What we got wrong, what now, and do you like it

[rock8591]

14 hours ago, OhioColt said:

DE Ben Bangou looks like a big reach who reminds me of Tarell Basham.  Hopefully not a wasted pick that also gets cut and proves to be a hidden gem and not a 3-5 round reach in the 2nd. 

 

IMO underrated pick.

Possibly a reach, but reminds me heavily of Jamie Collins. His measurables are almost identical too.

 

Extremely athletic (slow WR speed at DE/OLB), can play DE in Nascar package, or OLB in base 4-3 running downs.

[NewEra]

I'm just really surprised we didn't address it upgrade the IDL positions. Especially given that Ballard is the one who preaches build from the lines out. That D-line is far from close. Hope I'm wrong but looks like we're going down the Dungy era DT's that get wrecked in the run game

[Superman]

On 4/26/2019 at 3:24 PM, DougDew said:

I suspect what's going on here is that Jimmy Johnson is becoming an old name, so they have to sell new copy to a new generation, because new generations tend to think new stuff is better because its newer.  And if it needs a computer to calculate it rather than eyeball calculating simple math, its a "smarter" way to look at value.

 

 

What an amazing rationalization.

[DougDew]

18 hours ago, Superman said:

 

What an amazing rationalization.

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 Sell your new product by claiming the old is outdated, and that alone will boost sales.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.

 

[Superman]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

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.

 

 

There are so many assumptions here, most of which are based on your own viewpoint and require assigning motives to people in general. It's so condescending that it's almost impressive.

[DougDew]

30 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

There are so many assumptions here, most of which are based on your own viewpoint and require assigning motives to people in general. It's so condescending that it's almost impressive.

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.   

[Nadine]

On 4/26/2019 at 6:24 PM, DougDew said:

new generations tend to think new stuff is better because its newer. 

But, what about HIPSTERS?

 

[stitches]

From what I've read the JJ chart is not based on rigorous mathematical models and analysis but rather on precedent(i.e. approximated value of picks based on what teams have previously traded for picks of similar value). 

 

Here's a bit of info on it:

 

https://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/how-to-value-nfl-draft-picks/

 

Quote

 

Every team, every fan, has this hope that their franchise will land the next great player. Everyone has the same dream, that their fourth round draft pick will turn into a Hall-of-Famer. Yet they have little idea what that fourth round draft pick is actually worth. For years, teams used something like the chart Jimmy Johnson developed as the coach of the Dallas Cowboys in the 1980s to value picks against each other.

 

These values are completely arbitrary: there is no statistical evidence to back up the relative values of these draft picks. There is no reason why the 156th pick is 100 times less valuable than the first overall pick. “The Chart” simply dictates how much each pick is worth. These values also have no grounding in the real worth of the players drafted at a given pick. This system is a ridiculous way to value picks because there is no reason behind the values it gives. 

 

 

 

[stitches]

Something I got wrong - I think I overvalued the big receivers. Almost all of them went much later than I had them ranked. And N'Keal Harry who I had as late 2nd went in the 1st... I don't get why anyone would draft Harry over Butler but oh well... that's why I'm sitting at home watching the draft and Belichick is winning championship after championship... I guess..  

[Lucky Colts Fan]

3 hours ago, DougDew said:

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.

 

So what about my money example?  Nobody, including old people, uses paper money to buy cars and houses anymore.

 

Doesn't the ease of use factor into what people use?

 

Isn't a few clicks on the computer easier than scanning a piece of paper and using a calculator for the same information?  By your own logic, using a calculator, a "modern method", isn't any better than doing the math longhand with a pencil and paper because the math is the math.

[Superman]

44 minutes ago, stitches said:

Something I got wrong - I think I overvalued the big receivers. Almost all of them went much later than I had them ranked. And N'Keal Harry who I had as late 2nd went in the 1st... I don't get why anyone would draft Harry over Butler but oh well... that's why I'm sitting at home watching the draft and Belichick is winning championship after championship... I guess..  

