Jump to content

DougDew

Senior Member
  • Content Count

    7,669
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by DougDew

  1. DougDew

    Day one OTAs

    He's fine. He's pretty good. Even if he plays no better than pick 50, that's fine too. You may get lucky and he ends up making the plays he was drafted to make after having better teammates around him (like he did at OSU), but that still wouldn't confirm anything. I'm assuming Ballard took a CB with his first pick of the draft, traded up 20 spots for another S, and drafted probably a coverage MIKE because he felt the underneath coverage left gaping holes everywhere. To a point where QBs didn't target Hooker because he was the best DB on field simply by default. The idea that QBs didn't throw his way because they were afraid to seems like biased speculation hoping to confirm something.
  2. DougDew

    Day one OTAs

    No, since I've never claimed he was bad at his job. I've said that given the circumstances, I don't know how good he is. I've explained this several times in this thread, and all threads about Hooker I comment in. Why do you pretend to not understand the difference?
  3. DougDew

    Day one OTAs

    I don't know why you choose to ignore this basic concept when it comes to Hooker..... If Greg Toler is one starting CB and a relative fencepost is the other starting CB, wouldn't Greg Toler be ranked #1 in the NFL for lack of targeting? Ballard drafted a lot of back seven defensive players. It should tell you what he thought of all players not Hooker.
  4. DougDew

    Day one OTAs

    Agreed. There are a lot of moving parts to Hooker's situation that are tough to sort out and weigh. I assume as time moves on, he'll have more opportunities to play the role he was drafted to play. But I can't pre-judge that before it happens.
  5. DougDew

    Day one OTAs

    No. I'm not discounting his play while not having all the statistical analysis. What I'm doing is not awarding praise when I don't have all of the statistical analysis. Once I know what his assignments are relative to other safeties in the NFL, then I'll be in position to either praise or discount. Not before. If you want to praise him now, and speculate upon what type of contract he'll get three years from now, be my guest. But if I point out that he covers one half of the deep field whereas others he is ranked against might be assigned to cover the entire deep field, that's a simple fact, not a preconceived opinion.
  6. DougDew

    Day one OTAs

    I don't really know the coverage packages the Colts ran most of the time. But I doubt others have either before showering praise. I believe he is ranked #1 in "deep ball preventions" because he is taking away the deep ball in only one half of the field, (his zone) not the deep ball in the entire field, (a bigger deep zone) like Ed Reed would be responsible for in the Pagano defense. (we changed schemes) So the stat is irrelevant if it is not adjusted for safeties who are responsible for one half of the back half of the field, compared to safeties who are responsible for for the entire back half of the field. I have read where we have not been able to use him for which he was drafted (cover 1?) because we don't have the other players available to let him roam the entire back half consistently. Definitions: Cover One is a man-to-man coverage for all the defensive backs except for one player (usually a safety) who is not assigned a man to cover but rather plays deep zone and reacts to the development of the play. In a traditional Cover 1, the free safety plays deep and all of the other defenders lock in man coverage to an assigned player for the duration of the play. In traditional Cover 2 schemes the free safety (FS) and strong safety (SS) have deep responsibilities, each guarding half of the field. The NFL's Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Indianapolis Colts, Chicago Bears, and New York Giants run a variant of this defense called the Tampa 2. You need to know if the stat accounts for safeties playing cover 2 or cover 1. Safeties who have limited targets in more plays in cover 1 are more impressive when speaking in terms of taking away the deep ball. Not to mention if the other players assigned coverages underneath (CBs, SSs, and LBs) stink, the QB will simply take the intermediate routes because of how bad those guys are, not because of how good the FS is. Which equals fewer targets/snap for the FS, even though the play of the FS had little to do with impacting the stat.
  7. DougDew

    Day one OTAs

    So. He's the 13th rated safety, so he'd get a top 13 contract. Not bad. Not a top 5, but not bad.
  8. The roster is full at UT. There is room at NT for one more, IMO. So if he can play there, then I think he might be signed.
  9. The dollar value of a contract will be a good indicator.
  10. The bottom of the first round is always a tough place to be, IMO. Bill Polian and Grigson had to draft from that spot most of their careers. Trading out is usually a good move, IMO, if you can find a partner. I'm glad Ballard did that the first time he found himself at the bottom of round 1.
  11. Anybody can have the most anything after 3 weeks. You're really stretching the concept of forecasting to be essentially calling Hooker a pro bowl player during his rookie year after a few games. Sorry, to this point, he has not lived up to his rookie pre-season hype, either due to previous injury or current scheme, or maybe simply not being that good. Nice player so far. That's about it. Maybe he'll get there. Maybe he'll get a franchise designation or a top 5 S contract in a couple of years. Maybe not. We'll see.
  12. Nonsense. Nobody should project any rookie to have a pro bowl year based upon 5 games. He just had a higher level of interceptions at the time, but wasn't elite at anything else. He wasn't ever hyped to simply have a "very solid" season. He was hyped to be the 7th best player who "fell" to 15. Very solid is what you get with pick 40.
  13. How easy is it to replace either? Can Funchess do what Ebron does, if Funchess lined up and was used like Ebron is? Could Funchess, or anybody else including Ebron, do what Doyle does if they lined up and were used like Doyle is? Hands down, Doyle is harder to replace.
  14. Not bad. Not great. But probably longer than most 6 footers.
  15. I wouldn't doubt that there is some partisan fanship influencing how Lewis and Hooker are viewed by the fanbase, but who knows how much. I'm sure that Ballard doesn't care what school someone goes to outside at judging the level of competition. Lewis just seems like a tweener to me. Not quick enough for the edge and not stout enough to hold up consistently against the run. He, Turay, and Banugo all seem like rotational players to me. I guess Ballard thinks rotational players are worthy of good second round picks, so we'll see how these guys do. For that matter, Hunt and Autry also seem like rotational players, although veterans.
  16. I think Tell will be a CB and Farley will be on the squad. Speed will probably be on the PS.
  17. Agreed, that other post was great and this is too. I look at the hype towards Lewis being sort of the same as the hype towards Hooker. The love seems to be more than what would be supported by the tape and their accomplishments. I would say that both are from Ohio State and that there are a lot of OSU fans on this board. But if I said that I would probably be criticized for the comment not having any merit. A team also needs fatties for short yardage/goal line situations. Back in the Polian years, he would say that the run game doesn't beat you as much as the passing game. And the NFL has become more of a passing league since then. Maybe guys like Brock and Foster would be valued more now than then. And with PMs offense, the theory was that the defense would be defending the pass more than the run, and the D was built to reflect that. With Luck/Reich's offense, the same could be said for how the defense should be built. Having said that, I simply don't see where Stewart and Hunt can be relied upon to be the NTs for the entire season.
  18. I'd rather have Banogu and the draft pick. I didn't want Sweat. I'm looking forward to who the pick will be more than I'm looking forward to Banogu, who I think might be a project.
  19. Arm Length? At 6 feet tall it might matter a lot.
  20. Frankly, that's exactly the type of WR this team needs, A guy who turn a short pass into a long one. He can learn the long ball stuff over his contract and eventually take over for TY if that works out, but what he is good at right now is what the Colts need immediately, IMO.
  21. DougDew

