Accurate analytics of our draft picks

[Sami84]

These numbers usually do tell the tale of a player. But it's not written in stone. Sometimes the eye test and common sense tells you a player is more explosive than the numbers and stats imply. Tim Williams is an example.

what he is saying is that none of this is eye test based. This is purely numbers and production based and no one with tim williams production( rotational or starter) and his athletic testing ( eye test or not) has gone on to be a pro bowl player.
[doublepost=1495147213,1495146953][/doublepost]

If it was so accurate, every GM would be buying into it. Game tape is irrelevant huh. That's enough to not even take this seriously and I don't.

might as well try? it's not like we've had good drafts for what is almost a decade now. Maybe he's cracked a code thats worth looking into. If we were drafting all pro and pro bowl players consistantly i'd so no reason too but we are constantly drafging busts or at best solid players.

Aside from Osemele and Cj Mosley and hopefully ronnie stanley ( nothing for sure but hopefull) we havent had any top 10 players in their positon.
We also don't have a superstar player ( best or 2nd best) in his position since marshal yanda was drafted in 2007.

I'd say the ravens should look into this guys work as their work has hardly been stellar.
[doublepost=1495147632][/doublepost]For instance, a guy like terrence cody would be a surefire bust rating in his sytem. Same with Sergio Kindle and Art brown AND Matt elam. Based on the metrics he uses.

Could have saved us a lot of pain..

 

[K-Dog]

Too much mumbling and droning, I could not finish watching..... listening as the case may be.

I don't buy into that sort of predictions and stats and what not. See Steve Smith and Ray Lewis and even Tom Brady, for reasons why.

 

[JoeyFlex5]

Tim williams supposedly lacks production even though he averaged a sack every 10-11 snaps.

That's why context is necessary. Also pro
Bowl/all pro status be damned, accolades and quality play are 2 different things.

 

[Sami84]

Too much mumbling and droning, I could not finish watching..... listening as the case may be.

I don't buy into that sort of predictions and stats and what not. See Steve Smith and Ray Lewis and even Tom Brady, for reasons why.

they both had elite production and athletic ability..they are used as part of the metrics for all long term pro players.
[doublepost=1495148540,1495148375][/doublepost]check out his Ebook so you can see how accurate and comprehensive it actually is. It's data thats long term ( 29 years) and the patterns are clearcut.

 

[bMore Heathen]

what he is saying is that none of this is eye test based. This is purely numbers and production based and no one with tim williams production( rotational or starter) and his athletic testing ( eye test or not) has gone on to be a pro bowl player.
[doublepost=1495147213,1495146953][/doublepost]

might as well try? it's not like we've had good drafts for what is almost a decade now. Maybe he's cracked a code thats worth looking into. If we were drafting all pro and pro bowl players consistantly i'd so no reason too but we are constantly drafging busts or at best solid players.

Aside from Osemele and Cj Mosley and hopefully ronnie stanley ( nothing for sure but hopefull) we havent had any top 10 players in their positon.
We also don't have a superstar player ( best or 2nd best) in his position since marshal yanda was drafted in 2007.

I'd say the ravens should look into this guys work as their work has hardly been stellar.
[doublepost=1495147632][/doublepost]For instance, a guy like terrence cody would be a surefire bust rating in his sytem. Same with Sergio Kindle and Art brown AND Matt elam. Based on the metrics he uses.

Could have saved us a lot of pain..

No amount of stats and statistics could ever tell what would happen with Kindle. Give me a break with that. I think you're taking the whole metrics thing a little too seriously. Who cares if we have a player that's the best in the NFL for their position? It just means they will price themselves out of our range. A player doesn't need to be the best in the NFL to be a good player. That's all you should really be expecting. Pro bowls and all pro teams are meaningless especially when, in most cases, they are popularity contests

 

[29BmoreBird22]

I guarantee that Chris Harris Jr. didn't meet the minimum statistics required. Low interception totals, low PD totals, very short, and not a super athletic specimen.

 

[Edgar]

On the bright side, apparently our 6th round pick will make multiple pro bowls.

