Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just now, nycdan said:

If I was designing a new rating system for college QBs, I would definitely start by making sure it projected Hackenberg at the absolute bottom of the list.

Checked that box!

 

Mike McCagnan liked Hackenbergs potential. So did Mel Kiper. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Patriot Killa said:

Mel Kiper is a joke with a verified check mark.

That’s not true. I respect the hell out of Kiper. He’s The Godfather of the NFL draft. He knows his stuff. 
 

Kiper got Allen right and all these analytics guys got it wrong. 

  • Thumb Down 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, GreekJet said:

That’s not true. I respect the hell out of Kiper. He’s The Godfather of the NFL draft. He knows his stuff. 
 

Kiper got Allen right and all these analytics guys got it wrong. 

McShay & Kiper are clowns. Why don’t you stop cherry picking Josh Allen.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting. They are obviously some bad predictions but looking at the order of the predictions worst to best it is amazingly accurate especially at the bottom end. That Wilson is rated so high should at least give some confidence he will bot be a total bust.

I also find this fascinating: Clemens. Sanchez Darnold and Geno were all rated in the same general area, but their performance numbers are close to identical.  

Suggests that the grading system we used for QBs (Bradways for all in the most part) was inherently flawed and essentially valued equally the same bad QB over and over. 

Wilson and Lawrence would be in the Top 10 of all their projections. The only real miss is Mariota and RG3 but RGs was mostly a durability issue. And Mariota really hasn't been terrible.

I am sure NFL teams look at this now, and it is a good checkbox for Wilson.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, johnnysd said:

It's interesting. They are obviously some bad predictions but looking at the order of the predictions worst to best it is amazingly accurate especially at the bottom end. That Wilson is rated so high should at least give some confidence he will bot be a total bust.

I also find this fascinating: Clemens. Sanchez Darnold and Geno were all rated in the same general area, but their performance numbers are close to identical.  

Suggests that the grading system we used for QBs (Bradways for all in the most part) was inherently flawed and essentially valued equally the same bad QB over and over. 

Wilson and Lawrence would be in the Top 10 of all their projections. The only real miss is Mariota and RG3 but RGs was mostly a durability issue. And Mariota really hasn't been terrible.

I am sure NFL teams look at this now, and it is a good checkbox for Wilson.

 

 

Josh Allen? They missed that one really bad. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, nycdan said:

If I was designing a new rating system for college QBs, I would definitely start by making sure it projected Hackenberg at the absolute bottom of the list.

Checked that box!

 

In fairness, he went downhill after O’Brien walked on him. He was running the patriots offense as a true freshman. 
Being a PSU fan, I thought he was going to be special after his freshman year. It just didn’t work out. He was over drafted, and the idea of “potential” cost us Mahomes and/or Watson.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, usanyj said:

In fairness, he went downhill after O’Brien walked on him. He was running the patriots offense as a true freshman. 
Being a PSU fan, I thought he was going to be special after his freshman year. It just didn’t work out. He was over drafted, and the idea of “potential” cost us Mahomes and/or Watson.

He got absolutely destroyed in a game against Northwestern his sophomore year. Took like 6 or 7 sacks and some really clean shots that day. Never was the same after that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Second look.  Starting to see the apparent strengths and limitations.

It's a bit odd that they positioned the prospects in the list based on the Scout Inc's rankings, which has nothing to do with their own numbers.  So based on that, Fields actually belongs at #3 and Lance at #4. No big deal once you understand it.  Just odd.

On to how they analyze.  The way they describe how they handle one-year wonders vs. multi-year starters is a bit vague.  They then reference the 2020 completion % for Wilson and Fields as if that were the only ones considered.  I'm sure it is a legit analysis, but I think their descriptions in the article are very lacking.

And I do appreciate that they tried to take the talent of the team around these players and the defenses they faced into account.  That had the expected effect of eviscerating Mac Jones' projections since his team was so loaded with 1st rounders.

Now the the fun stuff.  I plotted the actual vs. predicted values on a straight line chart which looks like this:

image.png

What I see here is that the actual performance for the top 25% of players on this list are almost flat and the things start to turn south.  There's a lot of volatility which is perfectly normal, but it looks like they are good at identifying the likely top 25% of performers but not good at differentiating between them.  In fact the average values for players 11-20 are higher than players 1-10.