 

Why did you have Butler over Harry? 

[chad72]

49 minutes ago, stitches said:

Something I got wrong - I think I overvalued the big receivers. Almost all of them went much later than I had them ranked. And N'Keal Harry who I had as late 2nd went in the 1st... I don't get why anyone would draft Harry over Butler but oh well... that's why I'm sitting at home watching the draft and Belichick is winning championship after championship... I guess..  

 

It is OK. The end result does not put your gut instinct and research to waste as long as you felt your research had merit, which I do.

 

Safe hands over ability to go up and get it is why Harry was drafted. Matthew Stafford would like a guy like Butler but then he got Golladay for next year. Harry's hands matter more when the QB is accurate, which Brady is. When it is a little more streaky like Stafford, Butler works better, IMO. But you go with the higher floor for an earlier round pick, I still think Butler has a higher ceiling. 

[stitches]

12 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Why did you have Butler over Harry? 

I think he does almost everything better than Harry. Bigger, more athletic, larger catch radius, better route runner, better separation, better playmaking ability, better releases ... similar in contested catches and YAC... pretty much the only thing Harry is better than Butler at is ... catching the ball... aka drops... which I generally do not devalue as much as others seem to... 

 

 

[Superman]

1 minute ago, stitches said:

I think he does almost everything better than Harry. Bigger, more athletic, larger catch radius, better route runner, better separation, better playmaking ability, better releases, better YAC ... similar in contested catches and YAC... pretty much the only thing Harry is better than Butler at is ... catching the ball... 

 

Right on. A lot of that is inarguable. 

 

I don't think Butler runs better routes or has better releases, but Harry doesn't get great separation. Playing with one of the most accurate QBs in the league is a good match for him. I'm drawn to what I think is a more polished receiver in Harry, including the way he uses his body to protect the ball, and his understanding of body position and other nuances that I see in the way he plays the ball in the air.

[stitches]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Right on. A lot of that is inarguable. 

 

I don't think Butler runs better routes or has better releases, but Harry doesn't get great separation. Playing with one of the most accurate QBs in the league is a good match for him. I'm drawn to what I think is a more polished receiver in Harry, including the way he uses his body to protect the ball, and his understanding of body position and other nuances that I see in the way he plays the ball in the air.

 

Harry gets zero separation(it's why he has to use his body on every damn catch that wasn't a slant or screen of some sort). He had a ton of his production manufactured by the scheme. I guess he did indeed fall at the perfect spot with a great OC and game planner that you know will use his strengths to the fullest.

 

Seems like the NFL guys put a serious hit on players with drops issues. Another one I was amazed went undrafted was Emanuel Hall... I would not have been upset if we got him with the Parris Campbell pick... but with him I can kind of understand it... with him his drops were definitely NOT concentration drops, he just has horrible technique and hands. 

[chad72]

11 minutes ago, stitches said:

I think he does almost everything better than Harry. Bigger, more athletic, larger catch radius, better route runner, better separation, better playmaking ability, better releases ... similar in contested catches and YAC... pretty much the only thing Harry is better than Butler at is ... catching the ball... aka drops... which I generally do not devalue as much as others seem to... 

 

Seems like the NFL guys put a serious hit on players with drops issues. Another one I was amazed went undrafted was Emanuel Hall... I would not have been upset if we got him with the Parris Campbell pick... 

 

Look at the UDFA list of WRs:

 

Emanuel Hall, David Sills, Keelan Doss, Anthony Johnson, Stanley Morgan, Lil Jordan Humphrey, Preston Williams etc. - a lot of guys we Colts fans mocked to ourselves at several points leading to the draft. 

 

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/undrafted-free-agents/wide-receiver/

 

There is going to be some serious WR competition in pre-season across teams and possibly good WR cuts as well. Not a great year for Inman to play hard ball. 

