony]

Thanks. Further evidence of how GREAT a move it was for FBG to hire Matt. Matt is conscientious enough to post to follow up on a question. And, it is great to see that he is going to add yet another great source of opinion that is different than the herd - I love that you see things a little differently than Sig and Cec. Looking forward to more posts and Audible visits from Matt.

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

I wholeheartedly agree. Highlight reels are useful, but I don't care that a guy can run through a gaping hole. It is nice to know that a guy has gamebreaking speed, but the little things matter as well. Is he getting stopped in short yardage situations too often? Is he getting 40 catches, but only on only basic dumpoffs, or can he run routes and catch with his hands on the run? Does he let the play progress and take what is there, or does he reverse field (almost always a big no-no in the NFL) or run up the backs of his blockers? Does he read the hole well, or try to force things too quickly, or miss the hole if it isn't of the gaping variety?

Youtube is better than nothing, but a review based entirely on highlights is probably an incomplete review.

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

I wholeheartedly agree. Highlight reels are useful, but I don't care that a guy can run through a gaping hole. It is nice to know that a guy has gamebreaking speed, but the little things matter as well. Is he getting stopped in short yardage situations too often? Is he getting 40 catches, but only on only basic dumpoffs, or can he run routes and catch with his hands on the run? Does he let the play progress and take what is there, or does he reverse field (almost always a big no-no in the NFL) or run up the backs of his blockers? Does he read the hole well, or try to force things too quickly, or miss the hole if it isn't of the gaping variety?Youtube is better than nothing, but a review based entirely on highlights is probably an incomplete review.

 

[EBF]

I think it's important to watch the games, but I'm also a big fan of "thin slicing."

For the past few years I've played in an NCAA dynasty league where we pick players straight out of high school. There are really only two resources available to help you create your draft rankings: prospect rankings and highlights. Despite that, I've had a pretty good track record.

Here are my top 4 picks each of the past few years:

2008

1. WR Julio Jones, Alabama

2. RB Tauren Poole, Tennessee

3. RB Dontavius Jackson, Georgia

4. RB Milton Knox, UCLA

2007

1. RB Noel Devine, West Virginia

2. WR Fred Rouse, UTEP

3. RB Jahvid Best, Cal

4. RB Darren Evans, Virginia Tech

2006

1. WR Damian Williams, Arkansas/USC

2. RB Keiland Williams, LSU

3. RB Knowshon Moreno, Georgia

4. RB Tarrion Adams, Tulsa

The jury's still out on 2008, but Julio Jones is the real deal and a future high draft pick. 2007 was a home run. Devine, Best, and Evans are NCAA stars and NFL prospects. 2006 was another home run. Damian Williams and Moreno are stars. Keiland Williams will be drafted next year.

Out of the 11 high school kids I picked between 2006-2008, at least 7 of them will probably play in the NFL. That's a good success rate. It's better than random chance. Now maybe I just got lucky, but I think part of the reason I've been successful is because I know what to look for. Even though I never saw any of these guys play a full game, I was able to get a decent idea of their talent level just by watching 3-4 minutes of highlights.

Some positions are trickier than others, but when it comes to RBs and WRs, I really believe that you can tell whether or not a guy has the goods within the first few minutes of watching him play. Elite ability jumps off the screen. Percy Harvin and Jeremy Maclin can do things that most WR prospects simply can't do. Their talent jumps off the screen. On the flipside, mediocrity also jumps off the screen. You can tell right away if a prospect doesn't have that extra something to stand out from the pack.

When you watch a guy like Adrian Peterson or young Randy Moss, you know you're seeing something special. I think that's how you should approach scouting FF prospects. Look for the guys whose ability is blatantly obvious and place your bets on them.

 

[madd futher]

I agree wholeheartedly with both Bloom's and Matt's points about the relative merits of You Tube videos as a scouting tool.

but what would be MORE interesting to me would be to take any specific YouTube video and have Matt or Bloom break down and comment on the 'important little things' both positive and negative they see on these highlight videos that the average casual watcher may not observe.

Since we can stop and replay the video, and have the action coorespond to a specific time on the video, the only thing we can't do is slow it down.

Most of us have ONLY YouTube to make player judgements by; it would be a learning experience for me to see how they can be observed more effectively.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

I agree wholeheartedly with both Bloom's and Matt's points about the relative merits of You Tube videos as a scouting tool.

but what would be MORE interesting to me would be to take any specific YouTube video and have Matt or Bloom break down and comment on the 'important little things' both positive and negative they see on these highlight videos that the average casual watcher may not observe.

Since we can stop and replay the video, and have the action coorespond to a specific time on the video, the only thing we can't do is slow it down.

Most of us have ONLY YouTube to make player judgements by; it would be a learning experience for me to see how they can be observed more effectively.

I spent a little while breaking down This Javon Ringer Video to try to attempt what you suggested. Couple of real quick things, make sure you watch in high quality (link on lower right), and maximize.Here are my notes:

Patience, Decent Stiff Arm (Run 1)

Subtle Adjustment without losing momentum, Wins Collision (Run 2)

Light on Feet to Pick and Slide around without letting them go dead, strong leg drive (run 3)

Leg Drive, Drags Tackler (Run 4)

Sees Tackle Coming and Sets them up for miss (Run 5)

good thinking on elusive move, but not quite sudden enough to make it completely work, good balance after (run 6)

Patient, Strong Lower Body/Balance (run 7 TD)

North/South, Efficient, Pick and Slide (run 8)

Leg Drive, Low, Compact, Nose for End Zone (run 9, run 10, run 11, run 12 all TDs)

Follows Blocks, Sets up man in open field, Short strides to make moves easier (run 13)

Nose for First Down, good bid for high ball (catch 14)

Good feel around feet (run 15)

Patient, Legs always churning (run 16)

Doesnt Stop Legs, Nose for End Zone - gets stronger as he sees it (TD run 17)

Good feel around feet going through line, falls forward (run 18)

falls forward, legs churning (run 19)

ok burst when he gets corner, but no 2nd gear trusts footing on sloppy track (run 20)

Balance, sets up blocks (run 21)

sets up blocks, nose for end zone (TD run 22)

wins collision, strong lower body makes him tough to drag down (run 23)

subtle adjustment, pulls legs through low tackle attempt, vision (run 24)

gets up to speed quickly, good burst off of flat feet (run 25)

sets up open field tackler, sets up block, easily defeats attempt to grab him up high (run 26)

only decent burst, only a little faster than DT (catch 26)

runs through arm tackle, sets up downfield block, falls forward (run 27)

vision + subtle adjustment + nose for end zone (TD run 28)

falls forward, patient (run 29)

good burst through hole, nose for EZ (run 30)

patient, good feet to adjust, falls forward, (run 31)

drags tackler (run 32)

good vision, sets up man in open field, no breakaway gear (run 33)

made someone miss in open field again (run 34)

I apologize for any missed plays or botching of the order. So, I feel like I can make some decent conclusions about Ringer from watching just this video:Pros: Ringer is an efficient, compactn no nonsense north/south with good enough vision, patience, and feet to make the subtle adjustments necessary to hit the hole without losing much momentum. He's not a quick twitch guy, but he can process an incoming tackler in the open field and make them miss. He wins collisions and often falls forward due to a strong lower body and leg drive. He has a nose for the end zone and seems to get stronger and faster when it is in sight. He may only be a one speed runner, but he gets up to that speed quickly.

Cons: Ringer has an average initial burst at best. He runs powerfully, but isn't big enough to be a true power back/short yardage back. He has no breakaway speed or even a second gear to switch to.

From this video I would favorably compare him to Tashard Choice with a little less speed - Strong runner, will take what's there, get around 4 yards a carry and be able to handle GL carries. Productive when he gets a chance to start, but likely a career backup.

 

[Matt Waldman]

I agree wholeheartedly with both Bloom's and Matt's points about the relative merits of You Tube videos as a scouting tool.

but what would be MORE interesting to me would be to take any specific YouTube video and have Matt or Bloom break down and comment on the 'important little things' both positive and negative they see on these highlight videos that the average casual watcher may not observe.

Since we can stop and replay the video, and have the action coorespond to a specific time on the video, the only thing we can't do is slow it down.

Most of us have ONLY YouTube to make player judgements by; it would be a learning experience for me to see how they can be observed more effectively.

