Stacking Up the NFC North

[Raptorman]

Top 5 WR's in SPRAQ 2016.

1 Moritz Boehringer WR  99.6
2 Tyreek Hill WR        97.9
3 Andy Jones WR         96.5
4 Jairockeis Jones WR   95.4
5 Justin Berger WR      94.8

 

[Dantés]

I truly believe you're putting way too much stock into measurements and the underwear olympics in Indianapolis.

Taking a look at their performance on the field here's a look at how the draft picks out of the division shape up according to their ranking on PFF's big board (just to clarify, I don't think that is a perfect metric by any means, solely for the purpose of information).

They ranked a total of 300 prospects on their big board therefore first-place was worth 300 points, second worth 299 and so forth.

Green Bay Packers:

Kevin King 250
Josh Jones 127
Montravius Adams 208
Vince Biegel 203
Jamaal Williams 195
DeAngelo Yancey 0
Aaron Jones 16
Kofi Amichia 0
Devante Mays 0
Malachi Dupre 135

Total: 1,134

Chicago Bears:

Mitch Trubisky 288
Adam Shaheen 150
Eddie Jackson 222
Tarik Cohen 51
Jordan Morgan 0

Total: 711

Detroit Lions:

Jarrad Davis 263
**** Tabor 261
Kenny Golladay 86
Jalen Reeves-Maybin 94
Michael Roberts 128
Jamal Agnew 113
Jeremiah Ledbetter 88
Brad Kaaya 186
Pat O'Connor 0

Total: 1,219

Minnesota Vikings:

Dalvin Cook 292
Pat Elflein 183
Jaleel Johnson 189
Ben Gedeon 114
Rodney Adams 0
Danny Isidora 185
Bucky Hodges 213
Stacy Coley 0
Ifeadi Odenigbo 55
Elijah Lee 0
Jack Tocho 125

Total: 1,356

I know you believe that. I'm fine with you believing that.

In my opinion, one gets into trouble when they think that one indicator is all they need-- be it athletic testing numbers, PFF scores, their own tape watching, or statistics. It all needs to be considered. Heck, Steve Palazzolo just said on their podcast the other day that where the athletic numbers and the PFF scores overlap is where you find the closest thing to a "can't miss" prospect.

When I started following the draft closely 10 years ago, the general opinion (which I shared) was that athletic metrics should only be about 5% of the evaluation and you can see everything on tape if you know what to look for. As time has gone by, I've realized how wrong that was. You can't just "scout" combine results, but they do often correlate. You have to understand what matters at what position. But the bottom line is that I've found that athleticism deserves a much bigger chunk of the pie than it was getting.

Maybe it comes across like all I care about are combine numbers because I bring them up a lot. That's not true. I do watch these guys and pay a lot of attention to what the analysts say, including PFF. But I talk about the metrics because a) I think they're the most overlooked aspect of the process and b) they're easy to discuss online because they're quantifiable.

But I do think it's kind of weird that I can't really bring them up without someone making some comment about "underwear olympics." There are a number of teams that clearly put a lot of stock in this aspect of the process that so much fans scoff at as unimportant. The Packers, Seahawks, and Chiefs come to mind (basically anyone off the Wolf tree). The Steelers and Ravens have become increasingly more invested in athletic metrics in recent seasons. No one covets three cone times more than Bill Belichick. Maybe someone needs to call these front offices up and tell them that the combine is stupid.

But bottom line-- I stand by what I said. Teams that prioritize athleticism properly are going to be more successful in the draft. I don't know if that is true of PFF scores. Maybe it is. But I'm not telling anyone that sparq (or the like) is all that matters or that athleticism = success. It's one piece of the puzzle.

 

[Dantés]

Top 5 WR's in SPRAQ 2016.

1 Moritz Boehringer WR  99.6
2 Tyreek Hill WR        97.9
3 Andy Jones WR         96.5
4 Jairockeis Jones WR   95.4
5 Justin Berger WR      94.8

This is a good illustration for why you don't just draft the metrics while ignoring what the players can do on the field.

 

[Dantés]

It's hilarious that you consider Dantés post which heavily favors the Packers as informative although it only rates measurements and athleticism yet completely disregard a ranking based on college tape, which was only meant to be informative, because the team doesn't come out on top of it.