 

[RavensMania]

I think you're taking the whole metrics thing a little too seriously.

Lol. Just a little

 

[Oldfaithful]

Football, or sports for that matter aren't solely played with analyitics. They're important and have value but Tim Williams passes all the eye tests and had significant production. Likewise he has a multitude of pass rushing moves to go with it. Even if he is a backup, he'll at worst be an incredibly valuable one that can put pressure on the QB like it's nobody's business. Weren't you also concerned about Stanley last season because of analytics? Stanley has turned out just fine at this point.

If he was really this good, someone would have notice by now and he'd be payed a lot of money.

 

[Sami84]

May 18, 2017 at 8:03 pm


I’m curious, where was Marshal Yanda graded in your system? Athletically, he seems pretty good ( 10-yard split is elite).
Like

REPLY

1. 
   jimcobern says:
   May 18, 2017 at 11:18 pm
   Yanda had elite flexibility for his size with above average speed and hit All-Pro explosiveness numbers. Specifically had 44.34 explosion score, 77.65 speed score and 94.48 flexibility score. Essentially had an elite power guard athletic skill set.
   

[doublepost=1495177985,1495177473][/doublepost]

Football, or sports for that matter aren't solely played with analyitics. They're important and have value but Tim Williams passes all the eye tests and had significant production. Likewise he has a multitude of pass rushing moves to go with it. Even if he is a backup, he'll at worst be an incredibly valuable one that can put pressure on the QB like it's nobody's business. Weren't you also concerned about Stanley last season because of analytics? Stanley has turned out just fine at this point.

If he was really this good, someone would have notice by now and he'd be payed a lot of money.

that wasnt his analyitcs regarding stanley.
Sheesh he's just stating facts. Up until this point from 1989 he's used metrics and percentages to create the threshold ( minimum value) and he has altered everying mathematically based on Strength of schedule/games missed if needed even.

Maybe there are people out there who have worked something out that others havent.
We haven't been stellar in drafts. I have been correct a lot more than they have with picks over the last 8 or so years.
I think this system by this guy is more helpful in determining who WON"T be an all pro/ pro bowler rather than who will be as the latter might depend on a lot of other things such as work ethic and proffesionalism.

 

[Somerset Ravens]

May 18, 2017 at 8:03 pm


I’m curious, where was Marshal Yanda graded in your system? Athletically, he seems pretty good ( 10-yard split is elite).
Like

REPLY

1. 
   jimcobern says:
   May 18, 2017 at 11:18 pm
   Yanda had elite flexibility for his size with above average speed and hit All-Pro explosiveness numbers. Specifically had 44.34 explosion score, 77.65 speed score and 94.48 flexibility score. Essentially had an elite power guard athletic skill set.

[doublepost=1495177985,1495177473][/doublepost]


that wasnt his analyitcs regarding stanley.
Sheesh he's just stating facts. Up until this point from 1989 he's used metrics and percentages to create the threshold ( minimum value) and he has altered everying mathematically based on Strength of schedule/games missed if needed even.

Maybe there are people out there who have worked something out that others havent.
We haven't been stellar in drafts. I have been correct a lot more than they have with picks over the last 8 or so years.
I think this system by this guy is more helpful in determining who WON"T be an all pro/ pro bowler rather than who will be as the latter might depend on a lot of other things such as work ethic and proffesionalism.

Analytics can be a very useful tool. You must remember that numbers can be deceiving. You need to look behind the numbers to see what the cause is for them. The circumstances that brought about the numbers must be evaluated to understand the value of the numbers.

Another thing to consider is the integrity in the gathering of the numbers. It is easy to make numbers come out a particular way if the analysts gathering the information are biased.

Relying on numbers without seeing what is behind them is risky.

 

[Sledge Hammer]

what he is saying is that none of this is eye test based. This is purely numbers and production based and no one with tim williams production( rotational or starter) and his athletic testing ( eye test or not) has gone on to be a pro bowl player.
[doublepost=1495147213,1495146953][/doublepost]

might as well try? it's not like we've had good drafts for what is almost a decade now. Maybe he's cracked a code thats worth looking into. If we were drafting all pro and pro bowl players consistantly i'd so no reason too but we are constantly drafging busts or at best solid players.