I spent a little while breaking down This Javon Ringer Video to try to attempt what you suggested. Couple of real quick things, make sure you watch in high quality (link on lower right), and maximize.Here are my notes:

Patience, Decent Stiff Arm (Run 1)

Subtle Adjustment without losing momentum, Wins Collision (Run 2)

Light on Feet to Pick and Slide around without letting them go dead, strong leg drive (run 3)

Leg Drive, Drags Tackler (Run 4)

Sees Tackle Coming and Sets them up for miss (Run 5)

good thinking on elusive move, but not quite sudden enough to make it completely work, good balance after (run 6)

Patient, Strong Lower Body/Balance (run 7 TD)

North/South, Efficient, Pick and Slide (run 8)

Leg Drive, Low, Compact, Nose for End Zone (run 9, run 10, run 11, run 12 all TDs)

Follows Blocks, Sets up man in open field, Short strides to make moves easier (run 13)

Nose for First Down, good bid for high ball (catch 14)

Good feel around feet (run 15)

Patient, Legs always churning (run 16)

Doesnt Stop Legs, Nose for End Zone - gets stronger as he sees it (TD run 17)

Good feel around feet going through line, falls forward (run 18)

falls forward, legs churning (run 19)

ok burst when he gets corner, but no 2nd gear trusts footing on sloppy track (run 20)

Balance, sets up blocks (run 21)

sets up blocks, nose for end zone (TD run 22)

wins collision, strong lower body makes him tough to drag down (run 23)

subtle adjustment, pulls legs through low tackle attempt, vision (run 24)

gets up to speed quickly, good burst off of flat feet (run 25)

sets up open field tackler, sets up block, easily defeats attempt to grab him up high (run 26)

only decent burst, only a little faster than DT (catch 26)

runs through arm tackle, sets up downfield block, falls forward (run 27)

vision + subtle adjustment + nose for end zone (TD run 28)

falls forward, patient (run 29)

good burst through hole, nose for EZ (run 30)

patient, good feet to adjust, falls forward, (run 31)

drags tackler (run 32)

good vision, sets up man in open field, no breakaway gear (run 33)

made someone miss in open field again (run 34)

I apologize for any missed plays or botching of the order. So, I feel like I can make some decent conclusions about Ringer from watching just this video:Pros: Ringer is an efficient, compactn no nonsense north/south with good enough vision, patience, and feet to make the subtle adjustments necessary to hit the hole without losing much momentum. He's not a quick twitch guy, but he can process an incoming tackler in the open field and make them miss. He wins collisions and often falls forward due to a strong lower body and leg drive. He has a nose for the end zone and seems to get stronger and faster when it is in sight. He may only be a one speed runner, but he gets up to that speed quickly.

Cons: Ringer has an average initial burst at best. He runs powerfully, but isn't big enough to be a true power back/short yardage back. He has no breakaway speed or even a second gear to switch to.

From this video I would favorably compare him to Tashard Choice with a little less speed - Strong runner, will take what's there, get around 4 yards a carry and be able to handle GL carries. Productive when he gets a chance to start, but likely a career backup.

Cool experiment...I spent the day watching Ringer (and Moreno, Stafford, and Hoyer) each for the second or third time and I actually wrote very similar things about Ringer. Even the comparison to a slower Tashard Choice isn't bad at all (I thought the same). The one thing I saw that wasn't mentioned here was Ringer's tendency to make some poor choices at the LOS. He would try to make that one extra move rather than keep things simple. This could have been due to the fact he was playing a faster defense (UGA) than he customarily saw because he was more decisive as the game progressed. I also didn't see him make effective lateral plant and cuts. He has good footwork, but he's not explosive with his change of direction.

That said, with this RB I had similar views of him that you got from a YouTube clip. I rated him a 75 on my profile today, which equates to a solid depth chart player with decent fundamentals but nothing special in any single area that would vault him to starter status. On the other hand I thought Choice had a higher ground floor and ceiling...I would probably quibble with Bloom about projecting Ringer as a 4 ypc guy when he gets in a game, because I think he struggled against a mediocre UGA defense that has speed and in the NFL his one gear isn't something I believe will translate consistently well. Still, it's a very similar observation. I would be interested in doing more of these down the line.

I also think EBF's philosophy is very good for the obvious choices. It's nearly common sense to know special talent when you see it on a highlight and you can definitely do that on YouTube.

 

[EBF]

If you're taking the YouTube approach to scouting then I think the most useful thing you can do is look for evidence of special ability. Special players make special plays. You want to keep an eye out for "wow" moments where prospects demonstrate rare skill. Watch this Jeremy Maclin video and fast forward to the Kansas State clips from 6:04 to 7:35.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA619-10IIM

That brief segment of video is almost all I need to know that Maclin is an elite talent. I see a well-proportioned athlete with a smooth running stride and the speed to separate. I see him flash good hands, concentration, and body control when he goes up to make the leaping grab in the end zone. It's only a handful of plays (most of them gimmicky), but the talent is apparent.

If a guy is a pretty high draft pick and he was productive in college then I know he's been vetted by the pro scouts and I know he's probably a halfway decent football player. However, you don't always know if a prospect has that extra something until you see him in action. YouTube is a great way to separate the legit players from the overrated frauds because it provides a quick, content-rich summary of what a player can do.

At the same time, it's not a very good way to measure intangibles like consistency and attitude.

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

If you're taking the YouTube approach to scouting then I think the most useful thing you can do is look for evidence of special ability. Special players make special plays. You want to keep an eye out for "wow" moments where prospects demonstrate rare skill. Watch this Jeremy Maclin video and fast forward to the Kansas State clips from 6:04 to 7:35.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA619-10IIM

That brief segment of video is almost all I need to know that Maclin is an elite talent. I see a well-proportioned athlete with a smooth running stride and the speed to separate. I see him flash good hands, concentration, and body control when he goes up to make the leaping grab in the end zone. It's only a handful of plays (most of them gimmicky), but the talent is apparent.

If a guy is a pretty high draft pick and he was productive in college then I know he's been vetted by the pro scouts and I know he's probably a halfway decent football player. However, you don't always know if a prospect has that extra something until you see him in action. YouTube is a great way to separate the legit players from the overrated frauds because it provides a quick, content-rich summary of what a player can do.

At the same time, it's not a very good way to measure intangibles like consistency and attitude.

I disagree. YouTube doesn't separate the legit players from the overrated frauds, because you don't get to see enough from YouTube to be able to label someone as "legit". It usually shows some big play highlight where the hole is big enough to drive a truck through it, rather than the mundane plays needed to get a complete feel for a player. Frauds are easily hidden behind those big plays on YouTube.ETA: Obviously the big names don't need much more than YouTube to make your determination of their legitimacy, it's the lesser player you need more than YouTube.

 

[EBF]

If you're taking the YouTube approach to scouting then I think the most useful thing you can do is look for evidence of special ability. Special players make special plays. You want to keep an eye out for "wow" moments where prospects demonstrate rare skill. Watch this Jeremy Maclin video and fast forward to the Kansas State clips from 6:04 to 7:35.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA619-10IIM

That brief segment of video is almost all I need to know that Maclin is an elite talent. I see a well-proportioned athlete with a smooth running stride and the speed to separate. I see him flash good hands, concentration, and body control when he goes up to make the leaping grab in the end zone. It's only a handful of plays (most of them gimmicky), but the talent is apparent.

If a guy is a pretty high draft pick and he was productive in college then I know he's been vetted by the pro scouts and I know he's probably a halfway decent football player. However, you don't always know if a prospect has that extra something until you see him in action. YouTube is a great way to separate the legit players from the overrated frauds because it provides a quick, content-rich summary of what a player can do.

At the same time, it's not a very good way to measure intangibles like consistency and attitude.

I disagree. YouTube doesn't separate the legit players from the overrated frauds, because you don't get to see enough from YouTube to be able to label someone as "legit". It usually shows some big play highlight where the hole is big enough to drive a truck through it, rather than the mundane plays needed to get a complete feel for a player. Frauds are easily hidden behind those big plays on YouTube.

I disagree. Think about the NBA Slam Dunk Contest. Even though the players are out there on the court dunking on their own with no competition, isn't it still obvious to the naked eye that these are world class athletes with unreal ability?When I'm watching highlights, I'm not focusing on what the other players on the field are doing. I'm focusing on whether or not the player in question is making special plays. Exploding 45" off the floor and doing a windmill dunk is impressive whether you're playing against sixth graders or NBA All-Stars.

By the same token, the elite plays people make on the football field are stand-alone. When I see LeSean McCoy's sick jukes or Jarett Dillard's ridiculous coordination, I know that it reflects athletic qualities they possess. The context is largely irrelevant. All I want to know is whether or not they have the skill. Show me what you can do.

Highlight reels basically allow you to see a prospect at his sickest. If it's not very impressive then that's a bad sign.

 

[Matt Waldman]

I also think a key point here is probably more what to look for when watching a player.

Here are three basic things I would ask myself if I were watching a clip:

1) How well does the player operate in tight spaces? If he's a QB does he operate well in the pocket in tight quarters (does he remain patient, move efficiently while keeping his eyes down field, make accurate throws with players bearing down on him) and does he make throws in tight quadrants where the ball is placed best for the receiver. If he's a runner does he make efficient, dynamic moves to maximize yardage as either a power runner or elusive guy (depending on the situation). As a receiver, can he get position in press coverage to get into his route, get out of his break, and catch the football in tight coverage.

2) How far ahead does the player see a situation? If he's a QB does he set up his throws by looking one direction before turning back and throwing another. Does the QB understand how his actions can cause a reaction in the defense and what does the QB do that either draws the defense to react one way or another. Does the QB play this game within a game effectively to give his teammates a chance to do their jobs effectively. Does he understand the down and distance situation and what risks are more acceptable than others given that situation. If he's an RB does he understand his skills enough not maximize his opportunities while diminishing his risks. Is he reading the LBs and DBs at the LOS as he's approaching the hole and how does he react to what he sees. Was the realistically a better avenue. Can he string together moves to set up not only what he's facing in the present, but the very next move after.

