DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Mack Wilson

I agree that re-signing Schobert would be a positive. The only other LB in FA that could really replace Schobert would be Corey Littleton. However, they have similar skills sets in that Littleton is excellent in coverage (he had 90.6 Coverage grade per PFF, but a 50.8 Run Defense grade per PFF).

Schobert had a PFF Coverage grade of 67.6 in 2019, but a Coverage grade of 87.7 in 2018.

The Browns have to face Lamar Jackson twice a year. How much emphasis will be put on building to stop his running ability?

On the linebacker note, if Isaiah Simmons is there at #10, do you take him? It'd be hard to pass him up.

Take him and don't look back. He's a perfect fit for the way teams play now.

IMO, Mack will look way better this year. Give him a year in a NFL weight program, Another offseason for learning, and add in his forced into action play from last year, and I think many will be surprised at how good he will be.

In theory this is how it's supposed to work. Mack Wilson has already posted videos of himself working out getting ready for the season. That's what you want. Let's see if his knowledge on the field improves as much as his muscle mass. I hope it does. Getting a fifth round pick who can be even an average starter is a huge value.

Thought this was an interesting article. Joe Schobert's performance is broken down as well. Take a look.

Tackles Don’t Matter: Evaluating Run Defense Through Statistics

This is a great source of information, thank you for posting it!

Awesome stuff.

good stuff.

it basically says with data... Schobert is still a good LB and we should resign him.

I haven't seen anyone say we shouldn't re-sign Schobert.

(Note: Re-sign and resign are not the same thing. They are actually almost opposites.)

It actually says Schobert is a slightly below average run defender overall.

Doesn't say anything about re-signing.

He'd be great to bring back at the right price. What that price is is beyond me. How important would whatever position he'd best fit at be in the new scheme? How much cap room do we need for re-signing other people at harder to find positions going forward? What else are we trying to do in free agency? How much of a drop off would Kirksey/Mack/Takitaki/LB X be?

j/c

I don't know if the stats support this, but it seemed to me that when Schobert is playing, we don't give up too many plays to TEs in the underbelly of the defense. When he was out hurt, we got killed. His strength has been his pass coverage skills.

So for me the first question is: seeing as the defense as a whole sucked against the run, how much of it is him vs. the scheme. I think there' s enough consistent data to show that at least in part it's him.

Ok, so the second question for me is, how much do we value his pass coverage skills? Because if we let him walk, the way I see it, we also let our only player who can cover those TEs walk too.

Another thing to consider is if this whole 3 safety look is really viable? I know there's really no such thing as base defenses anymore. But would it be better for us to run with a 3 LB core... keep a coverage guy like Joe, get a legit run thumper, and the 3rd guy someone with exceptional pass rushing skills?


In any event, whether he leaves or stays, I think it would be great to be a fly on the wall when the Triumverate meet to discuss this very topic.

It seems we need to be in 3 LBs more or at least part of the time. Schobert's play had him making tackles after the ball was by him. His worth is how smart he is and I think it is a huge plus aas we change up again. We still could use some high motor thumpers as well.

I want to keep him reasonably.

I think we should re-sign him, but the article did not say that, nor did it say he was good, imo. I'll hold off on the soapbox for just a minute.... the article seemed to show that Schobert does a bunch of really good things in the run game (remember, this article just focused on defending the run). For some reason, however; their final advanced stat dropped him way down. I don't know why, and it would be nice if the author of the article went into a little more detail on how that final 'points saved' metric was calculated.

That's the thing with these advanced stats. They don't tell the whole story, but merely try to better quantify what is seen on the field. And the more 'advanced' a stat is (like the final table), the more important it is to verify what the stat is saying with the eye test. As a stat gets more complicated, there's a greater chance that the calculations are being influenced/twisted in ways that you don't intend (ex. one guy gets his stat boosted way up because he's a safety playing right behind the line and makes a ton of tackles at the LOS, boosting his tackle depth because he's a safety playing a weird role, and maybe he does that a bunch at the end of games (just spitballing) so that juices his points saved metric).

Stats aren't for losers. Misusing stats (intentionally or unintentionally) is for losers.

I hesitantly agree. Our defense was bad for most of the year, and it is a deep OT class. But part of me says you have to get your Left Tackle early, so I’m conflicted

Simmons, best tackle available, run stuffing Dlineman, I won’t complain

Very doubtful Simmons will be there at #10. He may go top 5.

No individual statistic will ever tell an entire story, they merely measure and represent an aspect. You always need additional stats to give a larger context. It can help if you have a human eye to give that context, but it isn't necessarily required if the correct additional measurements are included.

Furthermore, many of the popular common statistics used are absolute garbage and only suitable for use by television commentators (passing yards, defensive yards, etc...).