[Superman]

1 minute ago, stitches said:

 

Harry gets zero separation(it's why he has to use his body on every damn catch that wasn't a slant or screen of some sort). He had a ton of his production manufactured by the scheme. I guess he did indeed fall at the perfect spot with a great OC and game planner that you know will use his strengths to the fullest.

 

Seems like the NFL guys put a serious hit on players with drops issues. Another one I was amazed went undrafted was Emanuel Hall... I would not have been upset if we got him with the Parris Campbell pick... but with him I can kind of understand it... with him his drops were definitely NOT concentration drops, he just has horrible technique and hands. 

 

Yeah I wouldn't have touched Hall, either. I'm sort of risk averse when it comes to critical issues, especially at skill positions.

 

As for Harry on the Pats, there's one position that Belichick has struggled with in the first round more than any other, and it's WR. I like Harry, but he has some question marks, and it wouldn't surprise me to see him struggle. 

[stitches]

15 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Yeah I wouldn't have touched Hall, either. I'm sort of risk averse when it comes to critical issues, especially at skill positions.

 

As for Harry on the Pats, there's one position that Belichick has struggled with in the first round more than any other, and it's WR. I like Harry, but he has some question marks, and it wouldn't surprise me to see him struggle. 

Did you see his Stanford tape? I couldn't get that one out of my head, maybe weighed it way too much in my final evaluation and should have been more lenient. This 19 year old kid from Stanford (Paulson Adebo, keep him in mind, IMO he is a future 1st-2nd rounder) ate his lunch all night long. He couldn't get a yard of separation... Adebo even took away his contested catches. He is a future NFL corner and he's one of the few legit NFL corners he got to face and he couldn't do anything against him... until the game was out of reach and Stanford started running prevent defense and he got like 60-70 yards on the final drive.  

 

About Hall - I loved everything about him. I thought he was a tremendous prospect in every possible way... until it was time to catch the ball... and then... boy oh boy... then the real struggle began. Every catch was a Herculean effort to rein in the ball... 

 

I guess I have to re-calibrate how to evaluate players like that. 

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, stitches said:

Did you see his Stanford tape? I couldn't get that one out of my head, maybe weighed it way too much in my final evaluation and should have been more lenient. This 19 year old kid from Stanford (Paulson Adebo, keep him in mind, IMO he is a future 1st-2nd rounder) ate his lunch all night long. He couldn't get a yard of separation... Adebo even took away his contested catches. He is a future NFL corner and he's one of the few legit NFL corners he got to face and he couldn't do anything against him... until the game was out of reach and Stanford started running prevent defense and he got like 60-70 yards on the final drive.  

 

 

I don't know if I remember the Stanford tape off the top of my head, but I did see him struggle at times.

 

About Adebo, I really noticed him when watching Okereke (thoughts coming on the entire draft class at some point, hopefully this week). He's fantastic. 

[Superman]

9 minutes ago, stitches said:

I guess I have to re-calibrate how to evaluate players like that. 

 

To me, it's like safeties that can't cover. I'm out on them. Your primary responsibility in the secondary is to cover receivers, and if you don't have the tools and technique to do that, I'm not a fan. Don't care how hard you hit. I want to see that you can do the primary job.

 

For receivers, no matter what happens, if you can't reliably catch the ball, you're a liability. If you're limited physically or don't get great separation, we can mitigate that in a number of ways -- scheme, other traits/skills (like Harry and his body positioning), etc. But catching the ball is all on you, there's no way to make up for that. And there's little that's more deflating than getting a receiver open and hitting him in stride, then watching him drop the ball. (I still think the momentum in SB44 really started to turn after Garcon's third down drop in the first half. We got outscored 31-7 after that drop.)

 

So for the most part, if you can't reliably catch the ball -- and in Hall's case, like you said, he just doesn't know how to catch the ball -- I'm out. You're probably better off playing a different position, IMO.