Aside from Osemele and Cj Mosley and hopefully ronnie stanley ( nothing for sure but hopefull) we havent had any top 10 players in their positon.
We also don't have a superstar player ( best or 2nd best) in his position since marshal yanda was drafted in 2007.

I'd say the ravens should look into this guys work as their work has hardly been stellar.
[doublepost=1495147632][/doublepost]For instance, a guy like terrence cody would be a surefire bust rating in his sytem. Same with Sergio Kindle and Art brown AND Matt elam. Based on the metrics he uses.

Could have saved us a lot of pain..

These stats definitely are accurate but there are exceptions. There is the eye test. There is players with bad testing days like Chad Johnson. I think Tim was on a bad testing day. It is something management should take into account when factoring everything in about a player. Wormley is the test. His system says bust but ravens management is high on Wormley and thinks it has a steal.

 

[The Raven]

I stopped watching after he showed "data" giving Ra'shede Hageman a significantly better sack grade than Wormley. Over four years, Hageman had 10 sacks, with two in his senior year. In four years, Wormley had 17.5, with 6.5 in junior year and 5.5 as a senior. He also gave Hageman a better grade on tackles and TFLs, but Wormley beat Hageman in both of those categories, in a four year span AND in senior year.

Based on this, I have to conclude that this man is a hack.

I consider data analytics to be gospel, but only when done correctly.

 

[Oldfaithful]

I stopped watching after he showed "data" giving Ra'shede Hageman a significantly better sack grade than Wormley. Over four years, Hageman had 10 sacks, with two in his senior year. In four years, Wormley had 17.5, with 6.5 in junior year and 5.5 as a senior. He also gave Hageman a better grade on tackles and TFLs, but Wormley beat Hageman in both of those categories, in a four year span AND in senior year.

Based on this, I have to conclude that this man is a hack.

I consider data analytics to be gospel, but only when done correctly.

I'm of a different opinion. I think it's an effective tool but shouldn't be the only thing used. Watching tape has a ton of value unlike what this guy is basically denoting. Even though the combine is INCREDIBLY overrated(especially the 40) I think some of the stats there have some value. But tape is usually the first thing I go off of.

 

[Sami84]

I stopped watching after he showed "data" giving Ra'shede Hageman a significantly better sack grade than Wormley. Over four years, Hageman had 10 sacks, with two in his senior year. In four years, Wormley had 17.5, with 6.5 in junior year and 5.5 as a senior. He also gave Hageman a better grade on tackles and TFLs, but Wormley beat Hageman in both of those categories, in a four year span AND in senior year.

Based on this, I have to conclude that this man is a hack.

I consider data analytics to be gospel, but only when done correctly.

He's responsive. How about you ask him about that? Just post on the youtube page.. I'm quite curious too about this.

 

[The Raven]

I'm of a different opinion. I think it's an effective tool but shouldn't be the only thing used. Watching tape has a ton of value unlike what this guy is basically denoting. Even though the combine is INCREDIBLY overrated(especially the 40) I think some of the stats there have some value. But tape is usually the first thing I go off of.

I believe Ozzie's rule is to use the combine to verify what you see on tape.

The eye test is crucial. Knowing the "why" is oftentimes more important than knowing the "what." Knowledge of systems and what a player was asked to do also influences this.
[doublepost=1495219506,1495219417][/doublepost]

He's responsive. How about you ask him about that? Just post on the youtube page.. I'm quite curious too about this.

I'd rather not waste my time. You should know I'm too pretentious to give loonies the time of day. Wait, what am I doing now? Oh...

 

[Sami84]

I stopped watching after he showed "data" giving Ra'shede Hageman a significantly better sack grade than Wormley. Over four years, Hageman had 10 sacks, with two in his senior year. In four years, Wormley had 17.5, with 6.5 in junior year and 5.5 as a senior. He also gave Hageman a better grade on tackles and TFLs, but Wormley beat Hageman in both of those categories, in a four year span AND in senior year.

