Physicality

[VJCPatriot]

Physicality shows up first in run blocking and attitude, I thought I'd see which top OL candidates seem to have some strength at the point of attack and Scarnecchia "attitude" in their draft profiles. To help people focus, I've redacted personal information and mixed the Guards, Tackles, and Centers up a bit for you. So, ranked 1 - 7 (one recent column claims a poll of NFL front office types indicated 8 OL destined for round one), which of these top kids might blossom into the kind of physical player Ochmed is looking for?

Player A:
Run blocking: Quick off the snap. Latches on, shows very good upper-body strength and lateral agility and can turn the defender away from the ballcarrier. Plays with good pad level and shows some nastiness in his game. Looks to drive his assignment downfield or into the turf.

Just reading those scouting reports reminds me how well... generic they are. Most prospects have a few warts that can be keyed upon but how good are their strengths? I think we learn more negative than positive. Who is player A btw? He seems to be crticized the least, but the description of what he does well is pretty generic. Is he an 'elite' drive blocker, or is he just good at it but the least amount of flaws such that they don't merit being remarked upon?

This is my fear about Watt. He has maxed out his weight and isn't stout enough to survive as a 3/4 DE in the Pats system. Wilkerson on the other hand looks like a legit 300 pounder with room to add more.

How do you know Watt has maxed out his weight? He weighed in only 9 lbs less than Seymour did at the Combine, and his listed playing weight was 292 so that suggests he actually dropped a little weight for the combine. As a junior coming out a year early he's got room to grow, and with his long 6'5 frame can stand to add at least another 10-15 lbs without losing mobility. Wilkerson is already 315 lbs, his playing weight was listed as 305, so how do you know he hasn't maxed out HIS weight? Again these are subjective opinions you're making but based on what?

And does Wilkerson give us anything different than what Ty Warren does, which is stout run stopping but very little pass rush ability. Nobody has answered that yet. Watt has the measurables and talent to be an elite athlete. Watt's ceiling is closer to Seymour or Peppers than Wilkerson whose ceiling would be another Ty Warren. Who provided more of an impact on defense - Warren or Seymour? If a guy like Watt is available, I think you go for the impact player in the top 15.

The thing about this draft though is that there are 5-6 DE ranked as 1st round prospects which is pretty rare. Even if we miss out on Dareus (a given) and Watt (a possibility), we still have the possibility of consolation prizes such as Jordan, Wilkerson, and Heyward. I think Fairley is another name that shouldn't be overlooked but he's more of a value to 4-3 teams and I don't see him sliding outside the top 10 either.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Just reading those scouting reports reminds me how well... generic they are. Most prospects have a few warts that can be keyed upon but how good are their strengths? I think we learn more negative than positive. Who is player A btw? He seems to be crticized the least, but the description of what he does well is pretty generic. Is he an 'elite' drive blocker, or is he just good at it but the least amount of flaws such that they don't merit being remarked upon?

Yep, generic in the sense they are writing for a draft website and not trying to grade players with a specific team's grading system. Not as in-depth perhaps, but adequate for fan enjoyment. Before I tell you who A is, do you want to rank these prospects in terms of the physicality Ochmed is arguing for?

And does Wilkerson give us anything different than what Ty Warren does, which is stout run stopping but very little pass rush ability. Nobody has answered that yet.

Which Warren? The one playing with a torn groin or a bum hip, or the explosive DL with 6 or 7 sacks a few years back? I have responded to this question elsewhere, though it may not have been yours, but for a more professional assessment check Greg Gabriel's archive at National Football Post for an article he wrote a couple weeks back, Wilkerson is in the title. He and I view Wilkerson through similar lenses, if his has the benefit of 29 years in the NFL.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

How do you know Watt has maxed out his weight? He weighed in only 9 lbs less than Seymour did at the Combine, and his listed playing weight was 292 so that suggests he actually dropped a little weight for the combine. As a junior coming out a year early he's got room to grow, and with his long 6'5 frame can stand to add at least another 10-15 lbs without losing mobility. Wilkerson is already 315 lbs, his playing weight was listed as 305, so how do you know he hasn't maxed out HIS weight? Again these are subjective opinions you're making but based on what?