3) How fundamentally sound are their techniques? This is often what separates players who are excellent athletes who may someday make an NFL impact and players who will play right away. This is where it is really worthwhile to do a little reading about good techniques so you don't rely too heavily on stats and highlight reels to determine talent. There will always be those curve busters who do things "wrong" but still succeed. Those are the obvious players EBF is talking about who stand out on film. Adrian Peterson was a curve buster. Randy Moss and Larry Fitzgerald were in some respects curve busters. Marion Barber was a guy drafted much later than his commensurate NFL production but if you watched him play at Minnesota you'd see he lacked curve buster physical skills, but his techniques were extremely sound and coupled with his ability to see the game, he was a good prospect.

I think looking at the smaller things help you find good players who you'll be more aware of in the mid-to-late rounds as well as the waiver wire. Not everyone gets the top four picks every year...

 

[NoFBinLA]

I disagree. Think about the NBA Slam Dunk Contest. Even though the players are out there on the court dunking on their own with no competition, isn't it still obvious to the naked eye that these are world class athletes with unreal ability?

I see what you're saying here and don't fully disagree but I watched Harold Minor play ball at USC for his whole career and he could dunk with some of the best.Couldn't play D worth a tinkers damn though. You could tell that by watching him for a few games. But not with a highlite reel.A highlight on youtube is nice but you can't always properly examine a prospect when you only see him at his best. You need to watch him as a whole player and see what he doesn't do well.If I just watch Mark Sanchez's highlite reels from the Penn State game for example, I probably miss a bunch of stuff he struggled with all year long - and maybe even in that game. If I watch the game as a whole - and others, I see holes in his game that you won't see on a 4 minute synopsis of his best plays.A highlite reel is just that - a player's highlites. I think it can be dangerous - not impossible, but tricky - to judge just based on film whose only purpose is to make a player look good.

 

[madd futher]

I sure appreciate both of your efforts. I'm going to spend the evening re-watching these. But my initial philosophy - to look for the "wow-factor" has been confirmed to a great extent.

I've been watching Youtube highlights as a hobby for some time just doing rudimentary 'player evaluations.'

Last year it was one factor to lead me to pick Chris Johnson in the 5th round of a PPR redraft league - I got 'snickered at' by some that night because Lendale and Edge were still on the board.

 

[Matt Waldman]

If you're taking the YouTube approach to scouting then I think the most useful thing you can do is look for evidence of special ability. Special players make special plays. You want to keep an eye out for "wow" moments where prospects demonstrate rare skill. Watch this Jeremy Maclin video and fast forward to the Kansas State clips from 6:04 to 7:35.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA619-10IIM

That brief segment of video is almost all I need to know that Maclin is an elite talent. I see a well-proportioned athlete with a smooth running stride and the speed to separate. I see him flash good hands, concentration, and body control when he goes up to make the leaping grab in the end zone. It's only a handful of plays (most of them gimmicky), but the talent is apparent.

If a guy is a pretty high draft pick and he was productive in college then I know he's been vetted by the pro scouts and I know he's probably a halfway decent football player. However, you don't always know if a prospect has that extra something until you see him in action. YouTube is a great way to separate the legit players from the overrated frauds because it provides a quick, content-rich summary of what a player can do.

At the same time, it's not a very good way to measure intangibles like consistency and attitude.

I disagree. YouTube doesn't separate the legit players from the overrated frauds, because you don't get to see enough from YouTube to be able to label someone as "legit". It usually shows some big play highlight where the hole is big enough to drive a truck through it, rather than the mundane plays needed to get a complete feel for a player. Frauds are easily hidden behind those big plays on YouTube.

I disagree. Think about the NBA Slam Dunk Contest. Even though the players are out there on the court dunking on their own with no competition, isn't it still obvious to the naked eye that these are world class athletes with unreal ability?When I'm watching highlights, I'm not focusing on what the other players on the field are doing. I'm focusing on whether or not the player in question is making special plays. Exploding 45" off the floor and doing a windmill dunk is impressive whether you're playing against sixth graders or NBA All-Stars.

By the same token, the elite plays people make on the football field are stand-alone. When I see LeSean McCoy's sick jukes or Jarett Dillard's ridiculous coordination, I know that it reflects athletic qualities they possess. The context is largely irrelevant. All I want to know is whether or not they have the skill. Show me what you can do.

Highlight reels basically allow you to see a prospect at his sickest. If it's not very impressive then that's a bad sign.

I would disagree with this point of view. Using your example Harold Miner and several other great athletes without quality NBA game would have been much better in their careersI think focusing on what other players are doing is important. Otherwise you aren't watching as effectively from that player's point of view as you could.

For instance, you could watch Matthew Stafford throw a ball out of bounds with two receivers in right flat and say, "he was inaccurate or he just rushed his throw because he was under pressure." But if you watched that Stafford was facing a blitz off the right side with an LB and a corner coming off the same side then you might see things different. Especially if you saw that Stafford had to throw the ball away because looked to his RB releasing to the flat and that CB stopped his blitz and drifted enough to the flat that the QB's first option would be a tougher throw with potential for an INT return for a TD and the second throw open but at this point the DT coming up the middle was too close for him to step into it.

When you examine a play within the context of what the CB, LB, RB, and DT were doing you actually see that Stafford demonstrates things beyond "sickest physical skill." You see that he read the pre-snap defensive look correctly. You see that he went through two reads. You see that he was patient enough under pressure to see the CB adjust his blitz back to coverage. And you see that he sensed the rush up the middle to get rid of the ball and avoid a negative play.

Now if you can see this on YouTube, more power to you. It's clear in many cases you can. But I would disagree that if you don't see sick plays on a highlight then you might as well pass on a player. Maybe I'm missing your point, but that's what I got from it.

 

[Matt Waldman]

Garda...you and I both thought about Minor! Funny...Baby Jordan

 

[NoFBinLA]

I would disagree with this point of view. Using your example Harold Miner and several other great athletes without quality NBA game would have been much better in their careers

I see what you're saying here and don't fully disagree but I watched Harold Minor play ball at USC for his whole career and he could dunk with some of the best.

I've told you before to stay out of my brain Waldman.

 

[NoFBinLA]

Garda...you and I both thought about Minor! Funny...Baby Jordan

When someone biffs that badly he's hard to forget.I still wake up with night sweats from when he just let someone shoot from the three point line with no time left in the tourney, sending USC home with a loss. Didn't even try to block. Ugh.

 

[EBF]

I don't advocate highlights as a means to scout QBs. However, at positions that place a premium on raw athleticism, I think highlights can be very useful. Like I said, I've had great success drafting in my NCAA league using nothing but highlights and recruiting rankings.

A highlite reel is just that - a player's highlites. I think it can be dangerous - not impossible, but tricky - to judge just based on film whose only purpose is to make a player look good.

I actually think they're useful for that purpose. A highlight reel of Larry Fitzgerald's 2008 season would be full of incredible plays and amazing catches. A highlight reel of Antwaan Randle El's 2008 season would be....uhh....short. Here's another basketball analogy:

If you put the average American man on a basketball court and told him to shoot around for a while and try some dunks, the results would be ugly. You could keep the camera running all day and you'd never see an impressive play. A lucky three pointer here and there? Sure, but he wouldn't magically sprout the ability to do 360 tomahawk dunks.

If you put the average NBA player on a basketball court and told him to shoot around for a while and try some dunks, it would be a completely different story. You'd probably see some pretty impressive stuff. You would notice a clear and obvious difference between the professional basketball player and Joe Schmoe.

Why? Because mediocre athletes are not capable of making elite plays. Randy Moss routinely makes plays that would be impossible for Michael Jenkins. Brian Westbrook routinely makes cuts that Kenny Watson isn't capable of. Kellen Winslow makes plays that Steve Heiden can only dream about.

Highlights offer a great indication of a player's athletic ability because they show the best plays he's capable of making. It's no coincidence then that Calvin Johnson's highlight reels are laden with unbelievable catches while Stevie Johnson doesn't even have any clips on YouTube. Calvin Johnson is an elite talent and Stevie Johnson is mediocre.

So while highlight reels don't always say much about consistency or intangibles, they can certainly be used a means to judge whether or not a player has impressive raw athletic ability.

 

[Kleck]

Great topic, and lots of good points.

I'm boiling some wort right now so I don't have much time respond, but I like what I'm reading so far from Waldman.

 

[identikit]

The NBA dunk competition is a very very bad analogy.

But I agree with EBF in the usefulness of Youtube to see the significance of a football player.

A useful piece of what you need to make a good call on a player.

But there are more pieces needed than what you'll find in a highlight reel.

 

[NoFBinLA]

Great topic, and lots of good points. I'm boiling some wort right now so I don't have much time respond, but I like what I'm reading so far from Waldman.

And on that note, I have a show to prep for. Will check back on this discussion later - as the interwebs gets more filled up with info, more and more people can look at things for themselves and make their own decisions and judgments. I think it's cool that so many people can talk about this whereas a few years ago, the topic of the draft might have been just staff and other people who follow the draft very closely.

 

[Kleck]

Wort, pronounced "wert", for some homebrew IPA.

 

[Matt Waldman]

I don't advocate highlights as a means to scout QBs. However, at positions that place a premium on raw athleticism, I think highlights can be very useful. Like I said, I've had great success drafting in my NCAA league using nothing but highlights and recruiting rankings.

A highlite reel is just that - a player's highlites. I think it can be dangerous - not impossible, but tricky - to judge just based on film whose only purpose is to make a player look good.

