SITE MENU
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Mainefan said:I, too, am amazed and grateful for your work, Pony. I hope BB and SP are reading it.
However, I do not have total confidence in your methodology. There are just too many factors that are not within a player's control, too many circumstances, including differing competitive levels, quality of one-on-one matches, minor injuries, weather, traction, home and away variations. I think you quickly assume equivalents that may not exist.
I don't mean to dismiss everything you've written. Quite the opposite. I think it is very provocative and very useful. In the case of some players, it is very revealing--especially in cases of low productivity.
But, like others, I wonder how some current NFL stars would rate in your measurements. Vrabel and Bruschi, for instance. Can studies such as yours reveal intelligence, instinct, the capacity for growth and, above all, heart? I don't think so. And yet these qualities are usually the difference between average performers and stars.
Ok, I should have just said "injury" (I meant games directly missed due to the injury, and then playing injured, which should be expected to bring down a player's stats).PonyExpress said:It sounds like the statistics aren't telling you what you want them to. You say Carpenter's production was limited due to injury and "other issues". What are those "other issues"? This is why a study of production is useful, forcing you to ask these questions and separate fact from fiction.
True. What I'm saying is that it needs to be acknowledged that such a study can only tell you so much, and is vulnerable to giving misleading impressions since there are many things a study doesn't take into account.A statistical study is just a tool, helping identify questions that need to be asked and answered.
I'm not attacking your study. I'm saying there are problems with ranking players based solely on statistics.If Carpenter is so talented, and I'm not saying he isn't, why did he only make 7 tackles for loss in two years against the run while playing in the Big 10? That question needs to be answered by carefully watching ALL his game tape. Why did he accumulate so few tackles? My methodology is certainly open to criticism and I can be accused of making some arbitrary decisions. But attacking my methodology does not absolve Carpenter from having to answer some questions about his play. That is why these studies can be useful if their limitations are understood.
Exactly. Well said.bucky said:PonyExpress,
I applaud your hard work and the results you have attained. My doubt regarding the validity of the counclusions implied by your stats is similar to my doubts of the "football scientist" on ESPN. Football is a game where teams have entirely different defensive systems with entirely different responsibilities for players who seemingly play the same position. That's why comparing 2 guys who are considered ILBs may seem like an apples-to-apples comparison, but when you dig down under the covers, it really isn't.
Certainly, a player's statistics are an extremely important part of his "resume" when considering where he should be drafted. But those statistics should be considered in the context of the team's defensive scheme, surrounding players, and even opponents. For example, a great CB will not have great stats if the CB on his other side stinks, or if his DL stinks against the run and can't rush the passer, or if they play a third of their games against option teams.
Good point Bucky. But Rod Davis didn't play in a BCS conference; southern Miss is in Conference USA. Also, I never claimed that all productive college players become productive pros; Only that most productive pros were productive college players.bucky said:What about Rod Davis? He had pretty good college stats, didn't he?
This is very interesting. Where would Shawne Merriman rank?PonyExpress said:Just to illustrate some value to this production study...
Last year some people said they were amazed that Lofa Tatupu turned out to be so good. "How did we miss him?" they asked. "What a steal!" Look at his measurables... he was slow, a 4.8 40 for a LBer.
But these are his production numbers over his last two seasons at USC, 2003 and 2004:
Total tackles: 202
Tackles for Loss: 25
Sacks: 9
INTs: 7
Forced Fumbles: 4
Lining up his statistics with this year's class, he would have come out tied with AJ Hawk for the #1 production ranking. So Lofa Tatupu's excellent production at the pro level should not have been a surprise. And his sub-par height, weight, speed etc proved irrelevant.
Now THATS interesting. The question here is where all five of these players are better than Merriman (doubtful) or whether 3-4 linebackers are more difficult to measure due to the position switch (more likely).PonyExpress said:Merriman's two year numbers were:
140 total tackles
27 Tackles for Loss
17 Sacks
5 passes broken up
3 forced fumbles
Compared with this years crop of DEs, Merriman would have finished 6th out of 19 in production behind Kiwi, Lawson, Williams, Tapp and Hali.
I still think 6th is very respectable. I phrased it badly in my last post; Merriman wasn't 6th out of 19, he was 6th out of all DEs in the nation. Pretty damn respectable. On the other hand, Michael Haynes the DE out of Penn State taken by the Bears with the 14th pick of the 1st rd in 2003 (the Pats pick; we traded up one slot with the Bears to take Ty Warren) had college production similar to Tamba Hali, and Haynes has been a bust. It just underscores the point that not all productive college players become productive pros, but almost all productive pros were productive college players.drpatriot said:Now THATS interesting. The question here is where all five of these players are better than Merriman (doubtful) or whether 3-4 linebackers are more difficult to measure due to the position switch (more likely).
Nice fantasy, but I'm assuming the Browns are made of sterner stuff under RAC and Savage. If one of the elite players or Ngata doesn't drop to them to tempt them then Lawson is gone and Wimbley can go to some team less astute in their judgements.PonyExpress said:Just to continue the Merriman point, when you have great college production and also great athletic measurables you have a potential great pro. I think teams get into trouble with players like Wimbley who have marginal production and good measurables. The team that drafts him in rd 1 is courting disaster. IOW, I see him going to the Browns.