I like that you cap the runs. Thanks for checking him out BTW. What means do you use to input all the information? I'm guessing it's more than pen/paper and then transferred to a spreadsheet. [which would be my current route. lol] I'm guessing Oliver's yards after contact takes a hit against some of the bigger schools where his Oline simply can't hang like against Baylor, Ohio State, or Bowling Green's 7th ranked yardage D that allowed just 57 yards per game at 2.0 YPC the last 4 games.
It's OK. One of the things I've noted about Storm Johnson in the past is his uncanny ability to look GREAT for a few games and then to look like total dog sh-t for a few games. It's kind of scary.
Loving this prospects numbers. Could be a solid D-line anchor. A lot of weight. Stable disposition, never melts down.
What do people think of Charles Sims? I had brought him up at the beginning of the year because of his stats at Houston, but didn't follow WVU at all. Then I wrote him off early in the draft research as a pass catching RB first and foremost. But I'm taking a look and he's very shifty and like Seastrunk tends to break a lot of tackles for his size. Curious what people thought of him.
He and Marion Grice, very similar IMO. They're both good backs that also happen to probably be the most dangerous receiving threats amongst the tailbacks. Because of the passing game versatility I'm inclined to rate them higher than the swarm of guys I'd plan on shotgun spraying in the last round or UDFA...but not as high as Jeremy Hill.
Joel Bitonio OT Nevada Lots have been said about this guy after the combine because he tested very well at the combine. Here's a clip on youtube vs Anthony Barr ROLB #11 and Cassius Marsh RDE #99 (projected 5-6 round prospect) Bitonio plays LT #70 [video=youtube;6datZyyiCMA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6datZyyiCMA[/video] Bitonio's uses his athleticism well here and neutralizes Anthony Barr through most of the game. He plays with a nasty streak. He looks like a good prospect in the 2nd or 3rd round. He could probably play RT straight away but I'm not sure how he would go as a guard.
Man I love watching him on those run plays. He's aggressive as all hell and has GREAT hand/arm usage. There's a particular red zone play where he almost has his man in the end zone before the play is even over. Pass blocking...he's not bad. He does a good job on Barr, but I just think he lets the rush get to him a bit too much and he doesn't punch on those plays. It's not every play, but he sometimes rests his hand on the rushers chest and expects his strength to win out. Won't fly in the NFL against speed. On some other plays he completely gives up his base to try and reach for a defender which is also a potential issue. Definite RT material and I like his prospects as a guard because there's less room for guys to outmaneuver him. What I'm saying is he's, to me, an upgrade over John Jerry at RG definitely. He can get out in the run game and can hold in the passing game.
He'll be able to stay in the league because of his versatility, imo, maybe go 3rd-4th round. Seen lots of Matt Forte comparisons...but I think he's too stiff to be a workhorse, pretty upright, not a natural-looking runner between the tackles. I think his run/receive split and usage will be more akin to Danny Woodhead: 6-8 carries and 5 or so catches.
Does anyone see Donte Moncrief as like a Marques Colston? It seems to fit even though he's two inches shorter.
Here are some things I see similar: 1. They're both huge. Colston is 6'4.5" and 224 lbs, Moncrief is about 6'2.5" and 221 lbs. So Moncrief is about 2 inches shorted, but with kind of a high shouldered look. 2. They're both explosive and fast as sh-t for the size. Colston a 37" vertical, 10'3" broad jump and 4.50 speed at his size, Moncrief 39.5" vertical and 11'0" broad jump, 4.40 speed at his size. 3. You would not accuse either guy of being shifty. It shows on the field and it shows up in measurements. Moncrief ran a 4.30 shuttle and 7.02 cone, Colston a 4.44 shuttle and 6.96 cone. 4. Fittingly you've seen Marques Colston in his entire career of 607 catches, catch less than a dozen screen passes. PFF has a total of 6 of them going all the way back thru 11 games of 2007 (they don't have every game of 2007 done, and didn't do 2006). Look on the tape and I don't think you want Moncrief executing a lot of screens either. 5. Colston is no longer a high YAC guy. He's only a little above 3 yards on average, every year. But early in his career he used to do more damage that way specifically because of his size and tackle breaking ability. From 2007 (partial year) to 2009 he had a nice high "elusiveness rating" and it wasn't because he was a great shimmy guy but because he was a good yards after contact guy. You look at Moncrief's tape and he's very similar that way. 6. What you've seen Marques Colston become in his career is a guy that works the middle of the field. Every year between 55% and 65% of his targets come between the numbers. Every year he spends 55-65% of his pass snaps in the slot. It would be higher but he's an every down starter so he ends up having to be on the outside a lot. This is the vision I kind of have going for Moncrief. Get into the slot and run the out routes, challenge the seam with his size and athletic ability, come down with some deep balls, etc. From 2007 (partial year) thru 2011 he produced about 17 yards per attempt on balls 20+ yards down field. He's dropped off a bit the last two seasons but he's getting up there in age. I don't have Greg's stats on me but I believe that's the kind of player Moncrief has been in college. I just think he could be that kind of player in the NFL particularly if working the middle.