This brings up another point. Being large vs. playing large. Seymour came out of college around 300 pounds or so, but played like a nimble and nasty 325 pound man. Opposing offenses had to game plan for Seymour.

Except for Dareus, none of the other potential 3-4 D linemen in this draft, strike me as guys who can play bigger than they are. If anything I think guys like Jordan, Heyward and Watt play smaller than their current size, which is part of the reason, I have a hard time projecting them into our defense.

 

[VJCPatriot]

This brings up another point. Being large vs. playing large. Seymour came out of college around 300 pounds or so, but played like a nimble and nasty 325 pound man. Opposing offenses had to game plan for Seymour.

I have a hard time picturing this, 'playing bigger than you are' theory. So although Seymour weighed 299 lbs in actuality he played like he was 325. Huh? So how do we know which players play bigger than they are if it can't be measured on a scale. This is one metric that I've never heard of.

 

[Off The Grid]

I tried to group them by position because I think they have different skillsets and would struggle if playing outside their fit.

I don't like overly tall guards because I think they are less agile and will lose leverage battles with shorter, more athletic d-linemen. Conversely, a shorter tackle won't have the wingspan to engage the longer peripheral defenders. The outside defenders will get their hands on the shorter lineman and be able to easily disengage or control the breastplate and steer them.

Nicely put, and right on the money.

 

[Off The Grid]

Watt's ceiling is closer to Seymour or Peppers than Wilkerson whose ceiling would be another Ty Warren.

That's a very good break down of the enormous gap between those two.

 

[conway]

This exercise reminds me of the Malcolm Gladwell essay about FBI criminal profiling. 2007 New Yorker article. Apparently, criminal profilers, psychics, and draft scouts have a lot in common. Make general statements about prospects, characterize him with one detail AND the opposite, use a lot of ifs (if he can stay out of trouble, if he can put on weight, if the injury heals) and you're never really wrong or right. I just went back and skimmed it. Skip to page 5 of the online version if you must, about halfway down, he explains some of the specific tricks.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

This exercise reminds me of the Malcolm Gladwell essay about FBI criminal profiling. 2007 New Yorker article. Apparently, criminal profilers, psychics, and draft scouts have a lot in common. Make general statements about prospects, characterize him with one detail AND the opposite, use a lot of ifs (if he can stay out of trouble, if he can put on weight, if the injury heals) and you're never really wrong or right. I just went back and skimmed it. Skip to page 5 of the online version if you must, about halfway down, he explains some of the specific tricks.

Here's your article link

I'm not sure how you equate NFL draft scouts with these "team generic' profile excerpts written by draftniks? That said, short of watching tape of these players, or at least catching them in TV games and DVR the program for further review, we poor fans are left with draftnik profiles and occasional YouTube clips (which are almost always self serving). The exercise I proposed is not a final grade by any means, but it does aid in identifying prospects who might have the type of physicality Ochmed was urging.

Thanks for the article recommendation, an interesting read. I took a course in serial killer/rapist profiling when preparing for retirement and a second career. Other issues led to my just enjoying retirement so I've never looked at this in other then classroom exercises, but it was a fascinating course, I would have liked to have learned more. Have you followed any of the psychiatrist squabbles between this British group and the FBI since the article was written to know how the classification arguments and profiling standards might be changing?

Welcome!

 

[State]

This brings up another point. Being large vs. playing large. Seymour came out of college around 300 pounds or so, but played like a nimble and nasty 325 pound man. Opposing offenses had to game plan for Seymour.

Except for Dareus, none of the other potential 3-4 D linemen in this draft, strike me as guys who can play bigger than they are. If anything I think guys like Jordan, Heyward and Watt play smaller than their current size, which is part of the reason, I have a hard time projecting them into our defense.

Then we're trading up.

It'll cost us an awful lot, probably our top second-rounder in addition to both firsts. But let's do it, then.

Are you too scared to give up all these picks? Personally, I'd do it if we could keep the first player in the second round. Then it's 2000 all over again when we drafted Seymour and Light.

Our lines really need an infusion of talent like back then. It's 2000 all over again. Maybe a draft with Dareus and Sherrod is our Seymour and Light. I'd be very content.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Then we're trading up.

It'll cost us an awful lot, probably our top second-rounder in addition to both firsts. But let's do it, then.

