B.G.C. 2019 NFL Draft/Patriot-Type Players Thread

We are loaded.

BaconGrundleCandy said:

Click to expand...

It's a funny dilemma. You can't just go on stats and production, but you can't just make a hopeful projection, either. You've got to figure out which traits translate, where the player is now, who he can become with training, etc. Then there's the psychological and emotional aspects of both the players and the coaches/teams they go to, and it gets more complicated. No wonder none of us ever get it all right.

reamer said:

It's a funny dilemma. You can't just go on stats and production, but you can't just make a hopeful projection, either. You've got to figure out which traits translate, where the player is now, who he can become with training, etc. Then there's the psychological and emotional aspects of both the players and the coaches/teams they go to, and it gets more complicated. No wonder none of us ever get it all right.

Click to expand...

Very, very tough. It really is.

I love the different theories & methods though. Always been interested in how people grade. Pure #'s, tape, mix, gut? Always fascinated in how people get to X grade.

A while ago I started grading what I value from a position standpoint & coming out w a #. Then I graded on my gut (broken into a few sections) & testing #'s. Nothing else. Again broken into a few sections (I value certain #'s for certain positions). Come up w a #. Add, divide & thats my final grade.

I'd always tinker but have stuck w that for a while now.

Do we works for you & have fun w it.

BaconGrundleCandy said:

Very, very tough. It really is.

I love the different theories & methods though. Always been interested in how people grade. Pure #'s, tape, mix, gut? Always fascinated in how people get to X grade.

A while ago I started grading what I value from a position standpoint & coming out w a #. Then I graded on my gut (broken into a few sections) & testing #'s. Nothing else. Again broken into a few sections (I value certain #'s for certain positions). Come up w a #. Add, divide & thats my final grade.

I'd always tinker but have stuck w that for a while now.

Do we works for you & have fun w it.

Click to expand...

Numbers help keep you honest. Sometimes I notice that I like the way a guy plays so much that I start thinking of him as a higher pick than his production and athleticism honestly deserve. If I were to stick to a strict grading scale, that would probably help. I'm not a pure go-with-my-gut guy, though, even though I don't have a specific number that I give out as a grade. I do know who I prefer and I do usually try to put out a big board, but it's broken down by starter, potential starter, etc, and not rounds or numbers.

I tend to watch tape numerous times, picking apart different details -- I try to start big picture (basic personnel groupings, spacing, type of scheme, etc), and then work my way down to understanding assignments, and lastly looking at technique.

It's really important for me not to just look at the result of the play and say it was good or bad; the way the player processes information, reacts to the field, and how he learns from the situation are way more important to me. That's not to say that I don't want to see production. After all, if you can't get it done at the college level, the chances are much lower that you'll succeed in the pros. But I do think it's a bit lazy to say, "Well, he got the sack on that play, so it was a good play and shows that he has potential." The extenuating factors are key.

My big takeaways are usually related to movement, however. My background is in parkour, dance, acrobatics, martial arts, and so on; I try to understand proprioception and body control to determine a player's athleticism and fluidity in way that goes beyond just testing numbers. I also like to watch interviews with the player, read bios, get a feel for him off field.

I tend to look for baseline traits that show me the player can be a starter. If I don't see a certain level of refinement or technical know-how, then I bump a player down. Sure, I love the athleticism of the raw but talented athletes, but that also plays into the projection part portion, rather than the grading portion. I try to be realistic about where a guy is now, and also use some foresight to determine what he can turn into down the road.

I'm definitely an amateur. I'm far from perfect with grades and projections. I do really enjoy the process, though, and I think I'm at least above average.

reamer said:

Numbers help keep you honest. Sometimes I notice that I like the way a guy plays so much that I start thinking of him as a higher pick than his production and athleticism honestly deserve. If I were to stick to a strict grading scale, that would probably help. I'm not a pure go-with-my-gut guy, though, even though I don't have a specific number that I give out as a grade. I do know who I prefer and I do usually try to put out a big board, but it's broken down by starter, potential starter, etc, and not rounds or numbers.