I agree, but if he does fall, you say thank-you, select him and look for Oline in the next round or two.

LB and safety are also "needs". Just make the dang pick. Good gosh. He will improve the D more than some OT is going to improve the O.

We saw first hand. We had possibly one of the three best left tackles to ever play, and we sucked his entire career.

I love the guy, but Joe had little impact on wins and losses. Teams would just put their best pass rush on the other side.

Especially in todays NFL, LT is way over rated. You don't have statues standing back there at QB like you did even 8 years ago.

I agree. If Simmons is there, you take him.

Simmons is a tough call for me. I'm not sure how he'll do away from Venables.

Great athlete, but a tweener. I need to watch more of Woods' Defense when he was the coordinator in Denver. In the right situation, Simmons could be good. I'm not sure that would be the D we'll use.

I'd rather go OL. This looks like the year for it. OL generally last longer than safeties, career-wise. Plus, we've got to protect the investment in Baker. Baker getting pummeled could ruin him. Lacking a safety/LB is unlikely to have long-term franchise altering consequences.

The stats and your own eye should inform each other. That's what I meant. If the stats are telling you something that your eye isn't, you should have the humility to re-investigate with the idea that your eye could be wrong.

It's not lazy, it's efficiency. If you can develop a model of the data that can accurately give you what you want quickly, your answers are now available instantly.

That said, anyone that relies on only a single source of information when many are available, each with their own set of values, is a complete and utter fool.

I hope your right ... i have no clue how u use analytics to determine football players futures ... this isn’t baseball ... WAY TO MANY VARIABLES ....

I’ve asked MULTIPLE TIMES and have never received even a remotely decent reply ... and that question is ignored by most of your analytics rocks crowd ...

When it comes to evaluating talent .... ...

Lets do a few college examples ....

DeShaun Watson vs Pat Mahomes ...

They played in two entirely different systems .... against mutually exclusive defenses ... with totally different talent around them .... one stood in school for all 4 years and started all 4 and played in the biggest stage in college football twice .... the other I’m not sure how many years he stood in school and how many he started ... i know he didn’t sniff the big stage ...

Then lets do Bake vs Darnold ... one in school for 5 years ... one 3 years ... entirely different systems ... I’m not sure Sam played in the same one while at USC ... one played one game on the 2nd biggest stage the 2nd one played in the toilet bowl a few times ...

And your gonna tell me your gonna put a bunch of #’s in a computer and figure it out .... please please please .... EDUCATE ME on how that works .... I’d really love to know .... please show me its MY IGNORANCE and not just WISHFUL THINKING on your part and Peen and then the sashiettes (U nor Peen are sashiettes ... your just playing one on this subject ... *L* )

If I knew some of the answers you're asking for, I'd probably be employed by Berry & DePo instead of running a messageboard for a hobby, lol.... but, taking a simple stab: absolutely NO mathematical system will completely replace scouting. It is another tool in the toolbox that can give more meaningful context to the things you see... to either verify what you feel your eye saw or make you go back and look again because maybe you should question what you saw.

In the end, it is like the simple stats we see quoted all the time, but taken to ridiculous degrees. If it can be imagined and measured, it can be tracked. If it can be measured and tracked, it can be compared and used to help in decision making.

To attempt to tackle your example: almost no model is going to be able to spit out a complete answer for any of that. I don't say that as a definite however because given enough compute power and enough bored statisticians to construct a data model and you can do a lot of really weird stuff. In the end, you have to decide on what aspects you consider most important, then you have to decide how to measure them in a way that is meaningful and comparable within a given context. What you end up with is one piece in a puzzle. Same as a 3-cone drill or running a 40 or doing the standing broad jump... they are all just data points. Build enough of these data points... like a hundred or more, and you can start to get a pretty complete picture of who and what you have.

Now, if *I* was going to try to build a model to compare them, well, you COULD build models that build data on the average effectiveness of each of their systems versus the systems they each faced and do so for both the college and NFL levels. Then, you use those averages to compare how each did within their systems versus the systems they faced, and then use a comparison of how far above or below average each was when facing certain situations, systems, personnel, coverages, etc.. Again, if it can be measured, it can be tracked, and if it can be tracked it can be compared.

Take a piece of film where you see a guy who your eye tells you "plays fast", but when you time him at the combine, he runs slow. What gives?
It's a common problem... well, you can use film to measure REAL GAME SPEED. Given the size of any known object on e piece of film, you can extrapolate the size of anything on that field and the speed of movement. Forget cone drills, you can measure GAME SPEED and catalog how guys respond and react in real situations.

Literally, your imagination is your only limitation. EVERY aspect of the game is measurable now... it's just a matter of figuring out ways to pull & tease out the useful bits of information, and no model will ever be accurate right off the bat... but, when you get it wrong, you learn WHY and correct your model and it performs better going forward.