Are you too scared to give up all these picks? Personally, I'd do it if we could keep the first player in the second round. Then it's 2000 all over again when we drafted Seymour and Light.

Our lines really need an infusion of talent like back then. It's 2000 all over again. Maybe a draft with Dareus and Sherrod is our Seymour and Light. I'd be very content.

So based on this never before defined, completely subjective, 'plays bigger than he actually weighs' metric you'd advise going all 'Ditka' on the draft? 3 for 1 trade ups invariably end up bad. There's no such thing as a sure thing in the draft, and expending that much pick value for one player usually backfires. Just ask the Saints. Was Rickey Williams a stud RB. Judging by his career, yeah you could definitely make a case. But was he worth all the picks that were given up. Hell to the no.

Did you forget that BB was running this draft? He doesn't abandon his draft strategy for any one player and he has been known for passing on the 'sexy' pick and sticking to his guns. See BB passing on Clay Matthews and Dez Bryant multiple times and trading down to get more picks in both the 2009 and 2010 drafts.

 

[State]

No, you're absolutely right. But what I'm agreeing with in Ochmed's post is sacrificing quantity for difference-makers.

If Dareus is the kind of player that Seymour was for us, keeping opposing coaches up late at night in an attempt to scheme, then it may be worth giving up picks. But I wouldn't do it if we gave up our first second-rounder.

Belichick will move up drafts, too. I remember his doing it when he had a tingle going up his leg for Daniel Graham. A move I thought at the time was a mistake, as I knew Michigan State's Baker was a better value.

I think he may have gotten burned from that experience. I don't remember his Cleveland years. Did he move up in a draft then?

What Bill Belichick Can Teach The Redskins About Draft Strategy | April

This is an art, not a science. Belichick is canny and unpredictable.

 

[MaineMan]

Good, now rank them just on your impression from those reports ... and bearing in mind the Belichick scouting adage, 'what does he do well, what can he for me?'

So, I broke the descriptions down into the elements they mentioned collectively about the players, loosely categorized as:
- get-off
- engagement
- sustainment/persistence
- upper body use/strength
- lower body use/strength
- agility
- leverage
- attitude
- "techniques" (HOW they accomplish WHAT they accomplish)
- intangibles

Then I gridded each description according to those elements. This is what I think about those descriptions now.

A - Pretty thin soup; just a generic sales pitch mentioning the basic elements you want to hear about in a positive light, but really says nothing about HOW the guy blocks or his persistence, except that he "can" do this and "tries" to do that. Goes on the reject pile at this point.

B - Much more specific about what the player DOES do well (and how/why) as well as what he needs work on. He sounds like a guy with the required upper and lower body strength and fundamentals who uses them well to aggressively engage with leverage and to persist. He appears to play with good technique to seal inside or outside as the situation requires, but needs coaching on hand technique and how to get off quickly from a 3-point stance. Seems like a solid prospect with a good personality who may not need a huge amount of development to become a solid contributor, or even starter, fairly quick. Proabably a guard. Goes on the "keeper" pile.

C - A few good points but needs a lot of work on technique and in the weight room. Maybe a late-round prospect.

D - Nearly identical to "C".

E - Pretty clear this is a larger tackle being described and it pre-emptively addresses the typical concerns one might have about such a prospect point-by-point, almost as if reading from a list. If this were written by an agent, rather than a (hypothetically) impartial scout/analyst, I'd be skeptical - almost reads like the writer is "profiling" the audience. Emphasizes the player's agility, technique, leverage, persistence, competitiveness and toughness without really talking much about his physical strength. Does mention that he can be "de-leveraged" and shed by quicker defenders. Also mentions that he's not currently a vocal leader for his teammates, but notes he received a team award for work ethic and dedication. Without knowing what his pass-pro is like, he seems like a "high floor" player who may be worth a high-round pick.

F - Seems pretty apologetic. Best thing that can be said about him is that he works hard and is highly respected by coaches and fans. Not really on the board.

G - Doesn't mention his get-off, but sounds kind of like a center with the emphasis on "lowness" (especially at the goal line) and the quickness/agility to get to either shoulder of an assignment. Seems to indicate sufficient physical strength, but emphasizes that he uses solid technique more than strength. The most notable intangible is his durability, but it's also implied that there might be some leadership lurking in there. Maybe a 3rd-rounder.