With all the talk of RBs in this thread, figured I'd post this here. I go into specifics on all the RBs I rated in the text. Posting from my phone http://cornerblitz.com/2014/Rankings/Post-Combine/RB.aspx
It's a fair comparison. Ultimately I'd like to see Moncrief do a better job of not letting throws get in on him so often, if he in fact does possess that ability. I know it's a small sample size but I'd like to go back to the combine and see how natural or lack thereof he looked catching in the drills. For comparison, I thought Allen Robinson kinda highlighted the concern I had about his "catch-radius comfort zone". Much of what I noticed from Moncrief is that he seems more comfortable catching with his gut, and when it's not there, it resulted in a higher chance of iffy catches or inexcusable drops like the below one at 1:23 [even though it's a smidge behind him, but it's still relevant when putting together the entire picture] -then the completion on the following play where it's not the most confident of catches. Looks like he's following it in like his life depends on it rather than snatching it like it ain't no thang. -3:06 on a critical 3rd down with Ole Miss having a 1 point lead in the 3rd quarter. Then you look at the catch at 4:01 and it reminds me of Allen Robinson where he's gotta position his body to ensure the ball hits him in his comfort zone close to his gut rather than catching it out front amidst transitioning from WR to RB. I know this one catch example seems subtle, but this is one of many examples and it tells enough of a story b/c of the way Moncrief feels the need to make a little hiccup jump to position the ball closer to his body rather than catching it out front with his hands like he should be doing, especially when he needs to get the ball and get upfield as quickly as possible in this instance. Little room for wasted movements at the next level. Some people seem like natural body catchers but can also pluck when needed; others, like Moncrief & Robinson, seem to me like they're body catchers because that's that's as far as their comfort zone extends, as they seem to have little confidence in their hand-eye coordination ability to reach and grab. [video=youtube;qNmiRu3Kcf0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNmiRu3Kcf0[/video] Speaking generally: Personally, if I were tracking receivers, I'd make it a point of emphasis to note the throws that are away from the receivers gut/body and how many of those are either dropped, not cleanly caught, or are positioned by the receiver to ensure they do get into his body. Anyone can catch with their body, especially in college, but that doesn't fly in the NFL under tighter coverage where defenders can easily disrupt passes that they're able to reach around and get a hand/finger on it, plus that extra fraction of a second the body catch allows the DB to break up the throw. So, if we've got a receiver with 80 catches, 1200 yards, and 10 TDs, but 72 of the catches are body catches or where the receiver has to position his body to catch it, then I'm gonna take his stats with a grain of salt and instead investigate why he only has 8 receptions on throws that he catches with his hands, and then compare those 8 receptions to the other times where he didn't catch the ball away from him. If I end up with a ratio of 8 catches away from the body to 16 drops, weak catches, or posturing of the body to get the ball in on him, then I'm gonna throw up a red flag about it. As a disclaimer, obviously I don't think Moncrief has zero hand-eye coordination and will drop or botch every pass way from his body or that he has to pluck or reach for. I just think neither he nor Robinson have done it consistently enough or often enough to suggest reliability in doing so at the next level. It's not a slight against Moncrief but I think he perhaps chose the wrong position and should've been a corner instead.