[stitches]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't know if I remember the Stanford tape off the top of my head, but I did see him struggle at times.

 

About Adebo, I really noticed him when watching Okereke (thoughts coming on the entire draft class at some point, hopefully this week). He's fantastic. 

 

Can't wait to see your analysis of our picks. I've been procrastinating and postponing my thoughts on our draft class because I'm trying to figure out how to frame my evaluations of the players around what seems to be a very well defined and specific plan about the type of players we are drafting(i.e. I think we overdrafted some of them, but I also think they might overperform their evaluation because of the scheme we got and because of the relatively simplified way we play on D that allows athletes to just outathlete the opponents and fly to the ball accumulating stats).

 

Just a quick preview of your review - Are you a fan of Okereke? 

[stitches]

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

To me, it's like safeties that can't cover. I'm out on them. Your primary responsibility in the secondary is to cover receivers, and if you don't have the tools and technique to do that, I'm not a fan. Don't care how hard you hit. I want to see that you can do the primary job.

 

For receivers, no matter what happens, if you can't reliably catch the ball, you're a liability. If you're limited physically or don't get great separation, we can mitigate that in a number of ways -- scheme, other traits/skills (like Harry and his body positioning), etc. But catching the ball is all on you, there's no way to make up for that. And there's little that's more deflating than getting a receiver open and hitting him in stride, then watching him drop the ball. (I still think the momentum in SB44 really started to turn after Garcon's third down drop in the first half. We got outscored 31-7 after that drop.)

 

So for the most part, if you can't reliably catch the ball -- and in Hall's case, like you said, he just doesn't know how to catch the ball -- I'm out. You're probably better off playing a different position, IMO.

 

I think drops overall are overrated(within reason). But I can absolutely agree with the part of your post describing the deflating effect of watching the ball perfectly thrown on a dime going through Ebron's hands on a crosser and hitting him in the chest and then falling on the ground and realizing that if he had caught it it might have went for 40 yards. It's such a momentum killer. But overall I can live with a few drops here and there if they come with a ton of playmaking downfield or in the red zone. 

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, stitches said:

 

Can't wait to see your analysis of our picks. I've been procrastinating and postponing my thoughts on our draft class because I'm trying to figure out how to frame my evaluations of the players around what seems to be a very well defined and specific plan about the type of players we are drafting(i.e. I think we overdrafted some of them, but I also think they might overperform their evaluation because of the scheme we got and because of the relatively simplified way we play on D that allows athletes to just outathlete the opponents and fly to the ball accumulating stats).

 

Just a quick preview of your review - Are you a fan of Okereke? 

 

I'm okay with Okereke. Still trying to make sure I understand him and what they intend to do with the defensive front.

 

Same thing with Banobu -- I don't understand why they view him as a SAM, so I'm doing more work on him. Are they going to use him as an off ball SAM, or are they going more hybrid with a SAM/edge on the strong side? I've been thinking they want to look like the 2013 Seahawks eventually, and I could see Banobu in the Chris Clemons / Cliff Avril role as the LEO backer, but that was a weakside stand up backer/edge, not a SAM.  So I'm somewhat confused about his fit. 

 

I have trouble believing EJ Speed would have been drafted before the 7th. That's an assumption, but I think it's reasonable. So I agree we reached on some players, at least compared with the general consensus. However, I think Ballard doesn't care about general consensus. They stick to their board, so "value" is relative to their board, not a common board.

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, stitches said:

 

I think drops overall are overrated(within reason). But I can absolutely agree with the part of your post describing the deflating effect of watching the ball perfectly thrown on a dime going through Ebron's hands on a crosser and hitting him in the chest and then falling on the ground and realizing that if he had caught it it might have went for 40 yards. It's such a momentum killer. But overall I can live with a few drops here and there if they come with a ton of playmaking downfield or in the red zone. 

