"Trajectory Trumps Tape"

cstjohn17 said:

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

Click to expand...

One'f my Favorites lauds me!! It is indeed a great Week that dawns!!

Grateful Thanks, Brother John!!

mayoclinic said:

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...

And yet Brady's predecessor is a fine example of drafting upon trajectory. If you recall, the main reason the 20-year-old Bledsoe was chosen over the 23-year-old and much more polished Mirer was the projection of Bledsoe's skills at 23.

I really think these things are taken case-by-case.

cstjohn17 said:

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.

Click to expand...

An argument can be made both ways, I think. I think that in the early rounds you very much want a productive player, but athleticism and potential should be factored in; in the later rounds I would personally be more prone to take a "moon shot" on a guy with little production but tremendous athletic upside, IF I thought the drive, intelligence and other factors were there.

I agree with Uncle Heatster that it is a calculus that needs to be done on a case-by-case basis, and I also think it is far more art than science.

I have to say, this is one of the most fascinating threads we have had on this here. If you would have asked me a couple of years ago, I would have said it is all about the tape and I don't need the numbers. Over the past few years, there has been some really good analytical work (way over my head) and it has changed my view to a certain degree and it is why I try to put a prospects numbers in my reports so people can reference them as well.
I have some ideas for using the numbers and after this draft, I hope to come up with my own formula to use to see if their is a correlation or not.
I really like how Grid explained his trajectory. The process will always have its unknowns which is why every team has their own boards and sometimes teams hit/miss on players.
I think it was Matt Waldman said the process is like peeking through a key whole, it is hard to get the whole picture from such a limited viewpoint, but with the advances in film availability and analytics, the key whole is getting a little bit bigger.

midwestpatsfan said:

I have to say, this is one of the most fascinating threads we have had on this here. If you would have asked me a couple of years ago, I would have said it is all about the tape and I don't need the numbers. Over the past few years, there has been some really good analytical work (way over my head) and it has changed my view to a certain degree and it is why I try to put a prospects numbers in my reports so people can reference them as well.
I have some ideas for using the numbers and after this draft, I hope to come up with my own formula to use to see if their is a correlation or not.
I really like how Grid explained his trajectory. The process will always have its unknowns which is why every team has their own boards and sometimes teams hit/miss on players.
I think it was Matt Waldman said the process is like peeking through a key whole, it is hard to get the whole picture from such a limited viewpoint, but with the advances in film availability and analytics, the key whole is getting a little bit bigger.

Click to expand...

While by no means identical, I started a thread a couple of years ago about the growing number of ultra-athletic crossover prospects with limited experience but high "trajectory":

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...arwinian-theory-of-football-evolution.976499/

There's been about a 50% success rate of the guys I listed. For every Ziggy Ansah, Kyle Long and Travis Kelce there is a Dion Jordan, Nick Kasa or Reid Fragel who hasn't really emerged.

I like the Waldman analogy. Very apt.

Reid Fragel! Oh man, how quickly I forget these guys. I was high on him as a late round Tackle prospect.

mayoclinic said:

While by no means identical, I started a thread a couple of years ago about the growing number of ultra-athletic crossover prospects with limited experience but high "trajectory":

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...arwinian-theory-of-football-evolution.976499/

There's been about a 50% success rate of the guys I listed. For every Ziggy Ansah, Kyle Long and Travis Kelce there is a Dion Jordan, Nick Kasa or Reid Fragel who hasn't really emerged.

I like the Waldman analogy. Very apt.

Click to expand...

I'm still not sure this grasps the difference between upside and trajectory. My issue is that I can't put a finger on what the difference is, although as I was writing that sentence, football instincts came to mind, something which is visible on tape.

I was very high on Kasa at the time but thinking back to him, there wasn't that much evidence that he really knew what he was doing on the football field. Ziggy, on the other hand, although raw obviously had the intelligence and football instincts to take what he learned on the practice field and apply it in the game. I remember there was a game where he read and shut down a screen pass and I knew he'd be fine at the NFL level.

I think it's this that I look for when I look at guys like Ansah, Jimmie Ward, Kyle Fuller and Marcus Hardison. Do they have the athleticism? Do they have the instincts? Do they have the intelligence to apply their knowledge and instincts in game? By the way, if I was as convinced that Hardison had those instincts compared to the other guys in that list, I'd have a first round grade on him, just as I did them.

midwestpatsfan said:

Reid Fragel! Oh man, how quickly I forget these guys. I was high on him as a late round Tackle prospect.

Click to expand...