    Ben Banogu

    Wasn't TJ Green known as an athlete who played football but didn't have a strong suite of skills for his forecasted position? If our pass rusher doesn't have a lot of pass rushing moves but is a great athlete who could therefore be used in various ways, I'm not sure why my optimism should outweigh my concerns.
  22. Nothing is scary about it. This conversation has been resurrected for me so I don't know if it was this thread or others, but when it came to opining on the first round trade out, some were quoting the JJ Draft chart but also using some other metric pulled off the net, to justify the opinion. It seemed the criticism of the old chart and the use of the new was supported by nothing other than the JJ chart was outdated (because it was developed in the analog age) and the new metrics are better (because they were adopted in the digital age.) (When the math used to develop both hasn't changed in centuries, its just solved quicker now, so a company can make more charts with more math faster, not necessarily make any chart more accurate, depending upon the quality of cohorts chosen to be included in, or excluded from, the algorithms.) If there is no other reason then the age of the product to use one over the other, or that the new is simply more complex than the old, then converting your life from analog to digital isn't really based upon what its purported to be based on, IMO. In fact, your comments about old people using paper money, and now me being scary about the digital age, has the tone of making fun of people who might not use digital. Avoiding being made fun of, aka peer pressure, is an emotional based driver for using digital that conflicts directly with the advertised idea that its more logical and smarter (its smart to use something more convenient). I find that hypocrisy amusing. Not scared. Amused. But I didn't read every comment in every thread about the subject, so there may be mitigating comments I never read, but the ones I did read had that tone. I don't care that much and forgot about it until it was brought up again.
  23. People who use paper money don't factor in convenience when making decisions about payment methods? Is there even much of a difference, in terms of convenience? I'm talking about looking at a draft value chart and seeing that if I lose 260 points, I can make that up by gaining 150 and about 100 elsewhere, or 150 then 70 and 30. It takes about 2 seconds to take in the entire chart and mentally mark the proper spots. You're doing that long hand with pencil and paper? My point about the math is that the person who made the declining graduated scale of the JJ chart certainly used complex math when they made it. That math doesn't change from the math used in algorithms. The difference is that modern algorithms may process more cohorts than what JJ used because the processing capacity is a lot faster. But including new cohorts, and excluding others, is a matter of human judgment. And when algorithm processes the data in the way the writers think is best, the math is then solved the same way math as been solved for centuries. It hasn't changed. There's no difference. So I don't see how anybody can say that the new ESPN metric is better than the JJ chart, without knowing what cohorts are weighted in what way in both methods, and what judgment was used to weigh some more heavily than others.
  24. Seriously? A big part of marketing is telling the audience that the other guy's product is old, dated, and out of touch with modern times. I thought that was common knowledge. The other stuff is just different ways people form opinions. Assumptions and viewpoint is how a lot of efficient decisions are made. Some people aren't comfortable with that and must follow a regimented process, like analytics for example, before they can form an opinion. They feel better about that process, so they try to use it for everything. Of course, they think its a better way, which oftentimes comes out when people whip out the use of analytics and stats to imply their opinion is better than the next person's. That's as condescending as anything.
  25. Not at all. Old people sell old stuff to old people. New people don't want the old stuff and want their own stuff, in part, because it makes them feel like they accomplished something. It happens in just about every other product, so there is no reason to think it doesn't happen in football analytics. Sell your new product by claiming the old is outdated, and that alone will boost sales. JJ came up with a relationship between draft picks and assigned points on a de-escalating scale. That scale has some sort of mathematical relationship. No reason to think a more modern method is any better. But I'll bet more than a few on this board would reject JJ chart for ESPN analytics simply because the old one is called a "chart" and the new one is a "computer model", when they wouldn't know the first thing that went into either.
×
×
  • Create New...