"Trajectory Trumps Tape"

A new "Gridism", unveiled in his scouting report on Vic Beasley (about the 7th guy so far to get a top 3 grade, along with TJ Clemmings, Todd Gurley, Melvin Gordon, Marcus Mariota, Leonard Williams and Randy Gregory; Shane Ray gets a top 5 grade; Cam Erving, DeVante Parker, Kevin White, and Amari Cooper all get top 10 grades):

In my Perspective, Trajectory Trumps Tape.

And Trajectory is fueled by Tape, absolutely, but also by how a Prospect evolved over the course of the Years on that Tape, mentally every bit as much as athletically, and by what his Combine or Pro Day Numbers reveal, and by what the composite of all these things and what you can learn about'm tell you and me about his Drive.

Click to expand...

http://www.fanaticalyankee.com (again, the direct link to the Beasley Scouting report doesn't come up when you click on it)

An interesting perspective, that I thought merited its own discussion.

Thoughts?

I'm looking forward to seeing Grid's CB grades. Marcus Peters has the best tape of any of them, IMO; but I can understand a perspective that considers Jalen Collins and Byron Jones to have a higher trajectory.

I agree with Grid. I think there's too much emphasis on just tape analysis and that factors like age, scheme, athleticism, size are as important in assessing how a player projects to the NFL. The adage "he'll be a better pro than a college football player" can be true. Just look at the mixed fortunes of Ziggy Ansah and Jarvis Jones.

manxman2601 said:

I agree with Grid. I think there's too much emphasis on just tape analysis and that factors like age, scheme, athleticism, size are as important in assessing how a player projects to the NFL. The adage "he'll be a better pro than a college football player" can be true. Just look at the mixed fortunes of Ziggy Ansah and Jarvis Jones.

Click to expand...

"Trajectory" is a hard thing to estimate. I think there are clear cases like Ansah where past tape has relatively little value in calculating trajectory. It was pretty clear that he was developing at a rapid pace, and there were good reasons why it took a while for the light to turn on. I think it was also not surprising that Jarvis Jones' complete lack of athleticism and injury history would limit him at the next level.

Most cases are a bit more fuzzy. Sorting out scheme, coaching, work ethic and other factors is difficult - probably why the draft has such a high failure rate. That's why Jamie Collins slipped to #52. The problem I have is that for every success story, there's a failure story of someone with ridiculous athleticism whose trajectory never materialized, or took a lot longer than expected:

- Connor Barwin, board uber binky. Converted TE with one very productive year at DE when he came out in 2009, with astonishing athleticism. Was kind of the trajectory index case. Has had 2 very good seasons out of 6 (one lost to injury). Otherwise a solid but not spectacular starter.

- Dontay Moch in 2011. Tremendous speed, explosiveness, and movement skills. Good but not great tape. Has done nothing in 4 seasons. Meanwhile a guy like LaVonte David with average athleticism and great tape is an All Pro. Moch want 66 overall in 2011, David 58 overall in 2012.

- Stephen Hill in 2012. Great measurables and athleticism, came out of a Triple Option system which didn't allow him to excel, and which had produced stellar talents in the past. Grid rated him way ahead of Alshon Jeffery based on his "trajectory", but it hasn't materialized. Jeffery has been a stud.

I have no idea whether Byron Jones is someone who will build on solid tape along with his athletic talents and end up as an elite CB, or just be a decent/solid player. Maybe I'm just missing something.

I think the basic idea of "trajectory over tape" isn't so so easy to apply.

Tape sets a floor. Trajectory + athleticism projects a ceiling. The shorter the span of the trajectory the higher the risk and the longer the trajectory the lower the risk. Of course what none of this takes into affect is desire. Tom Brady had decent tape that showed a lot of heart and desire. His trajectory wasn't great and neither was his athleticism. This isn't chess where there's a formula to winning. It's poker where you acquire data and make the best decision based on what you know. The unknown makes it an imperfect science. So I'd say trajectory matters but not more than tape.

I imagine Bill has a risk/reward equation and rolls the dice in the second based on trajectory based on history but only takes the sure things in the first based upon the tape not the trajectory.

I think this is why guys like Hardison Smelter and Marpet are of such high desire here. The tape is limited, but the trajectory is almost limitless.

I would even venture a guess that it isnt as simple as saying tape isnt as valuable as trajectory. I would imagine that teams somewhat hedge their bets over a full draft, by taking safer, more proven players, and mixing in a few guys they think will have a chance to really maximize their value. Its great to have high expectations for every player you draft, but you also have to make sure you walk out of a draft with at least a backup or two.

The draft is a fickle and fun thing, without solid answers, but better guesses each year we go.

mayoclinic said:

The problem I have is that for every success story, there's a failure story of someone with ridiculous athleticism whose trajectory never materialized, or took a lot longer than expected

Click to expand...