He was my late round swing tackle project with great upside. I loved his "trajectory" as a converted TE with excellent athleticism:

6' 7 1/2" 308#, 33" arms; 5.14 40, 1.79 10-split, 4.68 SS, 7.62 3C; 30" VJ, 9'5" BJ

Those numbers compared reasonably well to Nate Solder, Sebastian Vollmer and Jared Veldheer:

Solder: 6' 8 1/4 319#, 35 1/2 arms; 5.05 40, 1.77 10-split, 4.34 SS, 7.44 3C; 32" VJ, 9'2" BJ
Vollmer: 6' 7 1/2" 312#; 5.13 40, 1.77 10-split, 4.50 SS, 7.41 3C; 36.5" VJ (!), 9'3" BJ
Veldheer: 6' 8 1/8" 312, 33" arms; 5.09 40, 1.73 10-split, 4.51 SS, 7.40 3C; 33.5" VJ, 9'1" BJ

Fragel hasn't played in a game in 2 years. I'm still not sure why he hasn't succeeded.

mayoclinic said:

He was my late round swing tackle project with great upside. I loved his "trajectory" as a converted TE with excellent athleticism:

6' 7 1/2" 308#, 33" arms; 5.14 40, 1.79 10-split, 4.68 SS, 7.62 3C; 30" VJ, 9'5" BJ

Those numbers compared reasonably well to Nate Solder, Sebastian Vollmer and Jared Veldheer:

Solder: 6' 8 1/4 319#, 35 1/2 arms; 5.05 40, 1.77 10-split, 4.34 SS, 7.44 3C; 32" VJ, 9'2" BJ
Vollmer: 6' 7 1/2" 312#; 5.13 40, 1.77 10-split, 4.50 SS, 7.41 3C; 36.5" VJ (!), 9'3" BJ
Veldheer: 6' 8 1/8" 312, 33" arms; 5.09 40, 1.73 10-split, 4.51 SS, 7.40 3C; 33.5" VJ, 9'1" BJ

Fragel hasn't played in a game in 2 years. I'm still not sure why he hasn't succeeded.

Click to expand...

Because he had a terrible reputation for laziness didn't he?

Speaking of trajectory, this class is all about trajectory, especially these first round pass rushers. Guys like Fowler, Gregory, Dupree, and Rey will all be drafted based more on trajectory than their film.

manxman2601 said:

I'm still not sure this grasps the difference between upside and trajectory. My issue is that I can't put a finger on what the difference is, although as I was writing that sentence, football instincts came to mind, something which is visible on tape.

I was very high on Kasa at the time but thinking back to him, there wasn't that much evidence that he really knew what he was doing on the football field. Ziggy, on the other hand, although raw obviously had the intelligence and football instincts to take what he learned on the practice field and apply it in the game. I remember there was a game where he read and shut down a screen pass and I knew he'd be fine at the NFL level.

I think it's this that I look for when I look at guys like Ansah, Jimmie Ward, Kyle Fuller and Marcus Hardison. Do they have the athleticism? Do they have the instincts? Do they have the intelligence to apply their knowledge and instincts in game? By the way, if I was as convinced that Hardison had those instincts compared to the other guys in that list, I'd have a first round grade on him, just as I did them.

Click to expand...

I think that the upside (or potential) vs. trajectory distinction is a good one, but not always straightforward.

Nick Kasa had tons of athletic potential, but he really never put it together on the field. Though it was possible that someone could tap into that potential at the pro level, the probability was probably fairly low.

Connor Barwin and Travis Kelce, OTOH, showed terrific productivity after settling at their respective positions. They showed a much better ability to tap into their athletic potential, and so they probably had a much higher "trajectory".

What about Jamie Collins? Was he a case of "trajectory", or more a case of a guy with ridiculous patential who happened to realize it with the Pats? I'm not sure Collins had the "instincts", but he clearly had the intelligence and work ethic in addition to his athleticism. BB clearly realized it, but it wasn't an obvious case of trajectory like Ziggy Ansah.

From what I can tell, Hardison has the athleticism, intelligence and work ethic to succeed. I'm not sure whether he has "instincts". I'm not sure those are quite as important for a DT as they are for a DB. I'm not sure that Ansah had great "instincts" either, FWIW, but he clearly had everything else.

I'm not nitpicking. I think these are good thoughts, I'm just trying to figure out how they all fit together.

manxman2601 said:

I'm still not sure this grasps the difference between upside and trajectory.

Click to expand...

I would have assumed that trajectory incorporates the rate of development and improvement the player has shown. If you take J.J. Watt as the prototype "trajectory" player, a big part of the story was that he had only played 2 seasons on defense and could be seen improving day by day. That's a good sign that he takes coaching well and is on track to realize his raw athletic potential.

But I'm not at all sure others are using the term that way.

manxman2601 said:

Because he had a terrible reputation for laziness didn't he?

Click to expand...

