PonyExpress
In the Starting Line-Up
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2006
- Messages
- 4,659
- Reaction score
- 78
Unlocking the Secrets of the Draft
Part I, Defense: Linebackers from the BCS Conferences
Statistical Analysis of 20 BCS Conference Linebackers, 2004-2005 seasons.
I have used college statistics to study this years draft prospects. I felt a two year sample was a better indicator of a potential quality pro than a one year sample for some obvious reasons. Statistics over two years put a premium on Production Consistency Durability and Motivation. I think a player who has had the motivation to produce consistently over two consecutive years in college while remaining healthy has met certain bottom line criteria for success in pro ball. A two year analysis may be biased against a meteoric talent, but it errs in favor of safety and a high floor, and weeds out the one year wonders who could just as easily be smelling NFL green as coming into their own. This study is not suggesting that all highly productive players in college will become quality pros; far from it. More to the point, it is asking the question, if a player has not been productive, consistent, durable and motivated compared to his peers in college, why should an NFL team expect him to become so in the pros?
The first group I’m going to look at is Linebackers. Before beginning I’m making a few of assumptions: One, that all the major conferences in Division 1A have roughly the same talent level. I don’t think that’s a stretch after seeing Wisconsin manhandle Auburn and West Virginia’s rookies light up Georgia.
I. Linebacker Rankings: Impact in the Passing Game, 2004-2005 Seasons
Abbreviation Key:
PR: Position Rank
TFL: Tackles For Loss
S: Sacks
INTS: Interceptions
PBU: Passes Broken Up
Statistical Notes:
(a) In this study, for a LB a sack has roughly half the value of an INT.
(b) for a LB, a PBU has roughly a quarter the value of an INT.
(c) The tie breaker for positional rank is S + ((INTS +PBU/4) x 2). The second tiebreaker is the turnover column.
Pos. Rank, Player Sacks(PR) INTS + PBU/4(PR) PRaggregate
1. DQ. Jackson, MD 8(5) 7.5 (1) (6)
2. Hawk, Ohio St 11(2) 5 (4) (6)
3. Ingram, OK 7(6) 6.75(3) (9)
4. Alston, Stanf*** 17(1) 2.25(9) (10)
5. Greenway, Iowa 5(8) 7.25(2) (10)
6. Ellison, Oreg.St 9(4) 4.25(6) (10)
7. Havner, UCLA 3(10) 7.5 (1) (11)
8. Carpenter, OSU 10(3) 3.75(8) (11)
9. Wilkinson, GT 9(4) 4 (7) (11)
10. Sims, FSU 7(6) 4.25(6) (12)
11. Anderson, VT 6(7) 4.25(6) (13)
12. Nicholson, FSU 5(8) 4 (7) (15)
13. Gaither, Tenn 6(7) 3.25(8) (15)
14. McGarigle, Nw 3(10) 4.5 (5) (15)
15. McIntosh, UMia 10(3) .75(13) (16)
16. Parham, UV 11(2) .25(14) (16)
17. Robinson, ASU 9(4) 1 (12) (16)
18. Tulloch, NCSt. 6(7) 1.75(11) (18)
19. Ryans, Alabama 5(8) 2 (10) (18)
20. Hodge, Iowa 4(9) 1 (12) (21)
***By its nature a ranking system views the large number by which Alston outdistanced his peers in sacks as an anomaly, and reduced the significance of that number.
II. Linebacker Rankings: Impact in the Running Game, 2004-2005
Abbreviations:
PR: Position Rank
TFL-S: Tackles For Loss minus Sacks
TT-S: Total Tackles minus Sacks
Statistical Notes:
(a) For a LB, a TFL in the run game has roughly the value of ten conventional tackles.
(a) Total Tackles are ranked by decades. Thus 251 and 258 would be considered equals.
(c) Tie-breaker for pos. rank is ((TFL-S) x 10) + (TT-S). Second tiebreaker is TFL-S.
