2014 Draft Prospect Thread

[manxman2601]

Looking for a silver lining in a cloud, I'm hoping today's move opens the door for Kyle Fuller.

 

[Coach42]

Jason Verrett 5'9" 189 4.38 +1.47+4.00+6.67 = 16.53 Not too shabby. With some great stuff on film to boot.

 

[midwestpatsfan]

Jason Verrett 5'9" 189 4.38 +1.47+4.00+6.67 = 16.53 Not too shabby. With some great stuff on film to boot.

I was thinking of a way to put a formula together that would give each player a hard number as well. I was thinking that 40 time, 3 cone, and short shuttle would need to be subtracted from broad jump and verticle since you want to have a lower number rather than a higher number in those drills. High number after subtracting those off of vert and broad would be your best overall player. Does this sound right or am I over thinking this?:bricks:

 

[mayoclinic]

I was thinking of a way to put a formula together that would give each player a hard number as well. I was thinking that 40 time, 3 cone, and short shuttle would need to be subtracted from broad jump and verticle since you want to have a lower number rather than a higher number in those drills. High number after subtracting those off of vert and broad would be your best overall player. Does this sound right or am I over thinking this?:bricks:

I don't know. I'll have to think about it. I used Pat Kirwan's "explosiveness" metric because it already existed (though the BP isn't great, and I tend to discount it for DBs, WRs and RBs) and then I created the "mobility" metric as an extension of Kirwan's "speed and quickness" analysis. So you can calculate 2 numbers, one measuring explosiveness, the other overall movement skills. I'm not sure 1 number really captures things as well, but I'll think about it.

 

[Coach42]

I was thinking of a way to put a formula together that would give each player a hard number as well. I was thinking that 40 time, 3 cone, and short shuttle would need to be subtracted from broad jump and verticle since you want to have a lower number rather than a higher number in those drills. High number after subtracting those off of vert and broad would be your best overall player. Does this sound right or am I over thinking this?:bricks:

Check out the movement and explosion threads. Pretty rudimentary formulas with some flaws but they generate interesting numbers and talking points. Movement 40 + 10 yd split + ss + 3 cone for movement and VJ + BJ + BP for explosion. Good stuff from Mayo and company.

 

[Coach42]

I don't know. I'll have to think about it. I used Pat Kirwan's "explosiveness" metric because it already existed (though the BP isn't great, and I tend to discount it for DBs, WRs and RBs) and then I created the "mobility" metric as an extension of Kirwan's "speed and quickness" analysis. So you can calculate 2 numbers, one measuring explosiveness, the other overall movement skills. I'm not sure 1 number really captures things as well, but I'll think about it.

Why not just VJ and BJ for explosiveness? That eliminates the arm length debate.

 

[mayoclinic]

Why not just VJ and BJ for explosiveness? That eliminates the arm length debate.

I think that Kirwan's point, as he recently explained it, is valid:

When the ball is snapped in the NFL, at least half the players on the field collide and the more explosive player wins the battle.

2014 NFL Draft: What comes next for clubs after combine? - CBSSports.com

I think that if you think of it this way, then some measurement of upper body strength as well as lower body strength is relevant - not as important, but still relevant. Bench press isn't ideal, but it's really the only consistent metric we currently have. You can adjust it for arm length, as has been proposed in the thread on this topic.

I think for DBs and WRs in particular and to a lesser extent RBs, it's about lower body explosiveness. The collisions don't happen right away. It helps to have some upper body strength to press / beat the press, but it's not nearly as critical a factor on every play, so for those players I tend to discount it (though I haven't come up with threshold/cutoff numbers for those positions).

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Coach42]

I think that Kirwan's point, as he recently explained it, is valid:



2014 NFL Draft: What comes next for clubs after combine? - CBSSports.com

I think that if you think of it this way, then some measurement of upper body strength as well as lower body strength is relevant - not as important, but still relevant. Bench press isn't ideal, but it's really the only consistent metric we currently have. You can adjust it for arm length, as has been proposed in the thread on this topic.

I think for DBs and WRs in particular and to a lesser extent RBs, it's about lower body explosiveness. The collisions don't happen right away. It helps to have some upper body strength to press / beat the press, but it's not nearly as critical a factor on every play, so for those players I tend to discount it (though I haven't come up with threshold/cutoff numbers for those positions).

Just my 2 cents.

I hear what your saying. The other question I would ask is how do you compensate for technique? Proper form and technique wins as many of those battles as brute strength. In addition using proper technique harness mostly your lower body/core strength rather than upper body strength. If we're going go use BP in the equation I think it should count for less than 1/3 the weighted number.