As to rankings, E, B and G seem like solid day-two picks, with E possibly a 1st-rounder. C and D (almost the same player) might be 6th/7th round developmental guys, maybe even UDFAs in a "normal" year.

A and F wouldn't be on my board.

----

Great exercise! I should apply this type of breakdown to all scouting reports. And I would, if I had the time.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

So, I broke the descriptions down into the elements they mentioned collectively about the players, loosely categorized as:
- get-off
- engagement
- sustainment/persistence
- upper body use/strength
- lower body use/strength
- agility
- leverage
- attitude
- "techniques" (HOW they accomplish WHAT they accomplish)
- intangibles

Then I gridded each description according to those elements. This is what I think about those descriptions now.

A - Pretty thin soup; just a generic sales pitch mentioning the basic elements you want to hear about in a positive light, but really says nothing about HOW the guy blocks or his persistence, except that he "can" do this and "tries" to do that. Goes on the reject pile at this point.

B - Much more specific about what the player DOES do well (and how/why) as well as what he needs work on. He sounds like a guy with the required upper and lower body strength and fundamentals who uses them well to aggressively engage with leverage and to persist. He appears to play with good technique to seal inside or outside as the situation requires, but needs coaching on hand technique and how to get off quickly from a 3-point stance. Seems like a solid prospect with a good personality who may not need a huge amount of development to become a solid contributor, or even starter, fairly quick. Proabably a guard. Goes on the "keeper" pile.

C - A few good points but needs a lot of work on technique and in the weight room. Maybe a late-round prospect.

D - Nearly identical to "C".

E - Pretty clear this is a larger tackle being described and it pre-emptively addresses the typical concerns one might have about such a prospect point-by-point, almost as if reading from a list. If this were written by an agent, rather than a (hypothetically) impartial scout/analyst, I'd be skeptical - almost reads like the writer is "profiling" the audience. Emphasizes the player's agility, technique, leverage, persistence, competitiveness and toughness without really talking much about his physical strength. Does mention that he can be "de-leveraged" and shed by quicker defenders. Also mentions that he's not currently a vocal leader for his teammates, but notes he received a team award for work ethic and dedication. Without knowing what his pass-pro is like, he seems like a "high floor" player who may be worth a high-round pick.

F - Seems pretty apologetic. Best thing that can be said about him is that he works hard and is highly respected by coaches and fans. Not really on the board.

G - Doesn't mention his get-off, but sounds kind of like a center with the emphasis on "lowness" (especially at the goal line) and the quickness/agility to get to either shoulder of an assignment. Seems to indicate sufficient physical strength, but emphasizes that he uses solid technique more than strength. The most notable intangible is his durability, but it's also implied that there might be some leadership lurking in there. Maybe a 3rd-rounder.


As to rankings, E, B and G seem like solid day-two picks, with E possibly a 1st-rounder. C and D (almost the same player) might be 6th/7th round developmental guys, maybe even UDFAs in a "normal" year.

A and F wouldn't be on my board.

----

Great exercise! I should apply this type of breakdown to all scouting reports. And I would, if I had the time.

Very interesting work-up, nice read. I don't see anyone else stepping up to take a whack so here's who's who, enjoy!

A: Pouncey
B: Watkins
C: Ty Smith
D: Castonzo
E: Solder
F: Hudson
G: Wisniewski

Which you suggest, based strictly on this limited run blocking/intangible data, ranks thusly:

1-2 Rd: Solder
2-3 Rd: Watkins
3: Wisniewski
6-7: Smith, Castonzo

Not Patriots fits: Pouncey, Hudson

 

[MaineMan]

Very interesting work-up, nice read. I don't see anyone else stepping up to take a whack so here's who's who, enjoy!

Which you suggest, based strictly on this limited run blocking/intangible data, ranks thusly:

1-2 Rd: Solder
2-3 Rd: Watkins
3: Wisniewski
6-7: Smith, Castonzo

Not Patriots fits: Pouncey, Hudson

Thanks! Really enjoyed it. Now, if you'd be so kind .... back at ya:

Each O-lineman's notes are my own compilation from multiple observer reports (some "mainstream", others not) at All-Star practices and games. Remarkably consistent observations they were, for all that.


