Bedard breaks down positional draft history

[patchick]

In today's Globe, Greg Bedard takes on a favorite pastime of this board -- physical profiles by position, based on past BB draft picks:

Fitting the profile

It strikes me that enough data is accumulating that we can start going beyond "who do they take" to look at "who has succeeded." Ryan O'Callaghan and Nick Kaczur were roughly equally rated coming out of college, but the huge, powerful roadgrader type didn't work out as well as the lighter, nimbler guy.

 

[MaineMan]

In today's Globe, Greg Bedard takes on a favorite pastime of this board -- physical profiles by position, based on past BB draft picks:

Fitting the profile

It strikes me that enough data is accumulating that we can start going beyond "who do they take" to look at "who has succeeded." Ryan O'Callaghan and Nick Kaczur were roughly equally rated coming out of college, but the huge, powerful roadgrader type didn't work out as well as the lighter, nimbler guy.

Thanks for the link.

Some thought-provoking information there and interesting out-of-the-box thinking. I didn't realize that Pryor and Richard were drafted as 34 DEs. Also, Ron Brace being drafted as an OT answers a lot of the questions I've had about him.

 

[patchick]

I didn't realize that Pryor and Richard were drafted as 34 DEs. Also, Ron Brace being drafted as an OT answers a lot of the questions I've had about him.

Yep, some oddities in his analysis for sure. The Brace bit in particular is weird -- he doesn't actually say that Brace was drafted on offense, but lumps him in there by weight for no obvious reason.

I'd also say it's time to retire the 2000 draft (and maybe 2001) from multiyear analysis. Start once BB had his full scouting operation in place.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Thanks for the link.

Some thought-provoking information there and interesting out-of-the-box thinking. I didn't realize that Pryor and Richard were drafted as 34 DEs. Also, Ron Brace being drafted as an OT answers a lot of the questions I've had about him.

Richard was drafted as a 3-4 DE, Pryor I pegged as a possible NT who was more of an anomaly in DL body types. I think Pryor's use the past two seasons more closely relates to my original surmise than Mr. Bedard's in this instance.

Still, it was an interesting read and if anything will cause me to go back and look at the broad jump data which he finds so meaningful. If there is one area I'd have preferred to see explored a bit more is a breakdown between rounds and/or sections of the draft (early, mid, late) rather than just lump all the prospects into one draft blender.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

I'd also say it's time to retire the 2000 draft (and maybe 2001) from multiyear analysis. Start once BB had his full scouting operation in place.

I'm not so sure. Regardless of what the personnel department was doing in terms of identifying "Belichick" players, BB very likely had the basics of his "templates" in place. OT 6'4" or better, projected playing weight 300+, the normal two hands and feet, etc. Physical standards don't appear to have changed all that much, it's the mental/emotional/intangibles standards which seem to have been altered the most drastically as BB's "system" took hold in personnel.

 

[MaineMan]

Richard was drafted as a 3-4 DE, Pryor I pegged as a possible NT who was more of an anomaly in DL body types. I think Pryor's use the past two seasons more closely relates to my original surmise than Mr. Bedard's in this instance.

Still, it was an interesting read and if anything will cause me to go back and look at the broad jump data which he finds so meaningful. If there is one area I'd have preferred to see explored a bit more is a breakdown between rounds and/or sections of the draft (early, mid, late) rather than just lump all the prospects into one draft blender.

This was my thought, too. Seems to me that there might be slightly different measurable standards for 7th rounders as opposed to 1st rounders..And I find it a bit annoying when analysts more or less average the measurables for all the players drafted into a position, regardless of what round, and then apply that average as the standard for potential 1st round selections.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

bump

This article is worth a read, as are the comments here that point out some of the issues with the analyisis.

 

[Metaphors]

Post doesn't naturally fit here but didn't want to start a new thread.

Strong/Weak vs. Left/Right
Pats generally don't shift assignments based on the location of the TE. Players need to be able to handle both strong and weak side assignments. SILB, WILB, SS, FS aren't super meaningful to the Pats. They do have different positional types (Chung vs. Meriweather, Spikes vs. Mayo) but that has more to do with situations rather than formations.

Defending Gaps vs. Penetrating Gaps
Gap integrity is of paramount importance to the Pats. While everyone seems to fall in love with guys who shoot into the backfield with their hair on fire (Reiss will need a few weeks off to dislodge his face from Clay Matthews posterior), there is a reason why the Pats pass on these guys. Not saying they aren't talented or can't excel in the right system...just saying that the Pats seem to be looking for something else.

Linear vs. Angular
In some defenses, players are asked to get from point A to point B in the least amount of time. No thinking, no hesitation. The Pats look for players who can turn corners after contact, not just beat blocks to the spot through speed. Height, bulk and sufficient functional strength at DE/OLB gives players the "lean" that the Pats seems to value. It seems to be about influencing the backfield on every play rather than blowing up the backfield on a handful of plays.

Base vs. Sub
The traditional formation of NT, 3-4 DE and 3-4 OLB is obviously important but it is equally important to look at roles/responsibilities and not just positions. In base formation, the DL needs to eat blocks and the OLBs need to set a hard edge to turn everything inside. In sub packages, the DL shifts to 4-3 look with the OLBs essentially becoming 4-3 DEs. The critical aspect of sub responsibilities is that the DL has to get pressure on the QB while still maintaining gap integrity. So while 3-4 OLBs have to play in space, it is certainly not their most important responsibility (you would stay pretty sober playing the "Demarcus Ware in Coverage" drinking game).

Zone Blocking vs. Man Blocking
I know people like the "road grader" types and daydream about seeing Pats guards pancake defenders, but the Pats don't block this way. They rely on movement and leverage to create creases instead of straight-ahead power to create holes. This is why the Pats like shorter OTs with nimble feet as OG conversion projects. Also why the Pats need to stick with RBs who quickly recognize and hit creases rather than guys who excel in space.

Add these up and some prospects fit better (Jordan, Sheard, Boling, Ingram) than others (Fairley, Reed, Moffitt, Murray). That being said, Belichick didn't become a mad genius by being inflexible. So while anything is possible this weekend, I would bet on the new Patriots meeting the principles above...as long as I don't have to bet straight cash, homey.

 

[patchick]

Linear vs. Angular
In some defenses, players are asked to get from point A to point B in the least amount of time. No thinking, no hesitation. The Pats look for players who can turn corners after contact, not just beat blocks to the spot through speed. Height, bulk and sufficient functional strength at DE/OLB gives players the "lean" that the Pats seems to value. It seems to be about influencing the backfield on every play rather than blowing up the backfield on a handful of plays.

Can I just retitle this "The Argument Against Justin Houston"?

Good stuff all around, thanks.