It isn't wishful thinking any more than stopwatches for a 40 or measuring QB arm strength is wishful thinking. They are tools and measurements used to HELP the decision, not MAKE the decision.

Here's a great article Diam. I'll just post the stuff about draft analysis since it is pretty long.

If I were to put things in a nutshell, I would say analytics does nothing more than set-up boundaries, it doesn't "choose" players. It will help you find sleepers who fit a prototypical profile... It will expose "red flags" for players that may jump off a highlight tape but doesn't really fit the mold of a top-tier pick. Either way, it's just a guardrail, one that leads to more research and making a weighted decision that accounts for all variables possible.


https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/06/27/nfl-an...ries-chip-kelly

* * *

Bill Parcells often told his assistants and scouts, “If you start making exceptions, you’ll wind up with a team full of them.” And therein is where analytics have most affected the most impactful area of player acquisition, the draft. The idea, with the boundaries that analytics set, isn’t to prevent teams from making those exceptions. It’s to ensure they know when they are making exceptions.

A decade ago, there was a contender that had a versatile, smallish back it wanted to complement with a bigger back. The scouts identified one with big college production—over 3,000 yards in a major conference. But the club had five physical parameters for the position, and the back was 0-for-5 on them. The team took him in the third round anyway. That back lasted less than two NFL seasons.

On the flip side, another contender found an offensive lineman deep in the draft, because the team’s “model” liked the conference he’d come from, that he’d started at multiple positions and because, though he wasn’t considered a great athlete, he had a good 10-yard split and vertical leap. That player wound becoming a multi-year starter and, recently, very, very rich.

In both cases, the tape played a role. In the first, it overruled the objective data. In the second, boundaries created a model, and that model sent them back to the tape to find an overlooked prospect that became an incredible value on Day 3 of the draft.

“Maybe your model doesn’t like a guy that your scouts like, so let’s find out why the model doesn’t like the player,” says an AFC personnel executive with a scouting background. “It may be something as simple as the 10-yard split or arm length or a combination of bench press and vertical. It could be position specific. It could be a stat. There’s lots of reasons why a scout may like a player and your model wouldn’t.

“The key is, why are there differences? In a perfect world, the scout and model both like the player, and you get justification. And that happens plenty, but it’s not always like that.”

It’s not an exact science. Advanced analytics, for example, would tell you that an elite pass-rusher needs a 10-yard split on his 40 time in the 1.6s or better. And in 2005, that helped the Eagles, long a leader in football analytics, conclude that University of Cincinnati defensive end Trent Cole (1.67) could carry his college production (19 sacks) into the NFL. A decade later, Cole left Philadelphia behind only Reggie White on the team’s all-time sack list.

This April, those same Eagles took University of Tennessee edge rusher Derek Barnett with the 14th pick, because they believed some of his pedestrian testing numbers weren’t as relevant as his 10 time and short shuttle.

Conversely, in 2014, with ex-Eagles exec Joe Banner in charge, the Browns saw Barkevious Mingo’s off-the-charts 10 time (1.57) and figured he could become an undersized pass-rushing dynamo along the lines of Dwight Freeney. They overlooked the issues with his playing strength and took him sixth overall. Three years later, they were trading him for what amounted to a JUGS machine.

“There are very, very few examples of an NFL player who produced a lot of sacks that wasn’t able to run a 10 time around 1.6,” says Banner, who established an analytics department in Philly in 1995. “Does that tell you who to pick? No. And if you use that solely, you won’t have much success. But if I pick a guy, and I want sacks from him, and I don’t put weight into that, then that’s just not smart.

“Analytics is 95% common sense. Then you have to add sophisticated people who can use it in complex ways.”

The idea of removing some degree of human error is good. To illustrate that point, one team analytics official pointed to a 2011 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that found judges were more lenient after lunch than before lunch. So in football terms, would a GM know if his Southeast area scout got a speeding ticket on his way to LSU before writing a report on their stud corner?

Along those lines, ex-Browns GM Phil Savage used to send his scouts out for school visits after they were in-house for training camp with the warning: Now, remember, you were just watching NFL players. He’d noticed grades on college kids tended to be harsh early, because watching pro athletes would cause scouts to subconsciously raise the bar.

“This information can make you more efficient, it can make you look at more players, and identify outliers, it’s a directional resource,” says Pollard. “But on top of that, it smooths out the emotions. We’re all human. We all develop biases.”

* * *

Thanks purp ... I’ll get back to u after i read it 5 - 10 more times ... lots to digest on a subject I’m ignorant on ...

Hope your up for more questions when I’m done ... *L* ...

I’ll be back after re-reading a few times and reading the article Fate posted more that likely a few times ...