Player A:
Run-blocking: Quickly and easily gains control at PoA. great drive to steer defenders away from the running lane. Good lean, finish on blocks. Nasty demeanor, very aggressive; tends to manhandle defenders. Very good blocking for power-running game from both OT spots.
Pass-Pro: Powerful punch into contact, great hands; plenty of strength to control, even manhandle, after lock-on. Solid overall strength/athleticism, though does lack for some power of his post leg. Sometimes gets a bit high and allows defenders to get underneath leverage, but generally has a very compact sit off the snap providing him with solid balance. Good setup position, change-of-direction agility and working angles allows him to stay in front of defender and mirror well. Somewhat slow feet leave him occasionally vulnerable to speed off the edge to where he can be re-directed or taken for a ride, even by Day-2 prospects, but still considerably better versus edge speed than what was expected.
General: Apparently sought out some independent coaching after his school bowl game that seems to have resulted in some distinct improvements. He did struggle with some specific techniques while trying to adapt to other O-line positions, but got by on natural fluid athleticism and still looked better than most guys who were trying to move around the line.

Player B:
Run-blocking: Generates immediate leverage off the snap. Very good drive, impressive hip explosion through blocks and good lateral footwork through contact. Very good pulling, on the move, working in space. Plays smart, patient, efficient, virtually error-free. Violent with a real mean streak. Immediately incorporated coaching tips and adjusted to different O-line positions almost instantly, though he did struggle at OC for awhile. Blew running lanes wide open during the game.
Pass-Pro: Again, generates immediate leverage off the snap. Bends well and stays compact. Outstanding power, very stout anchor even against the biggest/strongest D-linemen. Outstanding technique/footwork/lateral agility enabled him to consistently stone rushers at every O-line position he tried and to mirror well on the outside. Needs some more work on hand technique; his placement is sometimes poor and he got called for a HOLD in the game.
General: Occasionally gets too wide or high and his post leg in pass-pro is sometimes weak, but he adjusts and re-sets quickly. Very smart, hard-worker who is easily coached up.

Player C:
Run-blocking: Solid base at PoA. Great drive and leverage; uses long arms well. Very persistenct. Easily cleared run lanes in game, working from various positions. Consistent walling-off and sealing when working at OT.
Pass-Pro: Consistently able to control, even pancake, 2nd-round prospects on power rush playing on the inside, but often stood up by smaller guys. Inconsistent on the outside. Patient, rarely off-balance and just agile enough to mirror and ride even some Day-1/Day-2 prospects wide and past, but struggles with edge speed more often than not. Just doesn't have the necessary backpedal.
General: While some questioned his motivation, others lauded him for his perseverence. Struggled recognizing blitzes and even his HC noted that he sometimes appeared to not know what to do.

Player D:
Run-blocking: Good explosion off snap into solid engagement position on high-end DEs. Works blocks through the whistle. Generally solid/strong at PoA. Good position blocking and wall-off. Inconsistent downfield: at one point, got off initial assignment well to engage [REDACTED] at 2nd level and then promptly got taken out by fine swim move (somewhat unexpected from REDACTED player). Not flashy, but generaly able to get the job done.
Pass-Pro: Early in the week, his lack of lower body strength, aggravated by often playing flat-footed after a quick initial setup, resulted in disappointingly weak showing and frequently getting knocked out of position. Consistently keeping his shoulders properly squared-up, he was often able to get good pre-emptive leverage, but then just as often lost it quickly (flat-footedness again). His footwork did improve some and became more consistent through the week resulting in being able to stone [REDACTED potential Day-One D-lineman] and shutdown [REDACTED Day-Two prospect who was otherwise showing fairly well]. But then, he struggled against [REDACTED different Day-Two/Three D-lineman]. Decent kickstep and just enough length and general athleticism for OT. He was able to redirect [REDACTED potential Day-One edge rusher] wide when his footwork was right, but his agility/quicks were most often insufficent against speed rushers.
General: Never got comfortable trying "new" positions on the line. Struggled with the new angles, patience, oversetting, forward lean. Overall lack of effective strength is a concern.