I tend to watch tape numerous times, picking apart different details -- I try to start big picture (basic personnel groupings, spacing, type of scheme, etc), and then work my way down to understanding assignments, and lastly looking at technique.

It's really important for me not to just look at the result of the play and say it was good or bad; the way the player processes information, reacts to the field, and how he learns from the situation are way more important to me. That's not to say that I don't want to see production. After all, if you can't get it done at the college level, the chances are much lower that you'll succeed in the pros. But I do think it's a bit lazy to say, "Well, he got the sack on that play, so it was a good play and shows that he has potential." The extenuating factors are key.

My big takeaways are usually related to movement, however. My background is in parkour, dance, acrobatics, martial arts, and so on; I try to understand proprioception and body control to determine a player's athleticism and fluidity in way that goes beyond just testing numbers. I also like to watch interviews with the player, read bios, get a feel for him off field.

I tend to look for baseline traits that show me the player can be a starter. If I don't see a certain level of refinement or technical know-how, then I bump a player down. Sure, I love the athleticism of the raw but talented athletes, but that also plays into the projection part portion, rather than the grading portion. I try to be realistic about where a guy is now, and also use some foresight to determine what he can turn into down the road.

I'm definitely an amateur. I'm far from perfect with grades and projections. I do really enjoy the process, though, and I think I'm at least above average.

Click to expand...

I'd let you pick for my team anyday

#BoiseState QB Brett Rypien is my pick for the #Patriots in this draft. Good IQ, flawless throwing mechanics. Understands that he has 1v1 on the perimeter and is willing to take his shot. Lower half is always in-sync with his upper body. Compact and quick release. All there.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying Rypien is the best QB in this draft or a guaranteed successor. But he checks most of their boxes and I would rather see the #Patriots draft him in the mid-rounds then use their first-round pick on a flawed QB.

Click to expand...

ctpatsfan77 said:

Click to expand...

Yeah I had Ryp as a top 3 PTP QB early on on & wouldn't be surprised to see him #1. Definitely not shocked if we grab him w a 2/3.

I think he is one of the few prospects in this draft whose playing style fits our currently schemed timing based offense.

He doesn't have the strongest arm, but it's still pro-level quality because he consistently has the accuracy and velocity on his throws to the outside hashes which is big in our offense.

sircole said:

I think he is one of the few prospects in this draft whose playing style fits our currently schemed timing based offense.

He doesn't have the strongest arm, but it's still pro-level quality because he consistently has the accuracy and velocity on his throws to the outside hashes which is big in our offense.

Click to expand...

Evaluating, grading is so hard as it is & QB's are a different animal all together. Sometimes the tape is the least important w these guys bc of who they had protecting them or the weapons they had. Coaches that only knew this or that. Interviews are huge for them.

He ran his offense w confidence, calmness, was accurate & made quite a few plays.

I get the feeling he can work outside the confines of that structure unlike a Stidham for example.

I totally agree with you the interviews, processing speed, intangibles and confidence play a huge role in the makeup of QBs .

However, I'm a big believer that there is a certain minimal physical arm strength threshold that one needs to play and start in the NFL. That's why I like cut up videos of different passes like this.

The lack of arm strength was the main reason I wasn't a big fan of Kyle Lauletta being drafted in the early rounds last year.

sircole said:

I totally agree with you the interviews, processing speed, intangibles and confidence play a huge role in the makeup of QBs .

However, I'm a big believer that there is a certain minimal physical arm strength threshold that one needs to play and start in the NFL. That's why I like cut up videos of different passes like this.

The lack of arm strength was the main reason I wasn't a big fan of Kyle Lauletta being drafted in the early rounds last year.

Click to expand...

Agreed, although I believe you can improve your arm strength a lil bit but def get your point.