Pos. Rank, Player TFL – Sacks(PR) TT-S (PR) PR aggregate
1. Tulloch, NCSt. 25 (1) 214 (6) (7)
2. Havner, UCLA 21 (2) 221 (5) (7)
3. Robinson, ASU 20 (3) 200 (7) (10)
4. McGarigle, Nw 10 (10) 304 (1) (11)
5. Greenway, Iowa 13 (8) 264 (3) (11)
6. Hawk, OSU 14 (7) 251 (4) (11)
7. Hodge, Iowa 12 (9) 270 (2) (11)
8. Wilkinson, GT 18 (4) 196 (8) (12)
9. Nicholson, FSU 17 (5) 183 (9) (14)
10. McIntosh, Mia 15 (6) 190 (8) (14)
11. Parham, UVA 15 (6) 172 (10) (16)
12. Ellison, OregSt. 17 (5) 157 (12) (17)
13. Jackson, MD 6 (14) 252 (4) (18)
14. Gaither, Tenn 14 (7) 164 (11) (18)
15. Ryans, Ala 14 (7) 149 (14) (21)
16. Sims, FSU 12 (9) 151 (13) (22)
17. Anderson, VT 10 (10) 124 (16) (26)
18. Ingram, OK 9 (11) 104 (17) (28)
19. Carpenter,OS 7 (13) 132 (15) (28)
20. Alston, Stanf. 8 (12) 98 (18) (30)
III. Overall Linebacker Rankings, 2004-2005. Passing Game and Running Game Combined.
Abbreviations:
PR@Pass: Position Rank against the Pass
PR@Run: Position Rank against the run
Statistical Note:
(a) Tiebreaker for LB is PR@Pass.
Pos. Rank, Player PR@Pass PR@Run PR aggregate
1. Hawk, OSU 6 11 17
2. Havner, UCLA 11 7 18
3. Greenway, Iowa 10 11 21
4. Wilkinson, GT 11 12 23
5. DQ. Jackson, MD 6 18 24
6. Tulloch, NCSt. 18 7 25
7. Robinson, ASU 16 10 26
8. McGarigle, Nw 15 11 26
9. Ellison, OregSt. 10 17 27
10. Nicholson, FSU 15 14 29
11. McIntosh, Mia 16 14 30
12. Parham, UVA 16 16 32
13. Hodge, Iowa 21 11 32
14. Gaither, Tenn 15 18 33
15. Sims, FSU 12 22 34
16. Ingram, OK 9 28 37
17. Carpenter, OSU 1 28 39
18. Anderson, VT 13 26 39
19. Ryans, Ala 18 21 39
20. Alston, Stanf. 10 30 40
Observations:
This ranking system is not about athletic talent. It is about Production, Durability, Consistency, and Motivation over a two year period. This system is blind to every measurement of a player that is not reflected in on-field production. It is useful because it helps us identify possible risks and possible sleepers. For instance:
Demeco Ryans: Ryans was not productive at an elite level either in the running game or in the passing game compared to his fellow draft prospects over this two year period. He was captain and vocal leader of a very talented defense, and this may have masked his limitations as an individual player. A team that selects Ryans early in the draft expecting him to be a difference maker at the pro level would be taking a considerable risk.
Bobby Carpenter: Carpenter was second to last in productivity against the run among all 20 prospects studied. He had surprisingly few tackles for loss against the run, only 7 over a two year period while a starting outside LBer in the Big Ten. He also had over 120 fewer tackles over this two year period than AJ Hawk, and it is safe to assume that teams were not running away from Carpenter and at Hawk during that time. Carpenter’s marks against the pass are high, but his impact against the pass came primarily as a designated pass rusher, a non-traditional 4-3 linebacker role, and not in coverage. Half of his 8 sacks in 2005 came in a single game against MSU. His coverage production is middle of the road. All in all, Carpenter’s actual production does not justify his elite prospect status. A team drafting him high is taking a considerable risk.