Based on this, I have to conclude that this man is a hack.

I consider data analytics to be gospel, but only when done correctly.

Hey, dont worry about the last post. I messged him and pretty much copied and pasted this.
[doublepost=1495220103,1495219651][/doublepost]Question for everyone here.
I've mentioned this a few times but do you guys all feel that this FO or Pees in particular, value guys that are more about tackling and being physical than ballhawking game breakers? or risk takers, if you will..?

We never seem to go for defensive backs or safties that have a knack for interceptions. We go for size and/or physicality for the most part.
Is this to appease deans system?

 

[JoeyFlex5]

Hey, dont worry about the last post. I messged him and pretty much copied and pasted this.
[doublepost=1495220103,1495219651][/doublepost]Question for everyone here.
I've mentioned this a few times but do you guys all feel that this FO or Pees in particular, value guys that are more about tackling and being physical than ballhawking game breakers? or risk takers, if you will..?

We never seem to go for defensive backs or safties that have a knack for interceptions. We go for size and/or physicality for the most part.
Is this to appease deans system?

i think its more of fundamentals thing. we simply dont like players who prioritize one thing over another.

if you build a smothering, physical, hard hitting, big and fast defense that just shuts it down the whole game, then turnovers will come, at some point the opposing offense has to force the issue and thats where you make your turnovers. its like a running game, never chase the big run, you take your yards, you grind out first downs, you grind down the defense, and THEN the big runs will come without you having to risk a TFL, and everything opens up if everyone is doing their job and playing tough and physical.

i always have preferred a corner who stops the first down/touchdown first and foremost, they are a defender, turnovers are great, but their absolutely necessary task is to prevent yards and scores. if youre a cb playing off and about to break on a curl or a slant, if there is ANY chance that going for the pick will lead to a completion and an open field, you dont go for it, you light the receiver up and break up the pass, period. you go for that pick if there is a 100% chance that the worst case scenario is a deflection. i dont like dbs playing risky, personally.

 

[29BmoreBird22]

Hey, dont worry about the last post. I messged him and pretty much copied and pasted this.
[doublepost=1495220103,1495219651][/doublepost]Question for everyone here.
I've mentioned this a few times but do you guys all feel that this FO or Pees in particular, value guys that are more about tackling and being physical than ballhawking game breakers? or risk takers, if you will..?

We never seem to go for defensive backs or safties that have a knack for interceptions. We go for size and/or physicality for the most part.
Is this to appease deans system?

Pees prefers to run a Cover 2/Cover 3 zone concept. He likes to be aggressive and dictate the movements of the receivers at the LoS.

I think with very athletic pieces who fit these coverages (Humphrey, Bowser, Jimmy, Young, Jefferson, Weddle, Mosley), you'll start to see those interceptions and turnovers come.

@Sami84, I think the biggest thing we'll see is that the secondary is no longer being neglected. It isn't Jimmy Smith and whoever else Ozzie feels like throwing out there. It's been a very concerted effort the past two years to land major big pieces in Weddle and Jefferson and Ozzie has even taken a corner within the top 100 picks.

If the Ravens aren't high on the list of turnovers this season or next season (rookie growing pains are probably going to be real), I will join the fire Pees thread. I just think the potential is sky high right now.

 

[usmccharles]

Im all for people trying to find new ways to get ahead of competition and out smart everyone else. This type of stuff will continue to pop up for several years and while im sure some of it may pan out, some of it wont, so if its 50/50 then what does it really matter?

One thing that makes zero sense to me which i dont think was touched on, is the lack of accounting for who plays next to who. Lets say Wormley doesnt meet this guys criteria, well him next to Brandon Williams might free him up to do more. He may need a better player next to him, but this is a team sport and i dont believe you can use this as an end all be all. Working together as a team can bring out the best in some players, ie if Bowser becomes the starter next to Mosely who knows what level Mosely can take his game to because the coverage skill of Bowser will open things up.

Its interesting, i just dont buy into stuff like this for the most part.