I actually think they're useful for that purpose. A highlight reel of Larry Fitzgerald's 2008 season would be full of incredible plays and amazing catches. A highlight reel of Antwaan Randle El's 2008 season would be....uhh....short. Here's another basketball analogy:

If you put the average American man on a basketball court and told him to shoot around for a while and try some dunks, the results would be ugly. You could keep the camera running all day and you'd never see an impressive play. A lucky three pointer here and there? Sure, but he wouldn't magically sprout the ability to do 360 tomahawk dunks.

If you put the average NBA player on a basketball court and told him to shoot around for a while and try some dunks, it would be a completely different story. You'd probably see some pretty impressive stuff. You would notice a clear and obvious difference between the professional basketball player and Joe Schmoe.

Why? Because mediocre athletes are not capable of making elite plays. Randy Moss routinely makes plays that would be impossible for Michael Jenkins. Brian Westbrook routinely makes cuts that Kenny Watson isn't capable of. Kellen Winslow makes plays that Steve Heiden can only dream about.

Highlights offer a great indication of a player's athletic ability because they show the best plays he's capable of making. It's no coincidence then that Calvin Johnson's highlight reels are laden with unbelievable catches while Stevie Johnson doesn't even have any clips on YouTube. Calvin Johnson is an elite talent and Stevie Johnson is mediocre.

So while highlight reels don't always say much about consistency or intangibles, they can certainly be used a means to judge whether or not a player has impressive raw athletic ability.

Definitely a better point. At the same time, are you going to field a team that has Randy Moss, Brian Westbrook Kellen Winslow and Calvin Johnson every year? My answer would be probably not. Garrison Hearst would have been a big-time YouTube highlight player coming out of UGA, but not Terrell Davis. Same with Ricky Williams, but not Priest Holmes at Texas. Willie Parker anyone? How about Derrick Mason? He wasn't a sick college player with Randy Moss-like skills, but he sure has helped a fantasy owner (or a few hundred thousand of them) over the years with his skills that developed over time. Throw in Wes Welker, Bernard Berrian, Keenan McCardell, Ed McCaffery, and Rod Smith.

Steven Davis and Rudi Johnson weren't great prospects touted like a Cedric Benson or Ronnie Brown, but they sure had better careers to this point. If you watched them alone, you wouldn't be blown away, but if you watch them in the context of a good blocking scheme, you might think it's worth drafting one of them as a starter and letting his "un-elite" talent lead you to fantasy victories.

Tom Brady and Marc Bulger got few draft analysts excited in college and the most prominent one was Russ Lande who studies film.

Justin Tuck was a decent LB, but you wouldn't see him on YouTube showing off his studly pass rushing techniques at Notre Dame.

I think if you're playing in a league with smaller roster allotments, EBF's point is very well taken. But it never hurts to know about players with less than elite skills but potential to develop.

 

[Matt Waldman]

Great topic, and lots of good points. I'm boiling some wort right now so I don't have much time respond, but I like what I'm reading so far from Waldman.

And on that note, I have a show to prep for. Will check back on this discussion later - as the interwebs gets more filled up with info, more and more people can look at things for themselves and make their own decisions and judgments. I think it's cool that so many people can talk about this whereas a few years ago, the topic of the draft might have been just staff and other people who follow the draft very closely.

It's definitely what's great about football and this board. A lot of very intelligent points, even if there's disagreement here and there about it. I respect EBFs opinion, but it's good exercise to argue them.

 

[Kleck]

I like to get wowed, but seeing a RB run through a Britney Spears size hole and go untouched for a score doesn't impress me much. Me and my 6.2 forty speed could score on some of the youtube highlights I see.

I'll usually skip forward any close-up highlights where I can't see the defense.

 

[madd futher]

Ok now please define "Britney Spears size hole".

 

[Kleck]

Ok now please define "Britney Spears size hole".

but not the jaw and about 5-6 feet wide.

 

[gheemony]

I think it's important to watch the games, but I'm also a big fan of "thin slicing." For the past few years I've played in an NCAA dynasty league where we pick players straight out of high school. There are really only two resources available to help you create your draft rankings: prospect rankings and highlights. Despite that, I've had a pretty good track record.Here are my top 4 picks each of the past few years:20081. WR Julio Jones, Alabama2. RB Tauren Poole, Tennessee3. RB Dontavius Jackson, Georgia 4. RB Milton Knox, UCLA20071. RB Noel Devine, West Virginia2. WR Fred Rouse, UTEP3. RB Jahvid Best, Cal4. RB Darren Evans, Virginia Tech20061. WR Damian Williams, Arkansas/USC2. RB Keiland Williams, LSU3. RB Knowshon Moreno, Georgia4. RB Tarrion Adams, TulsaThe jury's still out on 2008, but Julio Jones is the real deal and a future high draft pick. 2007 was a home run. Devine, Best, and Evans are NCAA stars and NFL prospects. 2006 was another home run. Damian Williams and Moreno are stars. Keiland Williams will be drafted next year. Out of the 11 high school kids I picked between 2006-2008, at least 7 of them will probably play in the NFL. That's a good success rate. It's better than random chance. Now maybe I just got lucky, but I think part of the reason I've been successful is because I know what to look for. Even though I never saw any of these guys play a full game, I was able to get a decent idea of their talent level just by watching 3-4 minutes of highlights.Some positions are trickier than others, but when it comes to RBs and WRs, I really believe that you can tell whether or not a guy has the goods within the first few minutes of watching him play. Elite ability jumps off the screen. Percy Harvin and Jeremy Maclin can do things that most WR prospects simply can't do. Their talent jumps off the screen. On the flipside, mediocrity also jumps off the screen. You can tell right away if a prospect doesn't have that extra something to stand out from the pack. When you watch a guy like Adrian Peterson or young Randy Moss, you know you're seeing something special. I think that's how you should approach scouting FF prospects. Look for the guys whose ability is blatantly obvious and place your bets on them.

So what did you look for?

 

[EBF]

I don't advocate highlights as a means to scout QBs. However, at positions that place a premium on raw athleticism, I think highlights can be very useful. Like I said, I've had great success drafting in my NCAA league using nothing but highlights and recruiting rankings.

A highlite reel is just that - a player's highlites. I think it can be dangerous - not impossible, but tricky - to judge just based on film whose only purpose is to make a player look good.

I actually think they're useful for that purpose. A highlight reel of Larry Fitzgerald's 2008 season would be full of incredible plays and amazing catches. A highlight reel of Antwaan Randle El's 2008 season would be....uhh....short. Here's another basketball analogy:

If you put the average American man on a basketball court and told him to shoot around for a while and try some dunks, the results would be ugly. You could keep the camera running all day and you'd never see an impressive play. A lucky three pointer here and there? Sure, but he wouldn't magically sprout the ability to do 360 tomahawk dunks.

If you put the average NBA player on a basketball court and told him to shoot around for a while and try some dunks, it would be a completely different story. You'd probably see some pretty impressive stuff. You would notice a clear and obvious difference between the professional basketball player and Joe Schmoe.

Why? Because mediocre athletes are not capable of making elite plays. Randy Moss routinely makes plays that would be impossible for Michael Jenkins. Brian Westbrook routinely makes cuts that Kenny Watson isn't capable of. Kellen Winslow makes plays that Steve Heiden can only dream about.

Highlights offer a great indication of a player's athletic ability because they show the best plays he's capable of making. It's no coincidence then that Calvin Johnson's highlight reels are laden with unbelievable catches while Stevie Johnson doesn't even have any clips on YouTube. Calvin Johnson is an elite talent and Stevie Johnson is mediocre.

So while highlight reels don't always say much about consistency or intangibles, they can certainly be used a means to judge whether or not a player has impressive raw athletic ability.

Definitely a better point. At the same time, are you going to field a team that has Randy Moss, Brian Westbrook Kellen Winslow and Calvin Johnson every year? My answer would be probably not. Garrison Hearst would have been a big-time YouTube highlight player coming out of UGA, but not Terrell Davis. Same with Ricky Williams, but not Priest Holmes at Texas. Willie Parker anyone? How about Derrick Mason? He wasn't a sick college player with Randy Moss-like skills, but he sure has helped a fantasy owner (or a few hundred thousand of them) over the years with his skills that developed over time. Throw in Wes Welker, Bernard Berrian, Keenan McCardell, Ed McCaffery, and Rod Smith.

Steven Davis and Rudi Johnson weren't great prospects touted like a Cedric Benson or Ronnie Brown, but they sure had better careers to this point. If you watched them alone, you wouldn't be blown away, but if you watch them in the context of a good blocking scheme, you might think it's worth drafting one of them as a starter and letting his "un-elite" talent lead you to fantasy victories.

Tom Brady and Marc Bulger got few draft analysts excited in college and the most prominent one was Russ Lande who studies film.

Justin Tuck was a decent LB, but you wouldn't see him on YouTube showing off his studly pass rushing techniques at Notre Dame.

I think if you're playing in a league with smaller roster allotments, EBF's point is very well taken. But it never hurts to know about players with less than elite skills but potential to develop.

Not everyone is going to be Calvin Johnson and not everyone has to be. I'm not suggesting that every player who doesn't have once-per-decade skills should be avoided. However, to become a long term starter in the NFL generally takes exceptional ability. Bernard Berrian was an impact player at Fresno State and was widely considered a potential top 10 pick before injuries derailed his career. Rudi Johnson was a stud in his only season at Auburn and Justin Tuck was a beast who set the Notre Dame school record for sacks.I would argue that these guys prove my point more than they disprove it. They were head-and-shoulders above the college competition. When you watched them play, their talent was obvious. I watched Marion Barber absolutely kill Alabama in a bowl game. By the end of that game all of the Tide players looked like they were ready to quit football entirely. If you watched the highlights from that game you wouldn't seen any long runs, but you would've seen special talent, just in a different form (sort of like how Shonn Greene stands out almost as much as LeSean McCoy even though he has a completely different skill set).

