DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Mack Wilson

can u tell me how it works in evaluating talent ... i just don’t see it ... it very well may be my ignorance on the subject ... it’ll be interesting to see where i end up when I’m done learning about how it works ...

Exactly why the [censored] would the team lie about what they are going to do? Give me ONE valid reason how it benefits the team, THEIR EMPLOYER, to mislead people on what they want to do? The whole lunatic conspiracy theory of them playing some Machiavellian game in the shadows, is [censored] stupid. It’s a Goddamned football team!! People are going to pay for a product they put on the field!

All it is is statistical analysis. It’s been going on since people started compiling data on other teams tendencies. It was going on when you played football. Coaches watch film to see what a guy/ team does in a given situation. That’s all. They just call it “analytics” because it’s a new word.

Relative to drafting, the most obvious statistics are times in drill/dashes, vertical leap, long jump, etcetra. Just data. One dude runs a 40 in 4.5, one in 4.7. You analyze (look at) the numbers and decide you want the slower guy because he’s a bit bigger. It’s a very simplistic example, but it makes decisions a bit easier.

Hope u feel better after your rant ...

Thanks for the reply ...

I think not using analytics in game situations is flat out stupid ... i am shocked at hos Freddie appeared to use them for the scripted plays and not at all after that ... the more info u have on other teams tendencies the better off u are ... i believe Billicheck has been using some form of analytics on the other team since he was the DC for the Tuna and shut the bills prolific offense down ... granted the run game of the gnats played a big part but Bilicheck shut that O down ...

And to me ... the things u listed aren’t analytics ... if that’s analytics ... everyone’s been using it ... i gotta read more ... i really wanna understand how it helps u evaluate talent ... personally I could care less how fast a 40 they run in shorts and from a sprinters stance on a track in a straight line .... i wanna know if they have Jerry Rice speed ... i don’t believe he had a great 40 time .... i could be wrong ... but no one ever caught him ... ever ... i want football speed ...

I’ll read and ask more questions and when I’m done I’ll let u know where i stand .. we’ll see how that goes ... *L* ...

Thanks again for the reply ..

I do, a bit.

Did you happen to see the link for the YouTube clip “Ballad of Baker”? The guy who made it used some good analytic data to show how the Browns do much better in a (hopefully) Stefanski scheme than the Hue/early Freddy one. All he does is get some data points, like the one where BM is way better when he gets rid of the ball in 2.5 seconds or less, and examines them against the tape.

As to drafting, there’s a lot more muddy waters to navigate. We all know the draft is a roll of the dice. Let’s look at Corey Coleman for an example. Analytics-ly speaking, he had the goods. Really fast, decent size. On tape he had the goods. Really fast, good cuts, breakaway ability.

Now, all of the draft heads agreed, he needed to work on his hands, and learning to run correct routes/complicated schemes.

The thing neither analytics nor tape could show was what I believed was his biggest issue once he got to the NFL: heart. You can’t read it, measure it, or coach it up. He looked to me, like he just didn’t care all that much.

How do you scout inner drive? I don’t know.

I am not real high on Mack Wilson. This is NOT because of his talent. I think the kid is VERY talented, no question about that. However, its the brains department where he lacks.

Mack Wilson was out of position A LOT last year and he was responsible for us giving up a lot of big plays. He took many poor angles to the ball carrier, and did a very poor job of stringing the RB outside, and left quite a few holes for guys to cut back. An OLB MUST string the RB outside along with the DE setting the edge, and Wilson failed in that department numerous times last year. There were many times last year the DE had a perfect edge set and Wilson couldn't string him outside to be pushed out or tackled.

Wilson to me looks like a backup LB. He is a guy who could a few years down the road become a starting quality LB, but he needs a lot of work on his technique and needs to learn how to play zone coverage. He was abysmal last year in zone coverage.

We should certainly keep Wilson on the roster, he is a guy we can develop and he certainly could be a big help to us on special teams and as depth. He has shown enough that we most definitly should not give up on him.

Schobert needs to be re signed, he is our best player on defense not named Myles Garret and he should have been a Two Time Pro Bowler. If we don't sign him he will end up in NE playing for Bellichik. Schobert does all the things:

Excellent form tackling
Plays the Scheme
Rarely out of position
Can shed blocks
isn't afraid to plug a hole
Above average in zone coverage
Tackling machine

The guy is an All Pro, we would be foolish not to keep Schobert.

in 2 years, Mack Wilson will be a starting quality NFL LB as long as we don't give up on him.

I am not trying to say that analytics is the only way or even the best way to evaluate talent. I think analytics are more of a sure thing when you are using them in game situations, such as when to run a play to the boundary, when to go for it on 4th down, how to avoid 3rd and long situations, play calling by downs and time of the game, etc.