I actually did this with the first 5 or so receivers I charted this year. I had two different categories, whether a pass was on target or off target but still caught. Then I kept a separate category determining whether the ball was caught straight on with hands, body caught, low, high, outside, inside. First off, it was a royal pain in the *** to keep track of. Second off, when I ran it through a number of scenarios - RAC, YPA, YPC, route type it didn't seem to have a discernible effect or correlation on any of the categories. So I stopped keeping track of it. Maybe it would be interesting as it's own category, ie. drop %. But I didn't see enough value to warrant the extra effort it required.
kudos on at least trying. Do you think we could do it to such an extent that we're at least looking to gather a net positive, negative, or neutral assessment of that specific receiver rather than coming up with raw data as a means of comparing guys across the board? I say that b/c this specific category serves as an important application in and of itself IMO b/c the receiver isn't doing anything to help passing efficiency if his own catching efficiency is limited even to a modest degree. For instance, if we imagine an NFL DB on Moncrief's hip, which could occur more often at the next level considering his slower lateral speed/agility as Chris pointed out, how many of his receptions would've been broken up while waiting for the throw to get in on him? Can we just simply narrow it down to total number of throws away from the body, how many of those are caught, dropped, not caught cleanly, or need to position themselves to get it into their body rather than using the hands? Obviously you'd remove passes broken up or passes that clearly are at too high a level of difficulty to catch. Although, you could create a sub category to track how many of the tough balls on routine routes were caught, excluding jump balls b/c those are separate unto themselves. I think we could go as far as noting how many throws are broken up b/c the receiver lets the pass get in on him and then somehow integrate that in with the passes that are dropped, not caught cleanly, or needed re-positioning since they're all a negative within the same category.
One thing I have always wished for but keep forgetting is yards after CONTACT for receivers...not just yards after catch. Not that I'm trying to dish off more work or anything. It would just make sense to me to keep that stat for every ball carrying position.
Yeah it's not a hard thing to do, I already did it with the TEs this year. That'll obviously be a next year project since I'm all but finished with the WRs this year, but I've been thinking about it recently since you've been talking about elusiveness ratings for WRs. Every year I try to add new categories and delete ones I feel are useless (and in turn make it a longer process to chart each player), so I'll definitely be adding a few for WRs this year. They're fairly easy to chart since the number of total targets is way less than snaps for other positions (WR = ~100, Others avg ~300)
Yeah I would love to sub in yards after contact for yards after catch in the elusive rating. As far as the WR metrics go I think I did settle on the metrics that mean a lot to me. Yards per attempt, yards per pass snap, catches per drop, elusive rating...maybe toss in screen YAC.
And for those who want to dive more into Donald, this is a pretty thorough piece on him: "Master of Technique". Also gets into how versatile he was at Pitt, playing DE as well. http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2014/3/4/5456006/the-notebook-aaron-donald-master-of-technique
Here's my entire breakdown of the first group of running backs over at Roto. Sankey, Hill, Hyde, Seastrunk and Mason: http://www.rotoworld.com/articles/cfb/46396/349/peshek-rb-metrics-10
Couple of prospects I'm out on in the first three/four rounds..Bitonio and James hurst.. Bitonio is what I call loose in his mechanics..sloppy player..Spaz as well. Hurst to me looks like a backup at the next level.
Yes but the talent is there. He's the kind of guy which a OL coach would love to get their hands on and work on those mechanics/technique. If you work on his leverage, his punch, his strength, and a little more on his footwork and anchoring I think he can be a starting OL. His technique is a little messy but it's almost there and it's not like a big project. It needs some cleaning up.
There are lots of mixed results. One back is better at one thing but not as good as the others on other things. Hyde is the best at yards after contact and runs outside of tackles while Hill is the best between the tackles and at facing stacked boxes. Mason is the best at converting 3rd downs. What is your conclusion based on the results? Which would make the better back in your opinion? Based solely on the numbers Hyde looks the better out of the five. Yards after contact is quite key of me and although not the best in all categories he is up there in facing stacked boxes and yards between tackles. Quality of the defenses faced would need to be considered though.