To me, highlights are a content-rich summary of an athlete's strengths and weaknesses. You'll see playing style, speed, coordination, body type, power, burst, and a lot of other useful things that will help you gain an understanding of the player.

 

[EBF]

So what did you look for?

When I look at RBs, I want to see a compact frame with a strong base and good hip swivel. Burst and cutting are important. Good backs have the ability to plant and change direction instantly. Take a look at the following high school prospects from the 2008 class:Milton Knox, UCLA -

De'Anthony Curtis, Arkansas - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-uDRT0XO6U

It only took Knox about 10 seconds to win me over. That first run is nasty. He's a low slung back with thick thighs and excellent agility. Reminds me a lot of Ray Rice. Curtis is a little more of a glider, but he can still shake. The cut he makes at 0:40 is a thing of beauty.

Those are probably my favorite backs from the 2008 recruiting class. They both have excellent frames and a nice burst. They're both smooth and fluid. Neither made an impact last season, but I expect big things from them going forward.

WR is a little more hit-or-miss. It's a more complicated position than RB because it involves more than just raw athleticism. At the same, I'm looking for many of the same things that I look for when I evaluate RBs: fluidity, good body proportions, burst, and speed. You also have to make sure that the WR attacks the football and catches it cleanly.

Sometimes you make an exception for a guy because he's just special. Devine is tall and thin with a bad body for a RB, but he's a dynamo in the open field (incidentally his YouTube videos were legendary before he even graduated HS). Jahvid Best is sort of in the same boat. He was a prolific RB with the right dimensions and elite physical gifts (one of the top HS sprinters in all of CA). Plug a guy like that in the Cal system and you'll get stats.

 

[Matt Waldman]

I don't advocate highlights as a means to scout QBs. However, at positions that place a premium on raw athleticism, I think highlights can be very useful. Like I said, I've had great success drafting in my NCAA league using nothing but highlights and recruiting rankings.

A highlite reel is just that - a player's highlites. I think it can be dangerous - not impossible, but tricky - to judge just based on film whose only purpose is to make a player look good.

I actually think they're useful for that purpose. A highlight reel of Larry Fitzgerald's 2008 season would be full of incredible plays and amazing catches. A highlight reel of Antwaan Randle El's 2008 season would be....uhh....short. Here's another basketball analogy:

If you put the average American man on a basketball court and told him to shoot around for a while and try some dunks, the results would be ugly. You could keep the camera running all day and you'd never see an impressive play. A lucky three pointer here and there? Sure, but he wouldn't magically sprout the ability to do 360 tomahawk dunks.

If you put the average NBA player on a basketball court and told him to shoot around for a while and try some dunks, it would be a completely different story. You'd probably see some pretty impressive stuff. You would notice a clear and obvious difference between the professional basketball player and Joe Schmoe.

Why? Because mediocre athletes are not capable of making elite plays. Randy Moss routinely makes plays that would be impossible for Michael Jenkins. Brian Westbrook routinely makes cuts that Kenny Watson isn't capable of. Kellen Winslow makes plays that Steve Heiden can only dream about.

Highlights offer a great indication of a player's athletic ability because they show the best plays he's capable of making. It's no coincidence then that Calvin Johnson's highlight reels are laden with unbelievable catches while Stevie Johnson doesn't even have any clips on YouTube. Calvin Johnson is an elite talent and Stevie Johnson is mediocre.

So while highlight reels don't always say much about consistency or intangibles, they can certainly be used a means to judge whether or not a player has impressive raw athletic ability.

Definitely a better point. At the same time, are you going to field a team that has Randy Moss, Brian Westbrook Kellen Winslow and Calvin Johnson every year? My answer would be probably not. Garrison Hearst would have been a big-time YouTube highlight player coming out of UGA, but not Terrell Davis. Same with Ricky Williams, but not Priest Holmes at Texas. Willie Parker anyone? How about Derrick Mason? He wasn't a sick college player with Randy Moss-like skills, but he sure has helped a fantasy owner (or a few hundred thousand of them) over the years with his skills that developed over time. Throw in Wes Welker, Bernard Berrian, Keenan McCardell, Ed McCaffery, and Rod Smith.

Steven Davis and Rudi Johnson weren't great prospects touted like a Cedric Benson or Ronnie Brown, but they sure had better careers to this point. If you watched them alone, you wouldn't be blown away, but if you watch them in the context of a good blocking scheme, you might think it's worth drafting one of them as a starter and letting his "un-elite" talent lead you to fantasy victories.

Tom Brady and Marc Bulger got few draft analysts excited in college and the most prominent one was Russ Lande who studies film.

Justin Tuck was a decent LB, but you wouldn't see him on YouTube showing off his studly pass rushing techniques at Notre Dame.

I think if you're playing in a league with smaller roster allotments, EBF's point is very well taken. But it never hurts to know about players with less than elite skills but potential to develop.

Not everyone is going to be Calvin Johnson and not everyone has to be. I'm not suggesting that every player who doesn't have once-per-decade skills should be avoided. However, to become a long term starter in the NFL generally takes exceptional ability. Of course, but I think your original argument focused solely on curve breakers at their position.A trainer I knew who worked for the Angels in the MLB said that Vlad Guerrero did things without ever working out or training that other quality pro baseball players couldn't do. Moss is like that as a player. The way I see it the margin for error with players becomes greater at each level. The 99% of players in high school don't become quality players in college. In college 99.9% of the players don't become quality pros. It seems like a small margin but it really isn't. Bernard Berrian was an impact player at Fresno State and was widely considered a potential top 10 pick before injuries derailed his career. I don't recall him being considered a top 10 pick, but I know he was highly regarded before the knee injury but no where near elite stud status like Moss. Still, he was virtually ignored in comparison after the injury. He's developed into a decent pro with productivity. Rudi Johnson was a stud in his only season at Auburn and Justin Tuck was a beast who set the Notre Dame school record for sacks. Good points thereI would argue that these guys prove my point more than they disprove it. I would argue you cherry picked those points and ignored Priest Holmes, Terrell Davis, Willie Parker, Derrick Mason, Wes Welker, Ed McCaffery and the others.They were head-and-shoulders above the college competition. When you watched them play, their talent was obvious. I would disagree. The reason I disagree is it may be obvious to some, but not to many others. There were large contingents of people who thought Fitz would be a bust, Westbrook was nothing but a small school back, etc.I watched Marion Barber absolutely kill Alabama in a bowl game.I saw him as a frosh look better than their junior. That junior promptly left early, was with the Ravens as a late pick and then was a free agent in Seattle before his career ended quietly. But as you see, we're talking about ways that guys shine that might not be so obvious to everyone. It's obvious to you. That's why you're EBF and people are asking you for your take and like your opinion. It's not obvious to everyone. By the end of that game all of the Tide players looked like they were ready to quit football entirely. If you watched the highlights from that game you wouldn't seen any long runs, but you would've seen special talent, just in a different form (sort of like how Shonn Greene stands out almost as much as LeSean McCoy even though he has a completely different skill set).

To me, highlights are a content-rich summary of an athlete's strengths and

Spoiler

weaknesses

. You'll see playing style, speed, coordination, body type, power, burst, and a lot of other useful things that will help you gain an understanding of the player.

See above in bold.

 

[NoFBinLA]

Wort, pronounced "wert", for some homebrew IPA.

Ok, gotcha. Thought you were doing some home foot care or something.

 

[EBF]

I don't advocate highlights as a means to scout QBs. However, at positions that place a premium on raw athleticism, I think highlights can be very useful. Like I said, I've had great success drafting in my NCAA league using nothing but highlights and recruiting rankings.

A highlite reel is just that - a player's highlites. I think it can be dangerous - not impossible, but tricky - to judge just based on film whose only purpose is to make a player look good.

I actually think they're useful for that purpose. A highlight reel of Larry Fitzgerald's 2008 season would be full of incredible plays and amazing catches. A highlight reel of Antwaan Randle El's 2008 season would be....uhh....short. Here's another basketball analogy:

If you put the average American man on a basketball court and told him to shoot around for a while and try some dunks, the results would be ugly. You could keep the camera running all day and you'd never see an impressive play. A lucky three pointer here and there? Sure, but he wouldn't magically sprout the ability to do 360 tomahawk dunks.

If you put the average NBA player on a basketball court and told him to shoot around for a while and try some dunks, it would be a completely different story. You'd probably see some pretty impressive stuff. You would notice a clear and obvious difference between the professional basketball player and Joe Schmoe.

Why? Because mediocre athletes are not capable of making elite plays. Randy Moss routinely makes plays that would be impossible for Michael Jenkins. Brian Westbrook routinely makes cuts that Kenny Watson isn't capable of. Kellen Winslow makes plays that Steve Heiden can only dream about.

Highlights offer a great indication of a player's athletic ability because they show the best plays he's capable of making. It's no coincidence then that Calvin Johnson's highlight reels are laden with unbelievable catches while Stevie Johnson doesn't even have any clips on YouTube. Calvin Johnson is an elite talent and Stevie Johnson is mediocre.