However, analytics can be a tool in evaluating talent. You take all the data, such as statistics, measurables, etc and match them w/them to the profile of your ideal player at a particular position.

You can probably appreciate how important closing speed is for a corner. I'm sure you understand that explosion is huge for an edge rusher. Straight line speed is huge for an X receiver while you want your slot receivers to get in and out of breaks quickly. Thus, the 40 time is more important for one and the cone drills more important for the other. In short, teams can use analytics to save time and be able to evaluate a larger pool of talent than they previously could.




Here are some links on the use of analytics in the NFL. They certainly can do a better job of explaining things than I can.

--This one ranks all 32 teams in how they were using analytics. They mentioned how the analytics guys for the Browns had Trubisky rated higher than Myles. https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/06/28/nfl-an...anning-charting

--This one is long and is rather speculative, but it should help educate a bit. This quote by the Steelers GM is an example of what I was talking about in my previous post when I said that analytics are a great tool, but it matters how you use them. Here is the quote from Colbert:
“The point we made with our coaches is: We have all this information but so does everyone else. What advantage does it give us to get it? None. It’s what we do with it, the way we use it.” —Kevin Colbert, Steelers general manage. Full article here: https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2018/12/19/18148153/nfl-analytics-revolution

--This one provides some good information and is rather interesting. https://gazette.com/sports/do-the-number...876ff462a4.html

--This article is more of a personal story, but you can find some info in it that addresses how NFL teams use analytics to evaluate talent. https://qz.com/work/1701905/the-nfl-goes-to-extreme-measures-to-evaluate-draft-picks/

That Colbert quote is a good one.

Analytics is simply another tool. You have it in your toolbox, and you use it along with your other tools to do a job. Just like other tools, if you don't understand how it works, you can misuse it.

We definitely have a lot of tools in the toolbox.

It's hard to have heart when you have no faith in your coach, QB, and/or organization.

It's not just something you have or you don't. It's something you can gain and lose.

When a team is as bad as we've been (and were when he was here), it's hard to keep.

Once your confidence is shaken, it can be hard to get it back.

Sounds like your blaming the fact CC was an atrocious pick on Hue and the staff ... they ruined his confidence so badly when he was traded to the jills and they cut him weeks later ... then i believe the pats had him for a few weeks and he ended up with the gnats all in about a 6 week period i think ...

And I couldn’t disagree less on heart ... i agree confidence can come and go ... heart is always there ... its not a come and go thing ... u may dislike or hate the situation your in so your heart may not be all in like usual ... but heart isn’t a sometime thing ... u either have it or u don’t ...

thanks Vers ... appreciate it ... I’ll ask my questions in here in case anyone else is interested if that all right with u ... let mew know if u prefer a PM ...

I’ll have the when I’m done with all the research I have to do ...Driving back to SC this weekend and have some money matters I need to spend some time on so it may be a few weeks before I’m done ...

Ham thanks for the reply ... I’ll get back to U later today ... i think U and I actually pretty much agree on analytics .... I’m looking forward to educating myself over the next month or so ...

As I understand it, the biggest problem with the Coleman pick, unless I'm confusing him with someone else, is the report where we never actually scouted him - we never sent people to meet with him, talk with him, get to know what is inside his head.... so, he is the definition of a pure-numbers/analytics pick and a great way of highlighting what happens when you don't pay attention to detail and do the work that needs to be done.

It also would not surprise me if Hue simply waved it off and felt it was unnecessary, that he could handle whatever issues there were. He strikes me as the sort of persona that would do that.

I think you’re thinking of Justin Gilbert.

That was my first thought as well, but I wouldn't put it past any of the goofballs the Browns have employed.

Yes. Ray Farmer thought Pro Days were "overhyped."

Well, pro days probably are to a degree. Those are a lot of dog and pony show. The combine less so. That is run by the coaches, scouts.

Rays problem was just looking at tape and little else. You have to go talk to these guys. Are you talking to a young man or are you talking to a little kid or a hoodlum?

Pro days are like a mini combine. That in itself is valuable. They are also fact finding opportunities. Being on the campus where the player played and talking to all the coaches and people that have interacted with the guy during his time at school is even more valuable.

One thing I like about the combine over pro days is the athletes have to work with guys who they don’t know. Same with the Senior bowl. Much more akin to the NFL.

Thanks for the civil and informative discussion.

I think that only goes so far. Pre-draft most prospects are coached on what to say in meetings. How they do on the board can be important, but I think the "how they talk angle" is overblown.

You need to find a way to figure out how they act when they don't know they're being watched. Having reliable sources at schools on that stuff can help. Some teams use PIs.

No disagreement. You investigate.

Evaluating talent with Analytics seems unorthodox. Although seemingly it is simply using a tool. Lets first understand talent and what makes a person look talented.