Player E:
Run-blocking: Weak initial punch. Struggles to get low enough for leverage or to get any push. Then occasionally dominates and shows a real nasty streak. Can be quick enough to pull effectively and can set the edge, but struggles to lcate targets on the move or to work in space.
Pass-Pro: Inconsistent leverage, as in run-blocking, as he struggles to bend versus shorter rushers. Also inconsistent due to poor hand/arm placement. Early in the week, he often showed barely sufficient athleticism/range/reach to re-direct or mirror versus edge speed, partly due to an overextended initial kickstep that left him lungeing. He was able to stalemate a potential Day-1 prospect, then got beat inside by a Day-3 prospect. There was some marginal technique improvement through the week, but the results were simlarly inconsistent.
General: He often appears smooth, fluid and very athletic, but then defeats himself with overall sloppy footwrk and technique. He received nearly continuous technique corrections from coaches from the get-go but was only marginally successful or even consistent implementing them. Appears to lack core strength or any consistency in his fundamentals. He seems especially weak to his right side. He was fairly okay versus edge speed playing LT, but then got beat inside. Then he couldn't handle edge speed at all when tring RT. Seemed to have a generaly sour attitude all week and then continued to have problems even against Day-2 edge-rushers during the game.

Player F:
Run-blocking: Fires off the ball. Consistently fights hard through to the finish on blocks. Has strong hands and uses them well with very good technique. Stays low for good leverage. Executes well on pulls, getting down the line quickly. Moves well in space and locates targets well on the move. Opened a lot of holes for [REDACTED] in the game. [NOTE: (redacted) is a relatively slender back who showed surprising strength running inside all week and produced several power runs for decent yardage in the game.]
Pass-Pro: Unsurprisingly weak against the bull-rush from bigger linemen ([REDACTED potential NT prospect] drove him straight backwards.) Occasionally loses technique by dropping his head and leaning too far forward. However, when he maintains sound technique, stays compact and uses his good agility, he can hold the PoA and neutralize penetration.
General: Consistent hard worker with good overall athleticism and technique, but current lack of heft is an obvious problem.

Player G:
Run-blocking: Very quick off the snap. Strong at PoA, solid initial punch, locks on with strong hands, consistent solid finisher with some nasty attitude. Better than expected pull and good slide out to seond level, but sometimes struggled to locate targets once he got there. Very solid in the game and made a great block to spring a TD.
Pass-Pro: Generally quick off the snap to establish good intial position. Good patience to let blocks come to him when playing inside. Very strong after latch-on and generally stout anchor, but sometimes doesn't maintain leverage very long. Has good steps into double-teams, but needs better footwork technique generally.
General: Struggled at OC in practice. Was overaggressive, came off the snap too high and had atypically slow/poor hand placement. Played solidly in the game at OC, though only for one of the QBs in the rotation (was, more or less, this QB's "personal OC" and played LG the rest of the time). Solid overall technique and fundamentals yet was eager enough to improve that he consistently asked for specific pointers from coaches. Doesn't "wow" with his play, but does a lot of the little things very well. Doesn't blow assignments.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Thanks! Really enjoyed it. Now, if you'd be so kind .... back at ya:

Each O-lineman's notes are my own compilation from multiple observer reports (some "mainstream", others not) at All-Star practices and games. Remarkably consistent observations they were, for all that.

Hopefully I'll have something for you by tomorrow.

Food for thought: I find blending reporting sources in this type of exercise muddies the picture, you have to do it eventually, but if you have used individual sources on the same players and ranked them accordingly, you are better able to 'weight' your rankings for the inevitable bias of the reporting source (or your bias towards them). For example: I read Wes Bunting, not for his value as an evaluator or even an observer, but to make myself look at his specific observations and double-check them for myself in case "I" missed something. Wes' is like panning for color in a glacier stream, you are more likely to catch cold than gold.

If you don't grade your sources with your data you wind up giving the same credence to an experienced eye witness as an inveterate gossip.

For the record, I use NFL Draft Scout as my "baseline" draft site based on their consistency over the few years I've been doing this. They were the source for the material in the previous exercise.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Thanks! Really enjoyed it. Now, if you'd be so kind .... back at ya:

Each O-lineman's notes are my own compilation from multiple observer reports (some "mainstream", others not) at All-Star practices and games. Remarkably consistent observations they were, for all that.