So while highlight reels don't always say much about consistency or intangibles, they can certainly be used a means to judge whether or not a player has impressive raw athletic ability.

Definitely a better point. At the same time, are you going to field a team that has Randy Moss, Brian Westbrook Kellen Winslow and Calvin Johnson every year? My answer would be probably not. Garrison Hearst would have been a big-time YouTube highlight player coming out of UGA, but not Terrell Davis. Same with Ricky Williams, but not Priest Holmes at Texas. Willie Parker anyone? How about Derrick Mason? He wasn't a sick college player with Randy Moss-like skills, but he sure has helped a fantasy owner (or a few hundred thousand of them) over the years with his skills that developed over time. Throw in Wes Welker, Bernard Berrian, Keenan McCardell, Ed McCaffery, and Rod Smith.

Steven Davis and Rudi Johnson weren't great prospects touted like a Cedric Benson or Ronnie Brown, but they sure had better careers to this point. If you watched them alone, you wouldn't be blown away, but if you watch them in the context of a good blocking scheme, you might think it's worth drafting one of them as a starter and letting his "un-elite" talent lead you to fantasy victories.

Tom Brady and Marc Bulger got few draft analysts excited in college and the most prominent one was Russ Lande who studies film.

Justin Tuck was a decent LB, but you wouldn't see him on YouTube showing off his studly pass rushing techniques at Notre Dame.

I think if you're playing in a league with smaller roster allotments, EBF's point is very well taken. But it never hurts to know about players with less than elite skills but potential to develop.

Not everyone is going to be Calvin Johnson and not everyone has to be. I'm not suggesting that every player who doesn't have once-per-decade skills should be avoided. However, to become a long term starter in the NFL generally takes exceptional ability. Of course, but I think your original argument focused solely on curve breakers at their position.A trainer I knew who worked for the Angels in the MLB said that Vlad Guerrero did things without ever working out or training that other quality pro baseball players couldn't do. Moss is like that as a player. The way I see it the margin for error with players becomes greater at each level. The 99% of players in high school don't become quality players in college. In college 99.9% of the players don't become quality pros. It seems like a small margin but it really isn't. Bernard Berrian was an impact player at Fresno State and was widely considered a potential top 10 pick before injuries derailed his career. I don't recall him being considered a top 10 pick, but I know he was highly regarded before the knee injury but no where near elite stud status like Moss. Still, he was virtually ignored in comparison after the injury. He's developed into a decent pro with productivity. Rudi Johnson was a stud in his only season at Auburn and Justin Tuck was a beast who set the Notre Dame school record for sacks. Good points thereI would argue that these guys prove my point more than they disprove it. I would argue you cherry picked those points and ignored Priest Holmes, Terrell Davis, Willie Parker, Derrick Mason, Wes Welker, Ed McCaffery and the others.They were head-and-shoulders above the college competition. When you watched them play, their talent was obvious. I would disagree. The reason I disagree is it may be obvious to some, but not to many others. There were large contingents of people who thought Fitz would be a bust, Westbrook was nothing but a small school back, etc.I watched Marion Barber absolutely kill Alabama in a bowl game.I saw him as a frosh look better than their junior. That junior promptly left early, was with the Ravens as a late pick and then was a free agent in Seattle before his career ended quietly. But as you see, we're talking about ways that guys shine that might not be so obvious to everyone. It's obvious to you. That's why you're EBF and people are asking you for your take and like your opinion. It's not obvious to everyone. By the end of that game all of the Tide players looked like they were ready to quit football entirely. If you watched the highlights from that game you wouldn't seen any long runs, but you would've seen special talent, just in a different form (sort of like how Shonn Greene stands out almost as much as LeSean McCoy even though he has a completely different skill set).

To me, highlights are a content-rich summary of an athlete's strengths and

Spoiler

weaknesses

Spoiler

. You'll see playing style, speed, coordination, body type, power, burst, and a lot of other useful things that will help you gain an understanding of the player.

See above in bold.Some good points. My quick response:- Every now and then there are going to be some players that you simply can't see coming. Willie Parker and Priest Holmes are good examples because they were backups in college and they didn't get drafted. Antonio Gates didn't even play college ball. Sometimes a guy will come out of nowhere. It seems to happen almost every year. Unless you have your pulse on every program in the country, you're going to miss out on most of these guys. The best you can hope to do is beat your leaguemates to the punch when these players start making noise in camp. Pay attention and make note whenever a guy like Pierre Thomas or Willie Parker makes a team's roster.

- I would probably put Welker in the "impossible to predict" camp because he's a smurfy slot WR who just happened to land in a system willing to give a smurfy slot receiver a boatload of targets. Perfect synergy of player and system. Hard to predict. On the Dolphins he was just a guy.

- I really can't talk about McCaffrey or Davis since I didn't watch them in college. I don't know if they stood out or not. I know that Derrick Mason is a very impressive player despite not having great measurables. I would compare him to someone like Santonio Holmes. Neither guy really jumps off the page from a speed or size perspective, but when you watch them play, you get it.

- I really do think highlights showcase weaknesses in addition to strengths. You certainly won't see highlights of a WR dropping a pass or a RB picking the wrong hole and getting clobbered behind the line of scrimmage. At the same time, you can see if a guy is slow in highlights. You can see if he doesn't have great quickness. You can see if he has a bad body. You can see if he doesn't have any power. Just because highlights are meant to show prospects at their best doesn't mean highlights make everyone look perfect. Oddly enough, a "good" play can sometimes show how underwhelming a prospect is. It goes back to my basketball analogy: a bad player's highlight film is going to be weak because he isn't capable of impressive plays. You can infer certain weaknesses from what you don't see him doing.

Highlights aren't comprehensive, but I do think they can offer a surprisingly good summary of a skill position player's game. I actually think my hit percentage might be a little bit better when I just watch highlights than when I watch a lot of the player's games. Whereas watching several games gives you an opportunity to "fall in love" with the player and overlook his weaknesses, highlights force you make a quick snap judgment: does he have the goods or not? I can't speak for anyone else, but my first impulse tends to be more accurate than when I sit down and try to weigh all the variables.

 

[Matt Waldman]

Absolutely agree that highlights can show you something good.

I just think there's often a limitation if you're trying to find some lesser known guys. The weaknesses you mention are physical prowess and not technical issues that can either demonstrate a lack of intuitive skill on the football field or techniques that can be coached up. I think you can look at a player like Jamaal Charles and see great highlights of his speed, agility, and vision on YouTube, but you don't see those potential liabilities that could slow his progress. You don't see him try to hit the home run every time when he has a 3-5 yard gain that will keep the offense in a good down and distance situation on the next play when he failed.

A lot of folks love LeSean McCoy, but I wouldn't be surprised if he's not that different than Charles as a runner. From what I've seen thus far, there are some similarities that aren't so good. Both have the physical skills and creativity to be great runners, but both lack the discipline at times to refine their skills so they limit their liability to an offense.

I personally enjoy the comprehensive stuff and that's why I do it. But I do it because I believe I can supply fantasy owners a chance to see through my eyes how I view a players potential before he "comes out of nowhere." That's my ultimate goal.

BTW - Santonio Holmes was one of my top rated receivers in that class and he absolutely dominated versus Notre Dame in the Feista Bowl and had really excellent moments versus some top notch Texas CBs. He stood out to me for his speed, blocking, after the catch skills, and hands. I'll of course miss on several players. I loved a WR out of Bowling Green who made the Jags roster for a bit before getting in trouble. I thought he had Terry Glenn like skills in many respects. Unfortunately he exceeded Glenn in the trouble department (Charles Sharon).

I have had a fair share of success and failure. My hope more than anything is to document things in a way that you can ignore my summary opinion and if you're really interested in judging for yourself, you can watch a game and look at my checklists to see if you see the same things or see something different. I like trying to give a frame of reference so you have more to work with in your own discovery of players.

Of course, I hope to be right as much as possible but most importantly I'm trying to learn and share what I'm learning.

I think we got some good stuff out of this thread.

1) Highlights can help you see strengths (we agree)

2) Highlights can help you see weaknesses (we agree somewhat but it varies how much...)

3) Some players are impossible to predict (we disagree)

Thanks for the debate...

 

[gheemony]

As a test, check out the Beanie Wells highlight reel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKYeleDrCaQ...re=channel_page

The dude looks awesome to me. Passing the EBF "elite" test and to my untrained eye, he seems to have good technique. So tell me why many see this guy as the #3 FF rookie RB?

 

[Jeff Tefertiller]

As a test, check out the Beanie Wells highlight reel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKYeleDrCaQ...re=channel_page

The dude looks awesome to me. Passing the EBF "elite" test and to my untrained eye, he seems to have good technique. So tell me why many see this guy as the #3 FF rookie RB?

Many question his durability and dedication to the game. The guys that succeed (regardless of talent level, imo) are ones that continue to improve and get better when they get to the NFL.

 

[EBF]

As a test, check out the Beanie Wells highlight reel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKYeleDrCaQ...re=channel_page

The dude looks awesome to me. Passing the EBF "elite" test and to my untrained eye, he seems to have good technique. So tell me why many see this guy as the #3 FF rookie RB?

Most people had him as RB1 in this class going into the season, but he slipped because of some durability/toughness concerns.