First off what is talent ? Natural aptitude or skill.Okay what is aptitude ? A natural ability to do something. What is skill ? The ability to do something well.

Alright seems easy. Lets have some fun thinking about this. A person who can hit 20 home runs out of 30 pitches, is that Talent ? What about the guy who strikes out 20 times out of 30 pitches. Is that talent ?

It would seem both players are doing something well. Okay but is it fair to say that ? Yes it is. One can say it's bad to strike out 20 times but it's good to hit 20 home runs.. Why ? Well hitting home runs means your helping the team score runs... Okay.

Take the same two players.. The player who hit the 20 home runs missed 20 catches out of 30 chances to catch for an out.. The player who struck out 20 times out of 30 pitches caught 20 catches for outs to help a runner from scoring...

But wait... How many players besides those two had made it to base or had struck out ? Hitting a single run home run or hitting a Grand slam... Missing a catch with bases loaded or making a catch with the bases loaded and retiring the side... Who's play was considered the most talented ?

This is where Analytics come into play... The player is being considered talented by the results of his actions. I used Baseball because it's an easier way to show point the word. Back to both players. The home run hitter runs slower because he can hit more home runs and doesn't need to run as fast. But if he doesn't hit a home run how fast is he at running the bases ?

This all applies to anything. Football ? Lets start off with a kicker who can kick a 50 yard FG from the center hash line to the right hash line...But can only kick a 30 at the left hash line... The WR who can catch the ball looking over his right shoulder but not his left shoulder..The QB who can throw on a roll out to his right but not his left..it can go on and on...

Measuring talent is about what the situation was that puts that player in a position to show his talent. By using multiple situations events and actions, outcomes are how people measure someone for their talent.

OBJ can catch one handed passes...can he block ? Can he catch two handed passes ? can he run the right route ? This is what analytics do for a team and an opposing team. It gives them a look or vision of actions.

Then all those actions are put into situations and outcomes..What is the best action to help result in a positive outcome.That outcome is usually how most peoples talent is looked at. Artificial turf was made and lots of players said it made them faster...Turf made you look more talented...Analytics would show that.

In terms of Ray Farmer... He didn't want Manziel or Gilbert.. Manziel was on Haslam.. Gilbert was on Pettine. That explains why we didn't interview Gilbert.. Farmer didn't want him. There is an article floating out in cyberspace that this was the case, and both 1st round picks were forced on Farmer.

Bro, Farmer was a chump. He still should have taken the time to interview Gilber no matter who was championing him. He also was the idiot who was texting Shanny during games. Terrible GM.

Joe Schobert is reading this like.. I didnt get a call yet..

Analytics has been used for decades. Paul Brown was a analytics junkie.

Watching tape is analytics.

Wonder what that means?

"Be aware"

or

"Beware"?

mack is bought in with Stefanski and ready to go to work

Could be that 'be aware' is the next 'we battled', 'gotta look at the film', etc.

Maybe it means he gets coached up and understands better and feels he will perform better with Stefanski. Oddity, but it has been known to happen.

Wilson is young kid. IMO, he shows passion for the game. He comes across to me as someone with a goal and is realizing he's got a path to reach it. Enthusiasm would probably be a better word to use. You need that kind of drive to be good in this league.

Good coaches do that. Being a leader isn't a given. It is a gift and it is earned.

It seems our last few coaches were given the job. The problem many coaches face is being a head coach is more managerial than actual coaching. They set the tone and make the decisions. They don't do a whole lot of coaching. The assistants do that. They manage the game and the staff that coaches the players.

The engineer doesn't build the stair well and platform to hold 15 tons of equipment. They just draw it out as trained. S/he relies on the maintenance manager to get the maintenance people build it the way it was designed.


Here are your orders, get it done. They work as a team. If a mechanic comes back and says we can't do this before we do that, the engineer and the mechanics have to figure out something else. They work as a team. One is no good without the other. They need each other. One can't factor out the stress loads and the other can't weld.

Stefanski wasn't "given the job?"

Good God, man.

Of course he wasn't.

I'd be willing to bet that there was a lot more back ground info on Stefanski than what Dorsey had when he handed the job to Freddie.

I think he earned it having gone through a very detailed search.

Jimmy picked Hue and Dorsey bucked all and selected Freddie.

Stafanski's resume wasn't even close to Hue's. Also, Hue had other teams who were interested in him as a HC.

No disagreement there. I don't remember all the details, but Jimmy wanted Hue and the FO wanted someone else.

Anyway, it doesn't matter.

It depends on the type of resume. Are you worried about a chronological listing of jobs or do you care more about traits and abilities?

I'm not trying to start an argument. Just putting something out there to consider.

Work history tells what you did, but not the how or why.

HC is a different animal and requires additional aptitudes that aren't necessarily tested in earlier positions.