Ernie Sims: Sims was a below average performer when compared to his draftable peers. He was middle of the road against the pass and sub-par against the run. We can guess as to the reasons for his elite prospect status: He’s from an elite program, he runs very fast and he hits very hard. However there are several negatives about him that are expressed in his production numbers. He has durability issues due to concussion problems. He is undersized and gets washed out of run plays. His instincts can be lacking as he tends to take poor angles and over-pursue. In other words, he is a better athlete than a football player, and the team drafting him very high will be taking a considerable risk.
Abdul Hodge: Hodge has been discussed in some places as a 2nd round prospect. In this study, Hodge finished dead last among all prospects against the pass. If his impact against the pass is so limited at the college level, is it likely that he will improve on it in the NFL? In other words, Hodge is a two down LBer in the NFL. It could be argued that an NFL team drafting a two down LBer in the 2nd rd would be reaching considerably.
Spencer Havner: Havner is an intriguing subject. Often dismissed by draft experts, he was very nearly the most productive LBer in college football over the last two years. He had a remarkable 20 TFLs against the run game during that time, while also exhibiting excellent production in coverage. Pro Football Weekly dismisses his coverage abilities by saying “… his interceptions were gifts thrown right at himâ€, and perhaps his numbers in that area are inflated by playing in the pass happy Pac-10. But conversely, you could argue that he is more pro ready due to experience in that facet of the game. As for his “accidental†interceptions and PBUs, over his 4 year career Havner had a remarkable 11 interceptions and 22 PBUs. He showed durability, consistency and motivation to play with pain, and also demonstrated above average athletic measurables at the combine, comparable with Chad Greenway, to whom his production most closely compares. My study suggests he could be a sleeper in the draft.
Gerris Wilkinson: Wilkinson seems to be an overlooked talent, ranking as the fourth most productive LBer over the last two years. He was Carpenter’s equal in the passing game, but showed much greater productivity against the run. Combined with his size (6’3â€, 233 lbs), sub 4.7 speed, and on-field leadership abilities, this study also suggests that Wilkinson could be a sleeper in this draft.
Part I, Defense: Linebackers from the BCS Conferences
Statistical Analysis of 20 BCS Conference Linebackers, 2004-2005 seasons.
I have used college statistics to study this years draft prospects. I felt a two year sample was a better indicator of a potential quality pro than a one year sample for some obvious reasons. Statistics over two years put a premium on Production Consistency Durability and Motivation. I think a player who has had the motivation to produce consistently over two consecutive years in college while remaining healthy has met certain bottom line criteria for success in pro ball. A two year analysis may be biased against a meteoric talent, but it errs in favor of safety and a high floor, and weeds out the one year wonders who could just as easily be smelling NFL green as coming into their own. This study is not suggesting that all highly productive players in college will become quality pros; far from it. More to the point, it is asking the question, if a player has not been productive, consistent, durable and motivated compared to his peers in college, why should an NFL team expect him to become so in the pros?
The first group I’m going to look at is Linebackers. Before beginning I’m making a few of assumptions: One, that all the major conferences in Division 1A have roughly the same talent level. I don’t think that’s a stretch after seeing Wisconsin manhandle Auburn and West Virginia’s rookies light up Georgia.
I. Linebacker Rankings: Impact in the Passing Game, 2004-2005 Seasons
Abbreviation Key:
PR: Position Rank
TFL: Tackles For Loss
S: Sacks
INTS: Interceptions
PBU: Passes Broken Up
Statistical Notes:
(a) In this study, for a LB a sack has roughly half the value of an INT.
(b) for a LB, a PBU has roughly a quarter the value of an INT.
(c) The tie breaker for positional rank is S + ((INTS +PBU/4) x 2). The second tiebreaker is the turnover column.