Absolutely. Of course, there are also success stories like Clay Matthews, who did little to distinguish himself on the field for most of college but blew up the Combine. And even one of your examples of a high-trajectory dud -- Connor Barwin, the "solid but not spectacular starter" -- was a heck of a lot more successful than guys drafted above him like Larry English and Everette Brown who had great tape but lousy measurables.

The biggest problem from a draftnik perspective is that it's hard for us to get any real insight on whether prospects have the mental makeup to build on their potential. Barwin, for instance, is now referred to as the NFL's "renaissance man" for his wide-ranging interests. That would make him a great dinner guest, but I might opt for a more narrow-minded football-obsessed competitor to take aim at opposing QBs.

In the end, most of the top players (at the most athletically demanding positions, at least) have the full package going for them. And since measurables are, well, measurable, they give us fans meaningful info to focus on.

FWIW, I did a filter of this year's EDGE players based on the elite measurables cutoff I defined a few years back. I can post it if anybody's interested.

patchick said:

The biggest problem from a draftnik perspective is that it's hard for us to get any real insight on whether prospects have the mental makeup to build on their potential. Barwin, for instance, is now referred to as the NFL's "renaissance man" for his wide-ranging interests. That would make him a great dinner guest, but I might opt for a more narrow-minded football-obsessed competitor to take aim at opposing QBs.
.

Click to expand...

I've wondered if this is why BB didn't seem interested in John Urschel - is he too interested in the Maths stuff? There's no way to tell but it always struck me as strange.

please do Patchick! I am always interested in a more statistical breakdown of what my eyes are showing me/lying to me.

I.M. Fletcher said:

please do Patchick! I am always interested in a more statistical breakdown of what my eyes are showing me/lying to me.

Click to expand...

OK, coming up!

patchick said:

Absolutely. Of course, there are also success stories like Clay Matthews, who did little to distinguish himself on the field for most of college but blew up the Combine. And even one of your examples of a high-trajectory dud -- Connor Barwin, the "solid but not spectacular starter" -- was a heck of a lot more successful than guys drafted above him like Larry English and Everette Brown who had great tape but lousy measurables.

Click to expand...

I don't consider Barwin a "dud" by any means. But he's been inconsistent, and his trajectory hasn't matched what his athleticism, intelligence, drive and work ethic would have made me presume. 2 very excellent years show that he's capable of it in flashes, but he hasn't put it together consistently yet. It's a hard thing to do - another reason why we should be patient with guys like Collins and Easley, who are clearly putting in the work.

Everlong suggests that "trajectory" corresponds to "ceiling". But the real "ceiling" may be quite different. Nothing about Brady suggested the actual trajectory that he ended up taking in the pros. Anyone who would have said that his trajectory was a top 3-5 GOAT QB would have been laughed out of the draft.

patchick said:

The biggest problem from a draftnik perspective is that it's hard for us to get any real insight on whether prospects have the mental makeup to build on their potential. Barwin, for instance, is now referred to as the NFL's "renaissance man" for his wide-ranging interests. That would make him a great dinner guest, but I might opt for a more narrow-minded football-obsessed competitor to take aim at opposing QBs.

Click to expand...

We've learned that experience matters a lot, and guys with elite athleticism, intelligence and work ethic generally still take a long time - if ever - to develop proficient skills on the field. Nate Ebner has shown some flashes, but is still learning to be more than a STer. Lawrence Okoye hasn't gotten on the field yet. Dale Moss hasn't done anything. It takes more than athleticism and drive.

patchick said:

In the end, most of the top players (at the most athletically demanding positions, at least) have the full package going for them. And since measurables are, well, measurable, they give us fans meaningful info to focus on.

Click to expand...

I think measurables are generally more effective as a negative screen than a positive one. A guy like Jarvis Jones has a huge red flag because of his measurables (and spinal stenosis issue). But there are a ton of guus with Gronkish measurables, and only one Gronk.

patchick said:

FWIW, I did a filter of this year's EDGE players based on the elite measurables cutoff I defined a few years back. I can post it if anybody's interested.

Click to expand...

It would be interesting to plug that in to mockdraftables and see what it comes up with in terms of comparisons. But it's so hard to figure out, even as a negative screen. We've seen tons of guys with elite 3C times who haven't panned out, but does Shane Ray's 7.7 3C time make him a JAG?

mayoclinic said:

Everlong suggests that "trajectory" corresponds to "ceiling". But the real "ceiling" may be quite different. Nothing about Brady suggested the actual trajectory that he ended up taking in the pros. Anyone who would have said that his trajectory was a top 3-5 GOAT QB would have been laughed out of the draft.

Click to expand...