 

[Snake Eyes]

Why not just VJ and BJ for explosiveness? That eliminates the arm length debate.

Until the NFL uses something better it’s all we have.

I like my medicine ball idea, I think you could also have the players line up and go from their stance to the sled, with force meters measuring the energy output. Sports Science could probably come up with a bunch of stuff over the weekend that’s better than the bench press.

 

[mayoclinic]

I hear what your saying. The other question I would ask is how do you compensate for technique? Proper form and technique wins as many of those battles as brute strength. In addition using proper technique harness mostly your lower body/core strength rather than upper body strength. If we're going go use BP in the equation I think it should count for less than 1/3 the weighted number.

I think at some point adding complexity outweighs usefulness. To me these are crude metrics that can be used to screen raw athleticism, either to confirm/question tape or suggest guys worth studying in more detail. They're not the be - all - end - all. More precise distinctions can be made in a secondary analysis.

 

[Coach42]

What are your thoughts on Verrett? He posted a 16.53 which is only 0.05 off of the "gold standard Darrell Revis" and has some real good tape out there.

 

[manxman2601]

What are your thoughts on Verrett? He posted a 16.53 which is only 0.05 off of the "gold standard Darrell Revis" and has some real good tape out there.

My view is that he's just too small for what the Patriots are looking for. If we don't re-sign Talib, he doesn't have the build to replace him and if we re-sign Talib, we don't really have a need for him. Fine player, just not the right system for him.

 

[Coach42]

My view is that he's just too small for what the Patriots are looking for. If we don't re-sign Talib, he doesn't have the build to replace him and if we re-sign Talib, we don't really have a need for him. Fine player, just not the right system for him.

I was thinking of him as a cheap Arrington replacement/upgrade not Talib.

 

[Off The Grid]

I was thinking of him as a cheap Arrington replacement/upgrade not Talib.

He'd cost us #29, Bro.

 

[zimmy]

Our system can always use good players and Verrett is a good player. I personally think he's the best cover corner in this draft. He sticks to receivers like a glove. Granted he occasionally gets beaten even when he has great coverage. If he was two inches taller he'd be a top 10 pick.

He's become one of my binkies. He'd be an upgrade over all our corners bar Talib. Now we have other needs so we probably don't go corner at 29 but I would be happy to see us get him.

 

[Off The Grid]

Our system can always use good players and Verrett is a good player. I personally think he's the best cover corner in this draft. He sticks to receivers like a glove. Granted he occasionally gets beaten even when he has great coverage. If he was two inches taller he'd be a top 10 pick.

He's become one of my binkies. He'd be an upgrade over all our corners bar Talib. Now we have other needs so we probably don't go corner at 29 but I would be happy to see us get him.

Well, sure.

Nobody's saying that Jason Verrett isn't a great Prospect, Bro.

 

[Snake Eyes]

Our system can always use good players and Verrett is a good player. I personally think he's the best cover corner in this draft. He sticks to receivers like a glove. Granted he occasionally gets beaten even when he has great coverage. If he was two inches taller he'd be a top 10 pick.

He's become one of my binkies. He'd be an upgrade over all our corners bar Talib. Now we have other needs so we probably don't go corner at 29 but I would be happy to see us get him.

I think the value if taking him would have to be measured against whoever else is available, I'd prefer to use #29 on the D-line. Covering a receiver is nice but there's nothing like getting after the opposing QB...aside from preventing the other team from doing likewise.

 

[zimmy]

I think the value if taking him would have to be measured against whoever else is available, I'd prefer to use #29 on the D-line. Covering a receiver is nice but there's nothing like getting after the opposing QB...aside from preventing the other team from doing likewise.

Well of course. I personally think that the value of the players on the D line won't be there at 29. Jernigan and Donald will both be gone, possibly Kony Ealy too. I'm not sold on either Nix or Hageman at this point.

I see us looking at the defensive line in free agency to get another tackle and a rotational DE. But it's probably best to have this discussion in April so we have a better idea of needs.

As prospects, I've fallen for Shazier, Verrett, Beckham, Cooks and Su'a-Filo who may be around at 29. There's a few others I like but have given up on them being there at 29 now. I'm concerned Beckham has moved up boards too high now too.

 

[Coach42]

He'd cost us #29, Bro.

I was unawares he was so highly regarded.

 

[Off The Grid]

I was unawares he was so highly regarded.

He wasn't.

And then Word Got Out that Blue HorseShoe aka "Coach42" was on to'm, and his Stock skyrocketed.