So we have to attribute his opinion to bias? Seemed like his main gripe is that your PFF scoring is subjective based on their evaluations. The sparq numbers are objective realities. That doesn't mean they're inherently more valuable. People will have to individually decide how much value they assign to athletic numbers. But they aren't based on opinion.

 

[Poppa San]

Let's call it what it is. The Packers have gotten fat feasting on the NFC North, because it hasn't been a great division top to bottom for some time now. Aaron Rodgers would start on any ten in the NFL (Patriots included) but look at the rest of the roster. You have a bunch of potential backups starting in key areas.

Yep keep holding on to this thought as your happy place before reality ***** slaps you out of it. Oops, too late here it comes. SINCE the Packers started there 8 year playoff run (2009 for those that can't count), the NFC North has sent TWO teams to the playoffs every year but one (2013.) No other division can say that. Two AFC divisions have sent three in the same year. Every North team but the Packers have been in last place in the past 8 years. Every division has a team that holds up the rest every season, usually not the same team unless your name is Cleveland.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I know you believe that. I'm fine with you believing that.

In my opinion, one gets into trouble when they think that one indicator is all they need-- be it athletic testing numbers, PFF scores, their own tape watching, or statistics. It all needs to be considered. Heck, Steve Palazzolo just said on their podcast the other day that where the athletic numbers and the PFF scores overlap is where you find the closest thing to a "can't miss" prospect.

When I started following the draft closely 10 years ago, the general opinion (which I shared) was that athletic metrics should only be about 5% of the evaluation and you can see everything on tape if you know what to look for. As time has gone by, I've realized how wrong that was. You can't just "scout" combine results, but they do often correlate. You have to understand what matters at what position. But the bottom line is that I've found that athleticism deserves a much bigger chunk of the pie than it was getting.

Maybe it comes across like all I care about are combine numbers because I bring them up a lot. That's not true. I do watch these guys and pay a lot of attention to what the analysts say, including PFF. But I talk about the metrics because a) I think they're the most overlooked aspect of the process and b) they're easy to discuss online because they're quantifiable.

But I do think it's kind of weird that I can't really bring them up without someone making some comment about "underwear olympics." There are a number of teams that clearly put a lot of stock in this aspect of the process that so much fans scoff at as unimportant. The Packers, Seahawks, and Chiefs come to mind (basically anyone off the Wolf tree). The Steelers and Ravens have become increasingly more invested in athletic metrics in recent seasons. No one covets three cone times more than Bill Belichick. Maybe someone needs to call these front offices up and tell them that the combine is stupid.

But bottom line-- I stand by what I said. Teams that prioritize athleticism properly are going to be more successful in the draft. I don't know if that is true of PFF scores. Maybe it is. But I'm not telling anyone that sparq (or the like) is all that matters or that athleticism = success. It's one piece of the puzzle.

I understand that measurements and combine results should be part of the evaluation process but for sure aren't more important than the tape. In my opinion posting that the Packers draft picks had the highest average sparq scores in the division this year doesn't automatically mean the team improved the most.

 

[Dantés]

I understand that measurements and combine results should be part of the evaluation process but for sure aren't more important than the tape. In my opinion posting that the Packers draft picks had the highest average sparq scores in the division this year doesn't automatically mean the team improved the most.

Talking about athleticism doesn't mean that one doesn't care about the tape. I posted the numbers because I was struck by the stark contrast. And while I do believe that you give yourself a better chance to succeed if you prioritize athleticism, nowhere did I say that this meant that the Packers improved the most in this most recent class. That remains to be seen. But clearly their process is unique within the division, which is what I was highlighting.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Talking about athleticism doesn't mean that one doesn't care about the tape. I posted the numbers because I was struck by the stark contrast. And while I do believe that you give yourself a better chance to succeed if you prioritize athleticism, nowhere did I say that this meant that the Packers improved the most in this most recent class. That remains to be seen. But clearly their process is unique within the division, which is what I was highlighting.

While you're right about the Packers having taken a different approach than the other teams in the division with this year's draft class regarding athleticism do you have any information about the numbers over the last few years???