Okay, before I give you my ranking, let me state up front this was frustrating as an analytical exercise from the word go. I've already mentioned my objection to summations compiled from multiple sources due to the lack of consistency, but what I should have included in that objection was how the summation should be the end game from the analyst's perspective, so in some respect you were asking me to do an analysis of the analyst ... which is clearly futile at this stage of the process.

I went ahead and did this treating the information provided as single source (or at least single organization with consistent reporting standards), but that led to another issue which was, to what purpose? The exercise I set up had one characteristic to measure, physicality. You went beyond that in your evaluation, which hurt nothing as in the end the physicality question was still answered. Given Ochmed's request for more physicality on the O-line, we used my exercise to determine which players might offer some ability in that regard, then we can go on to assess other aspects such as pass protection, blocking in space, coachability, etc. By itself the exercise just narrowed the focus towards those players who might have the necessary attitude being sought.

This exercise measures seven players across several areas, a broader and therefore more homogeneous task which tries to measure the totality in one exercise. I tried to break it down and grade them out in individual areas to compensate for that, they were: run blocking at the LOS, run blocking in space, pass protection, attitude, intangibles, and versatility. I tried to rank them 1-7 in each area, sometimes I couldn't find any information which earned them an automatic 7, other times I gave two or more prospects the same ranking because there just wasn't enough to differentiate them in my mind.

So, after all my complaints about your exercise , I ranked them thus:

B - by a wide margin.
F
A
C/G
D
E

If you have the reporting sources available to share with a breakdown of their individual contributions to your summations I'd be interested to look at this again once I've given some thought to the sources themselves.

 

[MaineMan]

Okay, before I give you my ranking, let me state up front this was frustrating as an analytical exercise from the word go. I've already mentioned my objection to summations compiled from multiple sources due to the lack of consistency, but what I should have included in that objection was how the summation should be the end game from the analyst's perspective, so in some respect you were asking me to do an analysis of the analyst ... which is clearly futile at this stage of the process.

I went ahead and did this treating the information provided as single source (or at least single organization with consistent reporting standards), but that led to another issue which was, to what purpose? The exercise I set up had one characteristic to measure, physicality. You went beyond that in your evaluation, which hurt nothing as in the end the physicality question was still answered. Given Ochmed's request for more physicality on the O-line, we used my exercise to determine which players might offer some ability in that regard, then we can go on to assess other aspects such as pass protection, blocking in space, coachability, etc. By itself the exercise just narrowed the focus towards those players who might have the necessary attitude being sought.

This exercise measures seven players across several areas, a broader and therefore more homogeneous task which tries to measure the totality in one exercise. I tried to break it down and grade them out in individual areas to compensate for that, they were: run blocking at the LOS, run blocking in space, pass protection, attitude, intangibles, and versatility. I tried to rank them 1-7 in each area, sometimes I couldn't find any information which earned them an automatic 7, other times I gave two or more prospects the same ranking because there just wasn't enough to differentiate them in my mind.

So, after all my complaints about your exercise , I ranked them thus:

B - by a wide margin.
F
A
C/G
D
E

If you have the reporting sources available to share with a breakdown of their individual contributions to your summations I'd be interested to look at this again once I've given some thought to the sources themselves.

First off, I apologize. I completely missed your objection to summations/compilations though I certainly appreciate your reasons. Among my many "careers", I spent a lot of years as a fine wine dealer. Since it was physically impossible to personally scout more than about 25% of prospects before drafting them (my liver had a difficult enough time as it was), I had to rely on the perceptions of other scouts and analysts (especially wrt things like yet-to-be-bottled Bordeaux and Bourgogne), many of whom had an intrinsic conflict of interest since they were also the people who were trying to sell me stuff. But the main task for me was to was to develop over time a thorough grasp of each analyst's perceptual tendencies (in a sense, determining their tells) so that I could play the role of modem and demodulate them into a compilation/summary that was useful/applicable to the specific situation on my end. IOW, analyzing the analysts was the critical step after understanding that no observer/analyst is trustworthy on every aspect.

Just to be clear, I don't vouch for the objectivity/accuracy of the impressions I compiled. And I don't present them with the intent of making any particular point about the players. I simply found the areas of agreement and disagreement with the analyses that you presented interesting and I trust you as someone who tends to investigate discrepancies rather than reject them out of hand.