Well everyone weights the categories differently so that'll affect your evaluations. I don't necessarily see them as checkboxes, IE. X player is good at 3/5 categories which is better than Y player who is good at 2/5 categories. I know when I watch Mason he does have great balance and solid ability to drive through contact. So I see his extra yardage number which is solid (but was MUCH better last year) and good job in short yardage situations and that makes me feel comfortable that he's not just going to get beat up in the NFL. Hyde's yards after contact are certainly exceptional, no one even comes close to what he did. However, I get a bit worried when I see the huge jumps in YPC between 'box differentials'. As much as I root for the B1G (Northwestern grad), the defenses weren't exceptional and the OSU offense did pretty much whatever they liked. The expected increase in YPC with one less defender than blocker (-1 to 0 to +1) is around .74 yards. Hyde's jumps nearly 3 yards between them. I'm a little worried between that metric and the average showing in short yardage that he was a product of the system and a one year wonder. If I had more time I'd look at OSU's other backs to compare and contrast. It's more about looking at the stats and seeing how they relate to what you see on tape. How you choose to interpret them and relate them to game play is your own choice.
Nolan Carroll entering free agency and the health conditions of Patterson and Taylor are lingering in the back of my head. I suppose its time to start looking at these corners.
damnit. brandon thomas (og, clemson) has shot up alot of people's boards. some now have him going in the 2nd round. i had us taking him in the 3rd when everyone initially pegged him as a 5th round prospect. damnit, man. those 35 reps have people taking notice now. another hidden gem at offensive line is tyler larsen (c/og, utah st.). 6'4, 313, 36 reps, 5.17 dash, 4.7 shuttle, 49 pancakes in 2013, 65 pancakes in 2012. 51 straight starts. most have him projected as a 5th rounder, i'd take him in the 3rd.
One thing that must really be kept in mind is that the style of offense will affect the statistical splits being discussed. How a defense plays against what is essentially a triple option offense in Auburn is not going to be the same as how a defense plays against Washington or especially Baylor. In the same vein, the 3rd & Short success is going to be heavily influenced by the run scheme as well. A team like Auburn, whose rushing attack will more closely resemble things that a Chip Kelly would run, will tend to have high success in those 3rd down situations. If you look at Chip Kelly's offense in Philly, the success they enjoyed on run plays on not only 3rd & 1 but 3rd & 2, 3rd & 3, even 3rd & 4 or 5...is ridiculous. To me it's less about the man doing the running (even though I have much respect for LeSean McCoy) and more about the extremely well executed and coached option and spacing principles. I think Tre Mason may have had a bit of an unfair advantage in a similar way. On the other hand going back to some of the other stuff, I think he may have had an unfair disadvantage compared to some other guys in other ways because of the unique manner in which the Auburn offense operated. Some of the more idiosyncratic appearing anomalies in the splits could easily be attributable to the differences in the offense. Overall this is why I'm not sure how much I believe we can read into YPC split breakdowns such as this. Another thing to consider is that we should, logically speaking, probably only buy into the YPC split comparisons to the same degree that we buy into the overall YPC comparisons. And I think if you go back in time you'd find very little correlation between YPC and success of the draft prospect. Go back to any random year like 2008 and you'd find that the top 20 running backs in terms of YPC was filled mostly with guys who didn't succeed in the pros. The MOST successful ones have been LeGarrette Blount, Jahvid Best, Kendall Hunter and Evan Royster...and success has been fleeting and inconsistent for those guys. Incidentally Marcus Thigpen was one of those top 20, lol. Small world. I tend to prefer looking at stuff like broken tackles and yards after contact, etc. Those are things that speak a little bit more to the runner's individual prowess. Those are the splits that I can bear to make something more than the most basic of statistical arguments about with respect to this position. When I've talked in the past about having Tre Mason shaded slightly over Lache Seastrunk due to the "box" considerations, it's less about the YPC numbers in the splits and more about the simple fact that Mason faced a fully loaded run defense a whole heck of a lot, whereas it's pretty clear that Lache Seastrunk faced nickel defenses a bunch of time. You can visually confirm this pretty easily.