 

[Dantés]

While you're right about the Packers having taken a different approach than the other teams in the division with this year's draft class regarding athleticism do you have any information about the numbers over the last few years???

Anecdotally, yes. It's been pretty observable that teams like Green Bay or Seattle are drafting athletic prowess more than your average teams. But I haven't compiled the numbers for previous seasons. It takes a bit of time.

 

[Raptorman]

While you're right about the Packers having taken a different approach than the other teams in the division with this year's draft class regarding athleticism do you have any information about the numbers over the last few years???

I did it. For the last 3 years. Some players did not show up in the database. So instead of using zero which would screw the average I left blank on the Spreadsheet....remember, this is an average of only the draft picks.

Packers  65.86
Lions    46.43
Vikings  45.42
Bears    44.79

One has to remember, not all players drafted made the team and some players who made the team weren't drafted so they don't have info on them. (or I didn't take the time to look up everyone who made the team the last 3 years)

 

[swhitset]

Not surprisingly you continue to put words in my mouth. I haven't labelled Randall or Rollins as busts by any means but am concerned about the Packers heavily relying on both of them bouncing back in a huge way.

While it's true that players happen to have bad games there were a total of only 10 180+ receiving yards game in the league last year with four of them occurring against the Packers secondary. That's plain and simple terrible and I'm not convinced adding House and a rookie will significantly improve the position group.

While I fear you may be correct... I will point out that the difference between really good... and really bad in the NFL is actually quite slim.... even a slight improvement in player ability could potentially make a big difference in performance.

 

[swhitset]

But playing WR with Aaron Rodgers as your QB is hardly comparable to playing cornerback on an overall bad defense.

Not even sure what that is supposed to mean...taken the context of your original point regarding injuries...

 

[Passepartout]

Yeah as with Aaron Rodgers under Center in the GB as it will be another trip to the playoffs.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

While I fear you may be correct... I will point out that the difference between really good... and really bad in the NFL is actually quite slim.... even a slight improvement in player ability could potentially make a big difference in performance.

Unfortunately I believe the difference between really good and bad is rather large in the NFL, therefore the Packers' cornerbacks have to significantly improve to make a difference this season.

 

[swhitset]

Unfortunately I believe the difference between really good and bad is rather large in the NFL, therefore the Packers' cornerbacks have to significantly improve to make a difference this season.

Well on the second most important part I think we probably agree... on the first point... I clearly disagree.

 

[Half Empty]

Being the slow season, might be interesting to see a few examples of what each of you would consider to be really good and really bad players and small or large differences between them. Absolutely subjective, I know, but it's not like we don't discuss 'eye of the beholder' stuff all the time.

 

[swhitset]

That might be more difficult than it's worth lol. As you said it's definitely very subjective. I would point out that almost every player in the NFL was a successful college player and that even the best talent evaluators in the NFL have a very difficult time projecting these same players' success in the NFL. I believe that is in large part because they are all very talented players. The guys that we have decided "suck" were good enough to make an NFL roster. Now that doesn't mean that they are all pro bowlers, but I do think their relative talent is closer than we realize. Consider that 2 or 3 hundredths of a second difference in 40 times is the difference between a "burner" and "slow".

 

[swhitset]

Not even sure what that is supposed to mean...taken the context of your original point regarding injuries...

so pintsize.... you disagree that I didn't understand your point? lmao

 

[Mavster]

so pintsize.... you disagree that I didn't understand your point? lmao

My point was that comparing struggling cornerbacks to a struggling wide receiver is stupid. A WR directly benefits from his QB, and in Adams case he's playing with the best QB in the league. Anyone with two brain cells knew he'd bounce back once he actually learned how to hang onto the ball.

 

[swhitset]

My point was that comparing struggling cornerbacks to a struggling wide receiver is stupid. A WR directly benefits from his QB, and in Adams case he's playing with the best QB in the league. Anyone with two brain cells knew he'd bounce back once he actually learned how to hang onto the ball.

interesting logic.... Let's back up. It was pointed out that Adams had a terrible year that was hindered by chronic injury. In the subsequent year while healthy he had a dramatic turnaround. He had Aaron Rodgers throwing to him the entire time so... that is not a variable in his performance. Your other assertion that comparing receivers to DBs being stupid is also an unfounded opinion. The only comparison being made is that both players performance may have been hindered by injury in their sophomore years. Adams was simply cited as an example of a player that got healthy and played much better in his 3rd year. So.. again none of your arguments make any sense to me. I am not claiming that Adams is proof that the Packer's DBs will play better this year. I am simply saying that your arguments don't make any sense.