Anyway, I appreciate that you forged ahead in spite of all this by treating these summaries on an as-if basis.

As I was breaking down (before summarizing) the impressions of this set of analysts (which was not exactly the same set for each prospect, though there was significant overlap), I began to see some entanglements, or reflections at least, between run-blocking and pass-blocking physicality. Since I had already separated those eggs, I figured I might as well present them. In the end, it's very cool that you then reconsolidated them and created your own tranches.

Though it seems almost secondary at this point, here are the players:

B = Watkins (I found the unanimity of enthusiasm here kind of red-flag-ish, BTW)
F = Hudson
A = Carimi
C/G = Carpenter/Moffitt
D = Castonzo
E = Solder

Generally agree with your ranking (base exclusively on these summaries) and was surprised how they worked out - deserving of yet more analysis, of course.

BTW - When I was consolidating all-star game spreadsheets with combine spreadsheets and college production spreadsheets, I kept the all-star notes, but apparently left behind the key for identifying who made which observation. That link is not lost, I just need to go back to an earlier spreadsheet and retrieve it.

Also, sorry to be so blathering and abrupt, but duty calls. I'll try to make up for it after work.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

First off, I apologize.

Unnecessary, take this as a gracious (if not so graceful) rejection of your apology and an icy Black Butte Porter (for my wine drinking buddy).

I completely missed your objection to summations/compilations though I certainly appreciate your reasons. Among my many "careers", I spent a lot of years as a fine wine dealer. Since it was physically impossible to personally scout more than about 25% of prospects before drafting them (my liver had a difficult enough time as it was), I had to rely on the perceptions of other scouts and analysts (especially wrt things like yet-to-be-bottled Bordeaux and Bourgogne), many of whom had an intrinsic conflict of interest since they were also the people who were trying to sell me stuff. But the main task for me was to was to develop over time a thorough grasp of each analyst's perceptual tendencies (in a sense, determining their tells) so that I could play the role of modem and demodulate them into a compilation/summary that was useful/applicable to the specific situation on my end. IOW, analyzing the analysts was the critical step after understanding that no observer/analyst is trustworthy on every aspect.

I worked with raw data and published intelligence products, needless to say various agencies do have their own institutional blind spots and agendas, analyzing the analyst was required, especially when you did not have access to their data. In your case I have a limited feel for your 'tells' as you put it, with a high regard for your enthusiasm.

Just to be clear, I don't vouch for the objectivity/accuracy of the impressions I compiled. And I don't present them with the intent of making any particular point about the players. I simply found the areas of agreement and disagreement with the analyses that you presented interesting and I trust you as someone who tends to investigate discrepancies rather than reject them out of hand.

Aw shucks. :blush: I absolutely expected there to be conflicts when I proposed the exercise, but that was sure to give me the opportunity to caution against using information gleaned from narrowly defined datum and using it to define the whole.

Anyway, I appreciate that you forged ahead in spite of all this by treating these summaries on an as-if basis.

As I was breaking down (before summarizing) the impressions of this set of analysts (which was not exactly the same set for each prospect, though there was significant overlap), I began to see some entanglements, or reflections at least, between run-blocking and pass-blocking physicality. Since I had already separated those eggs, I figured I might as well present them. In the end, it's very cool that you then reconsolidated them and created your own tranches.

Though it seems almost secondary at this point, here are the players:

B = Watkins (I found the unanimity of enthusiasm here kind of red-flag-ish, BTW)
F = Hudson
A = Carimi
C/G = Carpenter/Moffitt
D = Castonzo
E = Solder

Generally agree with your ranking (base exclusively on these summaries) and was surprised how they worked out - deserving of yet more analysis, of course.

BTW - When I was consolidating all-star game spreadsheets with combine spreadsheets and college production spreadsheets, I kept the all-star notes, but apparently left behind the key for identifying who made which observation. That link is not lost, I just need to go back to an earlier spreadsheet and retrieve it.

Also, sorry to be so blathering and abrupt, but duty calls. I'll try to make up for it after work.

About what I expected, which takes me back to weighing the source reporting prior to swirling it all around your mind to form a murky picture (there is never a clear one, never). More analysis is required, happily NE has already done it so we're just twiddling our thumbs awaiting the dramatic conclusion to the draft.