 

Right, having a drop (or even a few drops) doesn't mean you can't catch. And drops can be subjective, and require context. But when you watch a guy play and determine that he can't catch, it's a deal breaker for me.

[stitches]

22 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I'm okay with Okereke. Still trying to make sure I understand him and what they intend to do with the defensive front.

 

Same thing with Banobu -- I don't understand why they view him as a SAM, so I'm doing more work on him. Are they going to use him as an off ball SAM, or are they going more hybrid with a SAM/edge on the strong side? I've been thinking they want to look like the 2013 Seahawks eventually, and I could see Banobu in the Chris Clemons / Cliff Avril role as the LEO backer, but that was a weakside stand up backer/edge, not a SAM.  So I'm somewhat confused about his fit. 

 

I have trouble believing EJ Speed would have been drafted before the 7th. That's an assumption, but I think it's reasonable. So I agree we reached on some players, at least compared with the general consensus. However, I think Ballard doesn't care about general consensus. They stick to their board, so "value" is relative to their board, not a common board.

 

The name Ballard dropped as a comparison to Banogu was Jamie Collins. And he cited his performance at the Senior Bowl, where he played everywhere across the front 7(SAM, MIKE, EDGE, even 3TECH). and he said he liked what he showed as versatility.

 

I feel like they drafted an athlete and a moveable chess piece. Think of someone like Minkah Fitzpatrick who does everything as a DB - boundary corner, slot CB, safety... he does everything in different packages!! Think of Banogu as the front 7 version of Minkah. They will move him around. And IMO he will play more than just SAM. 

 

IMO they said they will put him at SAM(to start his career) because that's the easiest position to upgrade right now(a 7th rounder from last year was starting by the end of the year) and because he probably cannot start at any other position and at the same time he will provide an instant upgrade athletically over what we have now at SAM. So... imagine... he plays 100% of the SAM reps(how much are those? 30-35% of all the snaps?) then kicks in at EDGE on obvious passing downs when Sheard or Houston kick inside to 3tech for example. 

 

It's definitely interesting to see his career arc and the plan for his development going forward. 

 

 

 

 

[throwing BBZ]

3 hours ago, stitches said:

I think he does almost everything better than Harry. Bigger, more athletic, larger catch radius, better route runner, better separation, better playmaking ability, better releases ... similar in contested catches and YAC... pretty much the only thing Harry is better than Butler at is ... catching the ball... aka drops... which I generally do not devalue as much as others seem to... 

 

 

 

 Maybe your assessment was off a tad.   

[DougDew]

4 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

So what about my money example?  Nobody, including old people, uses paper money to buy cars and houses anymore.

 

Doesn't the ease of use factor into what people use?

 

Isn't a few clicks on the computer easier than scanning a piece of paper and using a calculator for the same information?  By your own logic, using a calculator, a "modern method", isn't any better than doing the math longhand with a pencil and paper because the math is the math.

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.

 

 

[Lucky Colts Fan]

2 hours ago, DougDew said:

It hasn't changed.  There's no difference.

 

So what's the big deal about it going digital?

 

You sound like a "fire scary, technology bad" cartoon.

 

[DougDew]

13 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

So what's the big deal about it going digital?

 

You sound like a "fire scary, technology bad" cartoon.

 

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.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

4 hours ago, DougDew said:

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.)

 

We're living in the digital age.  For the most part, analog is outdated and digital is better.  Even though the driving forces and end result are the same, the easier method wins.  That's why we're communicating on a message board on the internet instead of writing letters back and forth using the Pony Express to discuss this.

 

4 hours ago, DougDew said:

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.

 

  But it's easier to use, which is the case for pretty much everything that is digital now.  If something can be more complex, yet easier to use, that's an improvement IMO.

 

4 hours ago, DougDew said:

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).

 

  Where do you come up with this stuff?  Peer pressure?  Again, it's the ease of use that makes newer methods an improvement over older ones.

 

Just say you're "old school" and go.