I said that in a mathematical sense and then quantified it with the unknown data such as desire, heart and work ethic being unmeasurable and thus there is no perfect formula. I do think quarterback would be a bit of the anomaly. Guys like Cutler and George have more measurables than a Brady or Montana but they don't have the brain, calm, quick analytics under pressure that those two do. At other positions in some systems you can take a guy who isn't smart and just let him go be an athlete. Ocho Cinco in Cincinnati's basic number tree comes to mind. Chad go run a 9 route, done. Chad if the corner is using inside technique and the defense is showing cover 2 run a 5 yard slant but if it's man run a 12 yard come back and if it's.......What? Speak English man.

mayoclinic said:

A new "Gridism", unveiled in his scouting report on Vic Beasley (about the 7th guy so far to get a top 3 grade, along with TJ Clemmings, Todd Gurley, Melvin Gordon, Marcus Mariota, Leonard Williams and Randy Gregory; Shane Ray gets a top 5 grade; Cam Erving, DeVante Parker, Kevin White, and Amari Cooper all get top 10 grades):


http://www.fanaticalyankee.com (again, the direct link to the Beasley Scouting report doesn't come up when you click on it)

An interesting perspective, that I thought merited its own discussion.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Honored, Sir, to've been thus Referenced. A few Bits:

01 ~ Yes. As I've always said: If I believe that 10 guys warrant Top 3 Rank, then 10 guys get Top 3 Rank.

02 ~ My Goal is to assess Intrinsic Value, not Market Value. I leave that to others.

03 ~ The Link works. Weebly sucks, but they didn't screw this one up.

Trajectory, as I apply it, is not synonymous with Potential.

Trajectory, if you like, is my utterly unscientific & unqualified Assessment of Potential x Chance of Attainment.

Off The Grid said:

Trajectory, as I apply it, is not synonymous with Potential.

Trajectory, if you like, is my utterly unscientific & unqualified Assessment of Potential x Chance of Attainment.

Click to expand...

I think this on the money. I think most NFL folks try to chart trajectory. I think Grid does a really strong job with it.

But it is very hard in most cases. Take a player who improves at Alabama. How much of his improvement is because of his drive and how much is because one of the best coaches on the planet has figured out how to put him in a position to succeed (is utilizing strengthes and hissing weaknesses)? Is a player who doesn't consistently show his measurable athleticism on tape doing that because they haven't been used properly in their scheme or because when the lights are on and the bodies are flying, they can't process fast enough to unleash their full potential? Can a brilliant thinker like Kellen Moore overcome his limitations if given an opportunity? Will he ever get an opportunity due to his physical limitations?

All of these Things are what make the draft, and the draft forum, so much fun. Keep up the great work all.

Off The Grid said:

As I've always said: If I believe that 10 guys warrant Top 3 Rank, then 10 guys get Top 3 Rank.

02 ~ My Goal is to assess Intrinsic Value, not Market Value. I leave that to others.

Click to expand...

No criticism was intended. I've always considered your ranking to mean "worthy of using a top x pick on", not as a strict ranking. I have no problem with that, though it may not be clear to everone.

rabidfireweasel said:

I think this on the money. I think most NFL folks try to chart trajectory. I think Grid does a really strong job with it.

But it is very hard in most cases. Take a player who improves at Alabama. How much of his improvement is because of his drive and how much is because one of the best coaches on the planet has figured out how to put him in a position to succeed (is utilizing strengthes and hissing weaknesses)? Is a player who doesn't consistently show his measurable athleticism on tape doing that because they haven't been used properly in their scheme or because when the lights are on and the bodies are flying, they can't process fast enough to unleash their full potential? Can a brilliant thinker like Kellen Moore overcome his limitations if given an opportunity? Will he ever get an opportunity due to his physical limitations?

All of these Things are what make the draft, and the draft forum, so much fun. Keep up the great work all.

Click to expand...

Ahhh...A truly brilliant Post, Brother Weasel. And thank you, Sir!!

Off The Grid said:

03 ~ The Link works. Weebly sucks, but they didn't screw this one up.

Click to expand...

Just to clarify, the link on the player's name in the alphabet (by first name) list at the side does work. Thanks for pointing that out - I completely forgot to check that list. In the past, you could click on the large font name at the top of the screen and go from your homescreen to the page for that player. That no longer seems to work, at least for me using Safari as my browser.

mayoclinic said:

Just to clarify, the link on the player's name in the alphabet (by first name) list at the side does work. Thanks for pointing that out - I completely forgot to check that list. In the past, you could click on the large font name at the top of the screen and go from your homescreen to the page for that player. That no longer seems to work, at least for me using Safari as my browser.

Click to expand...

Strange. If I'm understanding you correctly, it still works just fine in FireFox.

I don't use Safari, I'm afraid, so I cannot speak to that.

I haven't changed the way I Link things up, so hopefully whatever the issue is will soon resolve itself.

Is anyone else having Connectivity Issues with my Blog?

I'll always be happy to work through the top Floor's Offices at Weebly with a Scythe.

It wouldn't be a Problem.

It is kind of an age old debate, personally in the early rounds I would error on the side of potential because of the athletic possibility. In the later rounds production is a good indicator along with other criteria (# of starts, team captain, etc.). A lot of the Patriots with productive NFL careers had productive college careers (Troy Brown, Vrabel, Bruschi, etc.). There are also a lot of busts in both directions.

Really looking forward to reading all of Grid's reports, it is the highlight of the offseason.