The next 50% are also fairly clustered although somewhat declining and the bottom 25% are all similarly terrible.  So it appears to be a good model for tiering players into top and bottom quartiles.  It's particularly good at predicting who is going to be terrible.  The place where it is least predictive is the 2nd quartile.  You have Mahomes, Rodgers and Watson there with Geno Smith, Tebow and Daniel Jones.  It's all over the place.  You could probably point to where each player landed in the NFL as a big factor in their outcomes.

So their numbers put Lawrence and Wilson in the top-25% and Fields near the top of the second quartile.  This is why their predictions for Fields being average or a bust are a bit higher than Wilson or Lawrence.  Overall interesting and probably as good as anything out there from a quantitative perspective.  

My takeaway is - barring injury, I'm inclined to believe Lawrence and Wilson will succeed at a high level.  I also believe Fields is closer to them than this model predicts based on my view of their formulae but that's subjective.  Cool stuff.

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, GreekJet said:

Josh Allen? They missed that one really bad. 

They have Marriota at the top of their list, Danial Jones ahead of Mahomes, Geno Smith ahead of Aaron Rodges....

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

They have Marriota at the top of their list, Danial Jones ahead of Mahomes, Aaron Rodges ahead of Geno Smith....

 

Yeah but it is more of a macro view of prospects, with very good correlation for good players (but not exactly how good) and bad players. So from that standpoint it is quite useful. If you like a guy and this analysis hates him you should note that. Also a high rating does not equal he will be really good but that he has better odds at it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember diving into QBase a few years ago. At the time, it was a fruitful tool for picking out the busts of a pool of candidates, but was extremely uneven at picking successes. Don’t have the time to look into it right now but will be interesting to see whether that’s changed with the way the game has changed recently.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, nycdan said:

Second look.  Starting to see the apparent strengths and limitations.

It's a bit odd that they positioned the prospects in the list based on the Scout Inc's rankings, which has nothing to do with their own numbers.  So based on that, Fields actually belongs at #3 and Lance at #4. No big deal once you understand it.  Just odd.

On to how they analyze.  The way they describe how they handle one-year wonders vs. multi-year starters is a bit vague.  They then reference the 2020 completion % for Wilson and Fields as if that were the only ones considered.  I'm sure it is a legit analysis, but I think their descriptions in the article are very lacking.

And I do appreciate that they tried to take the talent of the team around these players and the defenses they faced into account.  That had the expected effect of eviscerating Mac Jones' projections since his team was so loaded with 1st rounders.

Now the the fun stuff.  I plotted the actual vs. predicted values on a straight line chart which looks like this:

image.png

What I see here is that the actual performance for the top 25% of players on this list are almost flat and the things start to turn south.  There's a lot of volatility which is perfectly normal, but it looks like they are good at identifying the likely top 25% of performers but not good at differentiating between them.  In fact the average values for players 11-20 are higher than players 1-10.

The next 50% are also fairly clustered although somewhat declining and the bottom 25% are all similarly terrible.  So it appears to be a good model for tiering players into top and bottom quartiles.  It's particularly good at predicting who is going to be terrible.  The place where it is least predictive is the 2nd quartile.  You have Mahomes, Rodgers and Watson there with Geno Smith, Tebow and Daniel Jones.  It's all over the place.  You could probably point to where each player landed in the NFL as a big factor in their outcomes.

So their numbers put Lawrence and Wilson in the top-25% and Fields near the top of the second quartile.  This is why their predictions for Fields being average or a bust are a bit higher than Wilson or Lawrence.  Overall interesting and probably as good as anything out there from a quantitative perspective.  

My takeaway is - barring injury, I'm inclined to believe Lawrence and Wilson will succeed at a high level.  I also believe Fields is closer to them than this model predicts based on my view of their formulae but that's subjective.  Cool stuff.

 

Dan, you are a smarter guy than me because by the time I got to the second paragraph of the FO article, my eyes glazed over and I went to take a bong hit. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, maury77 said:

Dan, you are a smarter guy than me because by the time I got to the second paragraph of the FO article, my eyes glazed over and I went to take a bong hit. 

That's actually a very sophisticated reaction and the sign of a higher mind (literally).

  • Post of the Week 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...