Pos. Rank, Player Sacks(PR) INTS + PBU/4(PR) PRaggregate
1. DQ. Jackson, MD 8(5) 7.5 (1) (6)
2. Hawk, Ohio St 11(2) 5 (4) (6)
3. Ingram, OK 7(6) 6.75(3) (9)
4. Alston, Stanf*** 17(1) 2.25(9) (10)
5. Greenway, Iowa 5(8) 7.25(2) (10)
6. Ellison, Oreg.St 9(4) 4.25(6) (10)
7. Havner, UCLA 3(10) 7.5 (1) (11)
8. Carpenter, OSU 10(3) 3.75(8) (11)
9. Wilkinson, GT 9(4) 4 (7) (11)
10. Sims, FSU 7(6) 4.25(6) (12)
11. Anderson, VT 6(7) 4.25(6) (13)
12. Nicholson, FSU 5(8) 4 (7) (15)
13. Gaither, Tenn 6(7) 3.25(8) (15)
14. McGarigle, Nw 3(10) 4.5 (5) (15)
15. McIntosh, UMia 10(3) .75(13) (16)
16. Parham, UV 11(2) .25(14) (16)
17. Robinson, ASU 9(4) 1 (12) (16)
18. Tulloch, NCSt. 6(7) 1.75(11) (18)
19. Ryans, Alabama 5(8) 2 (10) (18)
20. Hodge, Iowa 4(9) 1 (12) (21)
***By its nature a ranking system views the large number by which Alston outdistanced his peers in sacks as an anomaly, and reduced the significance of that number.
II. Linebacker Rankings: Impact in the Running Game, 2004-2005
Abbreviations:
PR: Position Rank
TFL-S: Tackles For Loss minus Sacks
TT-S: Total Tackles minus Sacks
Statistical Notes:
(a) For a LB, a TFL in the run game has roughly the value of ten conventional tackles.
(a) Total Tackles are ranked by decades. Thus 251 and 258 would be considered equals.
(c) Tie-breaker for pos. rank is ((TFL-S) x 10) + (TT-S). Second tiebreaker is TFL-S.
Pos. Rank, Player TFL – Sacks(PR) TT-S (PR) PR aggregate
1. Tulloch, NCSt. 25 (1) 214 (6) (7)
2. Havner, UCLA 21 (2) 221 (5) (7)
3. Robinson, ASU 20 (3) 200 (7) (10)
4. McGarigle, Nw 10 (10) 304 (1) (11)
5. Greenway, Iowa 13 (8) 264 (3) (11)
6. Hawk, OSU 14 (7) 251 (4) (11)
7. Hodge, Iowa 12 (9) 270 (2) (11)
8. Wilkinson, GT 18 (4) 196 (8) (12)
9. Nicholson, FSU 17 (5) 183 (9) (14)
10. McIntosh, Mia 15 (6) 190 (8) (14)
11. Parham, UVA 15 (6) 172 (10) (16)
12. Ellison, OregSt. 17 (5) 157 (12) (17)
13. Jackson, MD 6 (14) 252 (4) (18)
14. Gaither, Tenn 14 (7) 164 (11) (18)
15. Ryans, Ala 14 (7) 149 (14) (21)
16. Sims, FSU 12 (9) 151 (13) (22)
17. Anderson, VT 10 (10) 124 (16) (26)
18. Ingram, OK 9 (11) 104 (17) (28)
19. Carpenter,OS 7 (13) 132 (15) (28)
20. Alston, Stanf. 8 (12) 98 (18) (30)
III. Overall Linebacker Rankings, 2004-2005. Passing Game and Running Game Combined.
Abbreviations:
PR@Pass: Position Rank against the Pass
PR@Run: Position Rank against the run
Statistical Note:
(a) Tiebreaker for LB is PR@Pass.