 

[Jeff Tefertiller]

This is a great topic. While I agree with EBF that some guys just pop off the screen in highlight videos, it is very difficult for me to get a well balanced viewpoint on predicting the success of the player. The videos do not show how the RBs get back to the LOS on a great run when a defender is in the backfield. They do not show the ability to pick up the blitz or even consistency in showing vision and hitting the right hole the way you would expect after watching a few runs on youtube. For the WRs, the videos do not show much of the route running, downfield blocking, or even coming back to the ball to help his QB out. Yes, guys like Fitzgerald and Peterson show well on the videos, so did Antonio Pittman and Adarius Bowman.

While the videos do allow talented guys to showcase their ability, I think it is still another step to use these to predict future success.

On the WRs, I did find a good article on what the teams are looking for in terms of WRs. It was on NFL.com, written by Steve Wyche. Using YAC, as the article projects to determine future success of WRs and TEs is hard to see unless you see a few games and the consistency of getting good YAC. Here it is copied below:

It can't be totally written off, but the odds are stacked pretty high against the Detroit Lions taking a wide receiver with the No. 1 overall pick this year. They've been a franchise that, until landing Georgia Tech's Calvin Johnson with the second overall pick two years ago, mastered the art of misjudging wide receivers and burning a draft pick the following year to make good.

Whether it was the system they ran or the lack of talent or character of the player(s), the Lions made a habit of falling in love with the wrapping paper but not shaking the box to see if anything was inside. They are hardly the only team that missed on a wide receiver, which might be the trickiest position for NFL teams to gauge when it comes to figuring out draft prospects.

"You watch offensive linemen, defensive linemen, defensive backs ... whole game," San Francisco general manager Scot McCloughan said. "You don' watch specific plays. We do it. Everybody does it (with wide receivers). You see the big catch. You see the big plays so they push up the (draft) board. Well, they're jumping, running, everything's great. The interview is great. We can't miss. We're not going to find one in free agency. We don't have one like him. That's why decisions haven't panned out. It's not just recently. It's over the history of the draft."

Gaudy collegiate production by a wide receiver could showcase his ability, but it also could be a product of a pass-happy system played against defenses that might not boast anything close to NFL-caliber talent or proper counter-scheming. Forty-yard dash times can mask a lack of toughness over the middle or cause an otherwise ideal playmaker to drop a round in the draft because he's supposedly a step slow.

If a team misses on a wide receiver it could set back the offense almost as much as missing on a quarterback. Detroit and Jacksonville are still trying to overcome bad decisions at the positions.

If a team nails a first-round standout (Larry Fitzgerald, Roddy White), it did its job. If a standout is discovered in later (Steve Smith -- third round, Marcus Colston -- seventh), the scouting department looks brilliant.

In 2008, the crop of wide receivers had so many question marks no player was drafted in the first round. Ten were drafted in the second round, though, with Houston's Donnie Avery going 33rd overall to St. Louis. Denver's Eddie Royal (42nd selection) and Philadelphia's DeSean Jackson (49), arguably had the biggest impacts of any rookie wide receivers.

This year's class of wide receivers is considered to be pretty strong, with Texas Tech's Michael Crabtree, Missouri's Jeremy Maclin, Florida's Percy Harvin and Maryland's Darrius Hayward-Bey leading the group. There is size (Heyward-Bey, Hakeem Nicks), speed (Harvin, Maclin) and production (Crabtree). As few as two and as many as five wide receivers could be chosen in the first round.

Crabtree, the most highly regarded wide receiver in the draft, could lose some of his luster because an injured ankle is keeping him from doing most of the drills at the combine and he came up almost 2 inches short of his listed height at Texas Tech. He will try to do everything for scouts at his Pro Day in three weeks.

Maclin's stock could rise should he perform as well as expected at the combine this weekend. Of the top-end receiving group, he has the most big-play ability as a receiver, ball carrier and return man. He also says he boasts a "Hines Ward toughness" that coaches will regularly see on tape.

"Returning kicks, with that game-breaker ability, I am an asset," Maclin said. "That is something I can bring to the table. I also was stuck in an offense too where I had to block outside linebackers. I'm used to blocking those 245-pound linebackers that were scraping, looking to knock your head off. I'm used to it. Blocking is about heart and the ability to fight. I can tussle with any guy who comes my way."

The trait teams universally seem to be looking for most isn't so much speed, size, or route running, but ball skills and yards after the catch. With quarterbacks having to get rid of the ball so quickly now, big plays are coming more on long runs after catches made on short and intermediate routes.

"Releasing off the line of scrimmage is a big part of the initial process of evaluating receivers," Tampa Bay general manager Mark Domenik said. "The second part is at the top of the routes, the ability to separate and how they do it. Is it because they've got great feet? Is it because they know how to use their hands and create separation with their strength and size.

"The big thing, though, is the run after the catch. Not just the big plays but can he break tackles and how many does he break after the first contact?"

The YAC also is huge when it comes to this year's crop of tight ends, because most of them are receiving types. Only Oklahoma State's Brandon Pettigrew is considered a combination blocking/receiving tight end, which is why his stock is so high; he could be a top-15 selection. Others, like Southern Mississippi's Shawn Nelson, Missouri's Chase Coffman and Rice's James Casey are tight ends pretty much in name only.

They were used more in slot sets and were not routinely required to play out of a stance, head-up on a defensive lineman. More NFL teams are flexing tight ends to create matchup issues, but they would rather have combination players because specialty tight ends tip off plays and packages that can be deciphered by defensive coordinators.

"There are some tight ends that have a chance to be good from athletic standpoint," McCloughan said. "Then there are some that have never lined up at the position. They're receivers running routes. You have to ask, is he a 230-pound receiver or do you bulk him up to 250 and make him a tight end?"

More than changing the player, new Kansas City coach Todd Haley said coaches might have to start changing how they scheme to fit the personnel. Sometimes drafting a special talent -- that might be a receiving tight end -- and crafting things around that player's skills is better than trying to make a player something he's not.

Of the teams at the top part of the draft, Seattle, which has the No. 4 pick, is in the greatest need of a wide receiver, but it could settle that issue in free agency if it goes that route at all. Oakland (No. 7) and Jacksonville (No. 8) also could use an upgrade at wide receiver but they may have more pressing needs.

The teams most in need of wide receiver help are at the tail end of the first round (Tennessee, Philadelphia, Miami and the New York Giants). Much of what the Giants do at the position could be predicated on the return of Plaxico Burress, who was suspended and lost for the end of the season because of a self-inflicted gunshot wound and must contend with gun-related legal issues as a result.

Coach Tom Coughlin said Friday the Giants have to have a backup plan at the position whether Burress is part of the plan or not. As far as tight ends, Buffalo, Atlanta and New England would like to add one to provide additional receiving options.

While the spread offense that is being used more and more in college has added to the guesswork of the evaluation of some positions, there seems to be fairly consistent opinions that it helps in pegging wide receivers.

"They're out in space and they are able to show their stuff," Domenik said. "It's easier to get them off the line of scrimmage because you can move them around but because they play in space, you can see the speed, flexibility and if they can break tackles."

The spread, the tape, the 40 … there are so many ways to go right and go wrong when figuring out receivers. To which Crabtree might have had the best answer, although he was talking about his Pro Day workout.

"There are questions to be answered so I'm going to answer them," he said.

 

[awesomeness]

As a test, check out the Beanie Wells highlight reel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKYeleDrCaQ...re=channel_page

The dude looks awesome to me. Passing the EBF "elite" test and to my untrained eye, he seems to have good technique. So tell me why many see this guy as the #3 FF rookie RB?

Many question his durability and dedication to the game. The guys that succeed (regardless of talent level, imo) are ones that continue to improve and get better when they get to the NFL.

i'd also add poor lateral agility. He's a predominantly a straight line runner, some RB's have had success as straight line runners but it's not a very long list imo. He also has long strides, which is not a good trait to have for a RB imo. Add that to the injury/toughness concerns and i think he has the potential to be a bust.

 

[Matt Waldman]

My third full game of evaluating Beanie is about to go down right now. I've watched him against Northwestern, Texas, and today I decided to choose his BCS effort against LSU over November's Illinois game.

 

[Balco]

Youtube is definitely a horrible idea when scouting defensive players. Overrated players like Rey Maluaga, James Laurinitis, and others can look like superstars in their highlights, but you can't see the other 99 % of the plays which are a better indicator of their skill. Same goes for offensive lineman.

As for running backs and quarterbacks? i think it can be helpful to an extent. Some highlights show there great vision, and instincts. But on the majority of them, you see a wide open hole and the player running for 80 yards untouched. Ot a qb throwing to an uncovered receiver.

I prefer to TIVO the games and watch them in their entirety. It is amazing what you can see with your own eyes without listening to the same manufactured comments from draft analysts (alot of them).

Here are my game breakdowns for the year. It took me a while to break down each game. I think next year I will try to focus more on specific prospects:

Alabama v. Clemson

Rutgers v. Fresno State

Florida v. Miami

Oklahoma v. Cincy

Wake Forest v. Navy

Fresno State v. Colorado State

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

As a test, check out the Beanie Wells highlight reel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKYeleDrCaQ...re=channel_page

The dude looks awesome to me. Passing the EBF "elite" test and to my untrained eye, he seems to have good technique. So tell me why many see this guy as the #3 FF rookie RB?