Fate thanks .... appreciate it ...

I'm thinking a "football guy" came up with the 85/15 split, and he got there by eyeballing it and guessing using only his personal perspective.

The problem with scouts is that they often get tunnel vision. Analytics can help put things in context. As long as you're doing enough good scouting, you can never do too much good analytics. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

This is what I was trying to get at earlier. A disagreement between the eye and the numbers forces decision makers to dig into why. Stats, in general, are very complex and very educated guesses.

I find it funny people who poo poo analytics, will post stats from PFF. I don't see a difference.

"Some kind of strategist"

Albert Breer is a reporter.

It’s simple. YOU are the one who is not either comprehending, or willfully ignoring the often-repeated information that the front office is going to use data AND scouting to draft and get free agent. It’s not, nor has it ever been an either/or situation.

Get it? Sorta? Maybe?

This argument has gotten to the point of absolute stupidity

JC...I don't get where some people think we are all analytics.

We are still going to be like KC. Most of our decisions are going to be heavily reliant on the scouting reports.

What's funny is that I feel like most scouts actually rely on "analytics" ... they just don't know it. And it's usually just a smaller subset of what they can really use. I remember in this one baseball movie about the Athletics in baseball, the scouts were in a room talking about the pros and cons of players. They were mentioning things like "the ball explodes off his bat" or "He has a great arm", and honestly those are analytic type metrics (exit velocity/throw velocity) that can be measured and tracked. Those types of data points can then be plugged into a system where you can see what "metrics" truly matter to having a good player or not, just based on history. And the more data the better. You will see that players with traits A, B, D, and not G tend to be great players 90% of the time. It's just a matter of finding those traits through data.

And for the most part, I think that's what scouts do. They see a guy that meets criteria A and B, and from past experience, they know that usually results in a successful player. All analytics do is put measurable values to those same attributes and track which ones actually matter based on actual history, and without involving biases. As the movie showed, scouts were getting hung up on attributes that didn't matter, probably because they had been burned by it in the past, even though it ultimately didn't matter. The point of analytics it to absorb all the data points that a single person would have a difficult time consuming by themselves, removing any preconceived biases from the process, and outputting results based on all historical results.

Many of the analytic data-points are still driven by a scout's personal estimation. It's probably not ideal when you want hard statistics to generate a model. But some things like "heart" just aren't measurable with any sort of statistic. It's still a slightly different way of scouting though, as you're looking to plot certain traits on a sliding scale. It's not a matter of, "This guy is going to be awesome because he's built solid and has a good looking girlfriend".

j/c:

I think using analytics is smart. As a math teacher who was in charge of our school's Data Analysis team, I made them a priority.

I believe they have a huge role in sports. Football is a bit tougher, but they should absolutely be used as a tool to help you in many areas w/in your organization.

My problem w/the Browns is that it seems that we had guys who relied on the tool, but didn't use it properly when it came to evaluating talent.

They took Myles, but reportedly were considering Trubisky and even favored him. They traded the pick away when they could have had D. Watson. Depo said Wentz wasn't a top 20 qb. They drafted an in-the-box safety in Peppers and played him at FS. They traded up for Njoku, who has a ton of athletic gifts, but doesn't understand the route tree, has inconsistent hands, and can't block. [Note: I am not positive they traded up for him, but I don't feel like looking it up. If I am incorrect about that, I apologize. I'm sure it will be pointed out if I am wrong, but not if I'm right....LOL...it's all good.] I know he was drafted later, but I never understood the DeValve pick. It was a reach. Ricardo Louis was a waste. I did like the Ogbah and Higgins picks. Corey Coleman? I think Ogunjobi was a decent pick, but guys, he is terrible against the run. He has a strong upper body, but he is light in the pants and gets manhandled far too often in the running game. But, I would say that was a pretty good pick. Schobert was a good pick. Their FA record is pathetic. And the weird thing is that Berry was a scout for pro players while in Indy, rather than the draft.

I think the perfect marriage would have been the team of Dorsey, Highsmith, and Wolf pared w/a new analytical team because I think the first three guys have a great eye for talent and analytics should absolutely be incorporated into a professional football organization. I just think the analytic guys we have/had suck at their jobs in regards to evaluating football players.

I think Mack Wilson is a ball player and he will have the biggest improvmenmt on the team from year 1 to year 2.

Sorry I’m not as intelligent as u and i want to educate myself on something that i have no clue how it works ...

And cause the FO says it I guess I should take it at face value ... ...

I’ll be getting back to your snarky ass when I’m done with me reading IF it don’t sway me at all ...

PS. Feel free to quit reading things u consider stupid .. its why i hardly read anything my more ... not sure why anyone would read things they think are stupid .... u should willfully ignore things u think are stupid .. i do ...