Box_O_Rocks

Undersized NFL Players Even the Playing Field - WSJ.comD-Giv was undersized? I think he is confusing him with Meion.

__________________
"Avert thine eyes! You're not hot enough to be looking at me."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

BradyManny

Agreed. Givens was not undersized. In fact, I remember one of the local stations (WCVB) doing a little piece on him back in the day and his mom talking about what a great body he has. It was mildly awkward/humorous. Thus I remember it well.

patchick

Terrible article. Absolutely terrible.

"But there's a growing body of evidence that suggests these misfits deserve a look."

Umm...ok, give me that evidence. Show me any research, any stats, anything at all that suggests that teams are over-relying on measurables to their own detriment. Show me how measurables don't correlate with success, or how some other performance measure is more predictive. Show me SOMETHING to contradict the reviews which have shown that raw measurables are, indeed, the best predictor of NFL success. Finding 2 or 3 examples of players who bucked the odds tells me nothing whatsoever; I'll happily come back with a dozen players who were big college stars but lacked the size/athleticism to make it as pros.

As for using the number of UDFAs who succeed as a sign that we should be looking past size and speed...who says UDFAs are necessarily lacking in those departments? Anybody taken a gander at Gary Guyton or Vince Redd lately?

Bleah.

Snake Eyes

"Show me any research, any stats, anything at all that suggests that teams are over-relying on measurables to their own detriment"

The NFL's system is far from perfect, undrafted guys like Welker, Antonio Gates, and Tony Romo have been successful while the number of first round busts is as long as my arm. Emmitt Smith and Jerry Rice had mediocre 40 times but it didnt seem to get in their way.

Measurables are important but the NFL is likely looking at the wrong ones.

__________________
"The secret of steel has always carried with it a mystery, you must learn it's riddle, Conan, you must learn its discipline, for no one in this world can you trust, not men, not women, not beasts...this you can trust"


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

patchick

Umm...so Antonio Gates should have been drafted higher based on his game film? Gates is actually a great argument for drafting the body first, skills second. And Romo went undrafted because he played in I-AA and showed no downfield accuracy, not because of his measurables.

Or take Julian Edelman. He's looking like he should have been drafted higher, right? But the only way he was drafted at all was because he's a measurables freak! Based on on-field performance, which the article was arguing for, he was just another long-shot option QB looking for a position. Score another on the side of the stopwatch.

I do agree, though, that the wrong numbers are often stressed. E.g. Welker, who in fact WAS an elite physical specimen in the quickness numbers that matter most for a slot receiver.

Realistically, there are plenty of examples in both directions. But it drives me crazy when an article says "evidence is mounting" and proceeds to offer no evidence whatsoever.

Box_O_Rocks

__________________
"Avert thine eyes! You're not hot enough to be looking at me."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Synovia

Look at Dave Lewin's quarterback projection system. Its one position that teams regularly overdraft players based on physical measurables.

patchick

Agreed, QB is the massive exception to the measurables rule. But I'd argue that projecting QBs is still largely a mystery. Remember, Lewin's original article was focusing on the Cutler/Young/Leinart draft, and he concluded that all three would be above-average NFL starters...with Leinart clearly the best of the bunch.

Synovia

Are we really sure hes wrong on that though? Leinart really hasn't turned out yet, but hes stuck behind Kurt Warner, who has been pretty good the last couple of years.

The difference between Leinart and Eli Manning (who is a decent pro, not great), is that despite being outplayed by Warner, the giants let Eli play. Now, everyone thought Aaron Rodgers was a bust 2 years ago, but he looks pretty good now. I don't think Leinart can really be evaluated until either the Cardinals cut him, or he gets regular time as the starter.


He did nail Rivers, Cutler, Ryan, Roethlisburger. Said Russel was going to be a big bust. Said Eli was going to be a decent but not great pro.

It looks like he may have missed on Flacco, but we'll see. I happen to think Flacco will have a lot of 2nd year issues. He certainly missed on Young, but his projection was essentially 'decent pro if hes used correctly'. I'm not sure hes being used correctly, and its not really his talent, or lack thereof thats keeping him off the field right now.


His system seems to work GREAT though at predicting the Jamarcus Russel/Ryan Leiftian busts.

fester

Now the relevant question is the following: If this is all that the Lewin system is truly good for with high confidence of sorting the world of draftable QBs into Leaf/Not Leaf categories, is that valuable enough to run and trust as there still is a massive cost in drafting a Boller (vaguely competent NFL QB on a good day) or Alex Smith but they are not the bust that defines bust. Or is the rarity of a mega-bust on the scale of Russell/Leaf (2 per decade) devalues the sorting function?

__________________
Come on over to the Newshoggers for blogging on economics, football, policy analysis,and beer:


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.