Many question his durability and dedication to the game. The guys that succeed (regardless of talent level, imo) are ones that continue to improve and get better when they get to the NFL.

i'd also add poor lateral agility. He's a predominantly a straight line runner, some RB's have had success as straight line runners but it's not a very long list imo. He also has long strides, which is not a good trait to have for a RB imo. Add that to the injury/toughness concerns and i think he has the potential to be a bust.

I've been one of those who questions Wells at the next level, but you couldn't be more wrong about him. His cutback ability and vision are very very good. I worry about him because I question his desire for the game, and his lack of ability in the passing game.

 

[Matt Waldman]

Here's a quick example of why an athletic play doesn't always give the true picture of a player. This is a good illustration of athleticism potentially masking a lack of skill in an area.

On 3rd and 10 with a little over 2:00 in the 3rd QTR in a game between Mizzou and Kansas, Jeremy Maclin makes a diving catch on a ball with his hands for a 9-yard gain.

If you watch a YouTube clip, they would often show the main shot of the play, Daniel dropping, rolling, and throwing a ball to Maclin. From this angle it appears Maclin made a very athletic play and Daniel lacked pinpoint accuracy.

The telecast showed another angle of the play. Maclin comes out of the slot with an LB playing zone at the hash. Maclin sets up his break by actually turning inside to the LB, placing is hands on the LB's shoulders to give a shove, and then rips himself away to the outside.

This play delays Maclin just enough that he has to dive for the ball. If Maclin simply sank his hips into the break and turned quickly to the outside, he catches the ball in stride and turns up the sideline for at least the extra yard and a first down. Instead, he has to dive for the ball and comes up short, forcing his team to punt while down by three points in this game.

Granted, WR is often tougher to see on both YouTube and a general telecast where by varying degrees the viewer lacks the advantage of coach's tape where you can see everything going on from the shot they use. At the same time, you don't always get to hone in on close ups with a specific player like the various angles a telecast will provide.

But I was watching Maclin tonight and just saw this play and remember the discussion we were having here. Maclin is still a fine prospect and a player I'd love to draft in a dynasty league, but what I saw from this play and a couple others was that like many athletic guys who play a lot in the slot in spread offenses at the college level, Maclin needs to refine his routes to get a true chance to become a primary receiver at the pro level. Otherwise, he will consistently be late to the spot on play calls or have to make risky adjustments to the ball that costs his offense as little as a yard, but as much as a drive that could have put his team ahead...

 

[TaxMan]

Here's a quick example of why an athletic play doesn't always give the true picture of a player. This is a good illustration of athleticism potentially masking a lack of skill in an area.

On 3rd and 10 with a little over 2:00 in the 3rd QTR in a game between Mizzou and Kansas, Jeremy Maclin makes a diving catch on a ball with his hands for a 9-yard gain.

If you watch a YouTube clip, they would often show the main shot of the play, Daniel dropping, rolling, and throwing a ball to Maclin. From this angle it appears Maclin made a very athletic play and Daniel lacked pinpoint accuracy.

The telecast showed another angle of the play. Maclin comes out of the slot with an LB playing zone at the hash. Maclin sets up his break by actually turning inside to the LB, placing is hands on the LB's shoulders to give a shove, and then rips himself away to the outside.

This play delays Maclin just enough that he has to dive for the ball. If Maclin simply sank his hips into the break and turned quickly to the outside, he catches the ball in stride and turns up the sideline for at least the extra yard and a first down. Instead, he has to dive for the ball and comes up short, forcing his team to punt while down by three points in this game.

Granted, WR is often tougher to see on both YouTube and a general telecast where by varying degrees the viewer lacks the advantage of coach's tape where you can see everything going on from the shot they use. At the same time, you don't always get to hone in on close ups with a specific player like the various angles a telecast will provide.

But I was watching Maclin tonight and just saw this play and remember the discussion we were having here. Maclin is still a fine prospect and a player I'd love to draft in a dynasty league, but what I saw from this play and a couple others was that like many athletic guys who play a lot in the slot in spread offenses at the college level, [b]Maclin needs to refine his routes to get a true chance to become a primary receiver at the pro level. Otherwise, he will consistently be late to the spot on play calls or have to make risky adjustments to the ball that costs his offense as little as a yard, but as much as a drive that could have put his team ahead...

Nice analysis Matt. But from what i highlighted, isn't that the most common weakness among all rookie WRs? needing to improve on route running to be really good in the PROS?

 

[Matt Waldman]

Here's a quick example of why an athletic play doesn't always give the true picture of a player. This is a good illustration of athleticism potentially masking a lack of skill in an area.

On 3rd and 10 with a little over 2:00 in the 3rd QTR in a game between Mizzou and Kansas, Jeremy Maclin makes a diving catch on a ball with his hands for a 9-yard gain.

If you watch a YouTube clip, they would often show the main shot of the play, Daniel dropping, rolling, and throwing a ball to Maclin. From this angle it appears Maclin made a very athletic play and Daniel lacked pinpoint accuracy.

The telecast showed another angle of the play. Maclin comes out of the slot with an LB playing zone at the hash. Maclin sets up his break by actually turning inside to the LB, placing is hands on the LB's shoulders to give a shove, and then rips himself away to the outside.

This play delays Maclin just enough that he has to dive for the ball. If Maclin simply sank his hips into the break and turned quickly to the outside, he catches the ball in stride and turns up the sideline for at least the extra yard and a first down. Instead, he has to dive for the ball and comes up short, forcing his team to punt while down by three points in this game.

Granted, WR is often tougher to see on both YouTube and a general telecast where by varying degrees the viewer lacks the advantage of coach's tape where you can see everything going on from the shot they use. At the same time, you don't always get to hone in on close ups with a specific player like the various angles a telecast will provide.

But I was watching Maclin tonight and just saw this play and remember the discussion we were having here. Maclin is still a fine prospect and a player I'd love to draft in a dynasty league, but what I saw from this play and a couple others was that like many athletic guys who play a lot in the slot in spread offenses at the college level, [b]Maclin needs to refine his routes to get a true chance to become a primary receiver at the pro level. Otherwise, he will consistently be late to the spot on play calls or have to make risky adjustments to the ball that costs his offense as little as a yard, but as much as a drive that could have put his team ahead...

Nice analysis Matt. But from what i highlighted, isn't that the most common weakness among all rookie WRs? needing to improve on route running to be really good in the PROS?

Absolutely and this is pretty obvious, but what was mentioned in the posts above was the fact that some players just jump out with their athleticism and the players mentioned were instant impact players like Moss, Boldin, etc. and not guys who needed some amount of time to adjust to the game before they became quality starters. Chris Chambers is a player I think Maclin shares some common strengths and weaknesses. Both are very athletic. Both have similar size (from what I recall off the top of my head), acceleration, and body control. They are the type of players who can make an incredible grab, but get lost in games because they are perimeter players with some limited route skills ( early in their careers). When I say perimeter player, don't count smash routes (inside screens) or crosses as something that shows his skill to catch the ball inside. These are plays set up to give a perimeter style athlete the chance to to do damage in the middle by creating space for him. Same with quick slants.

I think most reasonable fantasy enthusiasts don't count on any WR to make an instant impact, so this thread amounts to some serious hair-splitting when it comes to making an impact.

 

[JGleas]

I'm happy to see I'm not the only one blinded by Maclin's stats to realize he has work to do. I've been a critic on him but in the end, the things do add up nicely, but he is raw. He isn't like Ted Ginn. Ginn was short and would either catch dump-off routes and make people miss or he would just run deep past everyone. Home-run or nothing. Maclin has shown the hands, leaping ability, awareness, and concentration in traffic to be a fine Receiver at the next level. Routes are raw, he is a bit skinny, and has struggled with injuries though. I have him pegged as an early 2nd Rounder right now in terms of value (I'm a little more cautious in my assements. Just because there are 32 1st Round picks doesn't mean there are 32 1st Round prospects...) but he should be gone in the mid 1st.

 

[Matt Waldman]

I agree with you about Ginn. What concerned me about Ginn most was the fact he was not that frequent of a hands catcher on down field routes. When you're running the deep post with a safety trying to hit you as you go up for the ball, trapping the ball against your body is not the optimal way to control the pass when someone is about to turn you into a pinball. Ginn's a tough guy and a good all-around football player, but I thought it was early to nab him so high.

The same could be said for San Diego's Craig Davis, that's shocked me too. They guy had the same issues catching the football. Good athlete, not a natural pass catcher.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

As a test, check out the Beanie Wells highlight reel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKYeleDrCaQ...re=channel_page

The dude looks awesome to me. Passing the EBF "elite" test and to my untrained eye, he seems to have good technique. So tell me why many see this guy as the #3 FF rookie RB?

Many question his durability and dedication to the game. The guys that succeed (regardless of talent level, imo) are ones that continue to improve and get better when they get to the NFL.

i'd also add poor lateral agility. He's a predominantly a straight line runner, some RB's have had success as straight line runners but it's not a very long list imo. He also has long strides, which is not a good trait to have for a RB imo. Add that to the injury/toughness concerns and i think he has the potential to be a bust.

I've been one of those who questions Wells at the next level, but you couldn't be more wrong about him. His cutback ability and vision are very very good. I worry about him because I question his desire for the game, and his lack of ability in the passing game.

I agree, his lateral movement and cut back ability (for such a big back) is what impresses me most.