 

[Mavster]

interesting logic.... Let's back up. It was pointed out that Adams had a terrible year that was hindered by chronic injury. In the subsequent year while healthy he had a dramatic turnaround. He had Aaron Rodgers throwing to him the entire time so... that is not a variable in his performance. Your other assertion that comparing receivers to DBs being stupid is also an unfounded opinion. The only comparison being made is that both players performance may have been hindered by injury in their sophomore years. Adams was simply cited as an example of a player that got healthy and played much better in his 3rd year. So.. again none of your arguments make any sense to me. I am not claiming that Adams is proof that the Packer's DBs will play better this year. I am simply saying that your arguments don't make any sense.

So Adams "chronic injury" caused his hands to lose function that year? I'm always confused by how packer players have these constant lingering injuries according to the fans.

Also didn't Adams have his turnaround year once Jordy returned? Interesting how that works isn't it

 

[Dantés]

My point was that comparing struggling cornerbacks to a struggling wide receiver is stupid. A WR directly benefits from his QB, and in Adams case he's playing with the best QB in the league. Anyone with two brain cells knew he'd bounce back once he actually learned how to hang onto the ball.

1) That's ********. It's absolutely, 100% true and verifiable that wide receivers don't become what Adams is just because they play with Rodgers.

2) It was less than clear what you were trying to say and it's ridiculous that you would "disagree" with someone saying that they don't get your point.

3) You've still completely missed the original point. Injuries affect players on the field. This is obvious. Sometimes players bounce back from injury plagued seasons and play much better (e.g. Adams). Sometimes they don't. There is no guarantee that Randall will be better simply because he was hurt for much of last season, but there is a distinct possibility of that being the case. That you need this spelled out for you makes it highly ironic that you're making comments about people with two brain cells.

 

[swhitset]

So Adams "chronic injury" caused his hands to lose function that year? I'm always confused by how packer players have these constant lingering injuries according to the fans.

Also didn't Adams have his turnaround year once Jordy returned? Interesting how that works isn't it

Not sure why I'm bothering .... but ... Adams' situation (like most) is complex and cannot be explained by a single variable. It is quite obvious that he has a concentration issue. He still dropped several passes last year that he should have caught. But, any honest observer will admit that he played much better than the year before. Is it possible that having Jordy on the field helped his performance? Sure. I have no doubt that having Jordy on the field allowed Adams to get open more frequently, and possibly put him up against lesser DBs. Is it also possible that being healthy allowed him to make his cuts more effortlessly allowing him to concentrate more on catching the ball and less on how much his ankle hurt? I would say there is no question that both of these is true. Ironically... both of these situations involve player health... Jordy's and Davante's .

 

[brandon2348]

In a perfect world you want your guy healthy and performing at optimal level for 16 games but that just isn't reality. Everyone in the league is playing somewhat hurt at some point with varying degrees.

Julio Jones was battling a nasty turf toe and still blew by all our guys so what's the point? So tired of everyone coddling all these guys because of injury excuses. That's a bunch of ******** if anything.

In the case of Randle he has had some nagging injury issue since he has been with the team so he gets a pass and just brush all his **** poor play under the rug? Even more ********.

Maybe he just doesn't have it and isn't physical enough to play in the NFL.

 

[swhitset]

In a perfect world you want your guy healthy and performing at optimal level for 16 games but that just isn't reality. Everyone in the league is playing somewhat hurt at some point with varying degrees.

Julio Jones was battling a nasty turf and still blew by all our guys so what's the point? So tired of everyone coddling all these guys because of injury excuses. That's a bunch of ******** if anything.

In the case of Randle he has had some nagging injury issue since he has been with the team so he gets a pass and just brush all his **** poor play under the rug? Even more ********.

Maybe he just doesn't have it and isn't physical enough to play in the NFL.

At least then he would be qualified to come in the forum and talk $hit about all the other losers in the NFL.