Pos. Rank, Player PR@Pass PR@Run PR aggregate
1. Hawk, OSU 6 11 17
2. Havner, UCLA 11 7 18
3. Greenway, Iowa 10 11 21
4. Wilkinson, GT 11 12 23
5. DQ. Jackson, MD 6 18 24
6. Tulloch, NCSt. 18 7 25
7. Robinson, ASU 16 10 26
8. McGarigle, Nw 15 11 26
9. Ellison, OregSt. 10 17 27
10. Nicholson, FSU 15 14 29
11. McIntosh, Mia 16 14 30
12. Parham, UVA 16 16 32
13. Hodge, Iowa 21 11 32
14. Gaither, Tenn 15 18 33
15. Sims, FSU 12 22 34
16. Ingram, OK 9 28 37
17. Carpenter, OSU 1 28 39
18. Anderson, VT 13 26 39
19. Ryans, Ala 18 21 39
20. Alston, Stanf. 10 30 40
Observations:
This ranking system is not about athletic talent. It is about Production, Durability, Consistency, and Motivation over a two year period. This system is blind to every measurement of a player that is not reflected in on-field production. It is useful because it helps us identify possible risks and possible sleepers. For instance:
Demeco Ryans: Ryans was not productive at an elite level either in the running game or in the passing game compared to his fellow draft prospects over this two year period. He was captain and vocal leader of a very talented defense, and this may have masked his limitations as an individual player. A team that selects Ryans early in the draft expecting him to be a difference maker at the pro level would be taking a considerable risk.
Bobby Carpenter: Carpenter was second to last in productivity against the run among all 20 prospects studied. He had surprisingly few tackles for loss against the run, only 7 over a two year period while a starting outside LBer in the Big Ten. He also had over 120 fewer tackles over this two year period than AJ Hawk, and it is safe to assume that teams were not running away from Carpenter and at Hawk during that time. Carpenter’s marks against the pass are high, but his impact against the pass came primarily as a designated pass rusher, a non-traditional 4-3 linebacker role, and not in coverage. Half of his 8 sacks in 2005 came in a single game against MSU. His coverage production is middle of the road. All in all, Carpenter’s actual production does not justify his elite prospect status. A team drafting him high is taking a considerable risk.
Ernie Sims: Sims was a below average performer when compared to his draftable peers. He was middle of the road against the pass and sub-par against the run. We can guess as to the reasons for his elite prospect status: He’s from an elite program, he runs very fast and he hits very hard. However there are several negatives about him that are expressed in his production numbers. He has durability issues due to concussion problems. He is undersized and gets washed out of run plays. His instincts can be lacking as he tends to take poor angles and over-pursue. In other words, he is a better athlete than a football player, and the team drafting him very high will be taking a considerable risk.
Abdul Hodge: Hodge has been discussed in some places as a 2nd round prospect. In this study, Hodge finished dead last among all prospects against the pass. If his impact against the pass is so limited at the college level, is it likely that he will improve on it in the NFL? In other words, Hodge is a two down LBer in the NFL. It could be argued that an NFL team drafting a two down LBer in the 2nd rd would be reaching considerably.
Spencer Havner: Havner is an intriguing subject. Often dismissed by draft experts, he was very nearly the most productive LBer in college football over the last two years. He had a remarkable 20 TFLs against the run game during that time, while also exhibiting excellent production in coverage. Pro Football Weekly dismisses his coverage abilities by saying “… his interceptions were gifts thrown right at himâ€, and perhaps his numbers in that area are inflated by playing in the pass happy Pac-10. But conversely, you could argue that he is more pro ready due to experience in that facet of the game. As for his “accidental†interceptions and PBUs, over his 4 year career Havner had a remarkable 11 interceptions and 22 PBUs. He showed durability, consistency and motivation to play with pain, and also demonstrated above average athletic measurables at the combine, comparable with Chad Greenway, to whom his production most closely compares. My study suggests he could be a sleeper in the draft.
Gerris Wilkinson: Wilkinson seems to be an overlooked talent, ranking as the fourth most productive LBer over the last two years. He was Carpenter’s equal in the passing game, but showed much greater productivity against the run. Combined with his size (6’3â€, 233 lbs), sub 4.7 speed, and on-field leadership abilities, this study also suggests that Wilkinson could be a sleeper in this draft.