Did he? I wasn't aware. Do you have a link or reference? That would be a huge red flag. I always wondered why BB didn't appear to show interest in him.

patchick said:

I would have assumed that trajectory incorporates the rate of development and improvement the player has shown. If you take J.J. Watt as the prototype "trajectory" player, a big part of the story was that he had only played 2 seasons on defense and could be seen improving day by day. That's a good sign that he takes coaching well and is on track to realize his raw athletic potential.

Click to expand...

I think JJ Watt is the prototype for trajectory vs. film. Even Box got tricked by Watt's film, initially calling Watt a developmental prospect, and later moving him up to a 2nd round prospect. I did the same thing, to a lesser extent. If you watched Watt's earlier film, it just wasn't that impressive. But he improved so dramatically, and so quickly, that you really had to throw that film out of the overall assessment.

mayoclinic said:

Did he? I wasn't aware. Do you have a link or reference? That would be a huge red flag. I always wondered why BB didn't appear to show interest in him.

Click to expand...

I haven't got a link and I might be wrong on "laziness" although that's my recollection but I do remember talk of significant red flags on Fragel.

mayoclinic said:

I think JJ Watt is the prototype for trajectory vs. film. Even Box got tricked by Watt's film, initially calling Watt a developmental prospect, and later moving him up to a 2nd round prospect. I did the same thing, to a lesser extent. If you watched Watt's earlier film, it just wasn't that impressive. But he improved so dramatically, and so quickly, that you really had to throw that film out of the overall assessment.

Click to expand...

For those who didn't follow him obsessively at the time , Watt started out as a tight end at Central Michigan before playing just 2 years on defense at Wisconsin, where he blossomed at an extraordinary rate. He was the kind of player who, if you looked at film of him from 6 games ago, you were looking at a totally different guy. So "trajectory" for him meant very literally tracing the path he was already on, and realizing that his athletic gifts gave him the potential to stay on it for a long, long time.

The tricky thing for me is how to apply that model to a guy like Hardison, who showed a late burst of development after a slow start.

patchick said:

For those who didn't follow him obsessively at the time , Watt started out as a tight end at Central Michigan before playing just 2 years on defense at Wisconsin, where he blossomed at an extraordinary rate. He was the kind of player who, if you looked at film of him from 6 games ago, you were looking at a totally different guy. So "trajectory" for him meant very literally tracing the path he was already on, and realizing that his athletic gifts gave him the potential to stay on it for a long, long time.

The tricky thing for me is how to apply that model to a guy like Hardison, who showed a late burst of development after a slow start.

Click to expand...

I can think of no other player whose trajectory developed quite as spectacularly as Watt's. Ziggy Ansah may come closest, but he hasn't matched Watt's ridiculous pace of development, though he's very good. I think it's perhaps unrealistic to expect that anyone will have quite that rapid or consistent a rate of development.

mayoclinic said:

I can think of no other player whose trajectory developed quite as spectacularly as Watt's. Ziggy Ansah may come closest, but he hasn't matched Watt's ridiculous pace of development, though he's very good. I think it's perhaps unrealistic to expect that anyone will have quite that rapid or consistent a rate of development.

Click to expand...

Absolutlely -- like any prototype, Watt is a model you don't expect to match. But more broadly, how do you weigh two "trajectories" that led players from point A to B over the same period of time, but one player improved gradually and steadily while the other seemed to languish at A then made a late burst to B when "it clicked on for him"?

patchick said:

Absolutlely -- like any prototype, Watt is a model you don't expect to match. But more broadly, how do you weigh two "trajectories" that led players from point A to B over the same period of time, but one player improved gradually and steadily while the other seemed to languish at A then made a late burst to B when "it clicked on for him"?

Click to expand...

Everyone's different. If it were easy, the draft wouldn't be such a crapshoot. Watt was perhaps the clearest example of trajectory ever, and he still got missed by 10 teams. Other than Watt, there aren't many guys whose "trajectory" over their first 2 years in the NFL has been on a greater ascent than Jamie Collins. But it's still too early to assess where Collins will plateau - very good, or great - and in college he was much more a case of "potential" than trajectory. It's to BB's credit that he could sort it out. Guys like Collins and Hardison are much less straightforward to Watt - and therefore much greater opportunities for success (or failure).

Perhaps a reasonable definition of a really good scout is someone who can project trajectory with reasonable accuracy in cases where the majority miss it.

patchick said:

I would have assumed that trajectory incorporates the rate of development and improvement the player has shown. If you take J.J. Watt as the prototype "trajectory" player, a big part of the story was that he had only played 2 seasons on defense and could be seen improving day by day. That's a good sign that he takes coaching well and is on track to realize his raw athletic potential.

But I'm not at all sure others are using the term that way.

Click to expand...

This is getting a bit confusing, but I agree. Trajectory is something that you see evidence of...it's extrapolating the current curve.

Upside is the perceived upper limit given the best possible scenario.