I don't disagree with the majority of what you said. I could take or leave the third and short/ goal to go situations, it was a bit of a throwaway into the article and I think you can tell by how much effort I put into the writeups in that section. I think YPC can be interesting in that correct context. It's obviously not a predictor, but if you surround it with enough factors then I think it can do the right job. Outside/Inside YPC I find interesting just to confirm what I see on tape. For instance, I think Jeremy Hill tends to hesitate on outside runs which causes his overall effectiveness to decrease. However, outside of the article I break that down into run by hole on the offensive line, ORT, RT, ORG, RG etc. You can then break it down a bit further in the event that a particular side of the line or lineman is causing a ridiculously high YPC. It's not great, but it's a way of breaking down one small part. I'm also interested in YPC within the context of defender differential because in the sample size I have, the numbers seem to suggest that there is at least a decent correlation between defender differential and an increase in YPC of .74 per increase in differential. I don't really care about the overall YPC, but rather the delta. For the most part, the majority of the players tend to follow that trend and I don't really worry about it too much. It's when I see drastic increases that wouldn't be expected is where I start to think about it. Really I'm looking for the outliers. Of course I also keep track of how often they face certain defensive fronts and that plays into it as well. Offensive systems can surely affect this, especially read-option which will neutralize some of the defenders. That's something I need to think on for the future. The thing you have to do with YPC is to look where first contact was made a lot of the time. It certainly can give you a better feel for how much the offensive line was affecting the rushing play. Football Outsiders doesn't deal with metrics like that, but I know they consider the first X I don't know what the real number is) yards of a run a factor of the offensive line, and the rest on the RB. This should usually be added to discussions about outside/inside and other YPC factors. Realistically I weight YaC and broken tackles and thus my elusive score much higher than the other factors, but I'd be remiss not to look at other factors. I wrote 1500 words in the RB piece and probably could have written another 1500 putting everything into hyper-specific context. Unfortunately, I don't use half the stats I have due to problems with length. Mostly I'm still refining the RB stats into a presentable way. You know, I've been honing my QB stuff since the Luck/RGIII/Tannehill draft where I first posted on FH (and was told by a very grumpy draft poster that there was no place for stats in QB evals), this is my first year charting and writing about running backs. It's a process.
I understand. I'm just trying to explain what I've found valuable over the years. How a running back handles contact, creating missed or broken tackles and gaining more yards...to me is an important factor in examining a back. And I would expect that ability to be reflected in the numbers pretty cleanly. It's one of the few statistical backbones I would use in what is mostly an artistic task (predicting a successful NFL back). I see a little too much noise-to-signal in some of the other statistical stuff with backs. I actually WOULD ideally like that 3rd & Short data, along with goal line data. In the NFL I find it more valuable because the NFL tends to be so damned uniform in its schemes. The goal line and tight red (inside the 10 yard line) data in particular has been a key for me over the years. With that stuff you're looking at touchdowns as a percentage of runs inside the 10 yard line, and also success percentages (which involves percentages of the distance to goal the back is able to gain). From there probably the only other one that means something to me would be 0 or -1 yard gains. Specifically those. There's a bit of an assumption, good or not I'll leave to you, that if the back loses -2 yards or more then somehow the scheme matchup or blocking failed him and allowed him to get hit in the backfield. But if a guy is gaining 0 or -1 yards then usually that is a little more reflective of that back just not finding the crease and/or not creating enough yards after contact to make the run anything but a failure. You'd like to be able to statistically recognize (as a positive) when the player gets contacted deep in the backfield or otherwise creates a missed/broken tackle in the backfield and is able to create 0 or -1 yard gain out of such a negative situation...but it's hard to set up the methodology for how you could consistently and easily (and speedily) account for that. Perhaps the yards after contact that would be created on such plays would naturally make up for it, countering the negative that derives from a back's having been stopped for a 0 or -1 yard gain. Although now that I think about it a player SHOULD be penalized for a -2 or more yard loss that happens outside of the tackle box.
