More 2020 Hype: "If You Need A RB or WR, this is the draft for you."

[FantasyFreak]

Tape is garbage and no it doesn't. Period.

This is the problem, with these types of this discussions. People are way too entrenched on one side or the other. Just because something doesn't work for one person, doesn't mean it doesn't for others. The idea that "tape is garbage", simply shows that it doesn't work for you, because you have found it to be less serving a method than another. Doesn't mean it's like that for everyone, and vice versa. Tape without any statistical reference is bordeline useless, and you can watch tape and not like a guy despite the stats saying he's good, and be right to pass on him, but using one or the other exclusively with not cross referencing aren't what any successful NFL franchises are doing, nor is it most likely what most successful Fantasy Players are doing.

I think you'd have more of a point if you'd read my following point in my next post.

When I say tape is garbage, and it doesn't work, I'm talking about what we've learned from what teams have been doing from decades, and it's nothing good. It's basically 100% pure randomness and zero modesty about what's actually gained, and zero ability to actually measure, accurately, what your projecting, and how effectively what your doing works. It's incredibly nebulous, and the results are in w/what tape, and the NFL model has done and it's clear. There's been zero improvement. Looking at literally decades of drafts, what you get is only one trend: More picks=more hits.

That is my point. If you get under the hood w/tape people, what you get is disagreement on the very basics of individual players in all manner of ways and no ways to test any of it reliably. Again, drenched in visual bias. I don't deny that people using tape only approaches can find things: Kareem Hunt as I referenced earlier was a point for tape guys. The problem I have is that you get a big enough sample size and it's just white noise. For every Kareem Hunt, you get a pile of contact balance busts. You don't get guys eliminated to narrow your choices like Goode suggested, you just get people going back and forth about contact balance, quick feet, running inside, vision, or not vision, just like WR's, beating the press, using hands well, separation, yada yada.

Eventually it comes down to this. You can evaluate analytics models and figure out how effectively they work, or not, and when trends, rule changes or anything else make them less efficacious, and dump them and look for something better. It's efficient. Watching tape? I just see bias, bias, bias, and yes, I listen and read tape guys because I want to have that area covered, so I can at least be open to a future Kareem Hunt, but I listen to check a box, not because I think it's reliable, or w/o bias because I absolutely don't think it's either of those things, but I like to be thorough, and I like to question myself, even when I say things are garbage, I'm still sniffing, lol.

I'm not on one side or the other. I think both are useful. Watching football is still important. Stats without context can lead to traps, too. Watching tape without stats and analytics is less useful than without those, but it still has it's place in the NFL, and always will. Every team will always have a scouting department.

[Factory of Sadness]

The way some people talk about Dominator Rating confuses me. I like to look at it and find the broad implications of it a useful prompt to investigate players.Some of you seem to imbue it with a mystical predictive power and tie yourselves in knots defending the obvious inanity of having a hard cut-off line.

The key is to rigorously and critically decide what can be usefully measured, and what value this measurement has. As a general measure, does knowing how dominant a player was in his College offense seem worthwhile information to be aware of? I'd say yes. Is there broad data that looks like it's telling us to value this stat? Again, I'd say yes- though I'd also argue that being the most important player on your team at your position is probably not an insight that many would have missed.

Is the data sufficiently objective and reliable to be useful when measured as a percentage? No. To use it as a guide is useful, I think. To use a low DR as a red flag to trigger an investigation into whether a player has been productive enough in his context to project his traits with confidence strikes me as good process. To believe - and many of you do seem to believe- that the percentage is predictive enough that you should use it as a threshold, strikes me as comical. Yes, having cut-offs can save you from making errors. The cut-off has to make sense however.

The argument is that there is a magic number - albeit one that will be adjusted over time - and that to be below it is to be a poor prospect. Yes. if that number is robust. Base it on BMI and though there are problems with that, it makes sense. Base it on 40 time and though the 40 time doesn't truly measure football speed, it as an objective measurement that's the same for everyone. To take this line though and insist that just because a player was surrounded by elite talents at his position, that doesn't change the holy number is clearly and obviously facile. The number reflects how well he performed against his peers- so his peers matter. Because the arbitrary cut-off must be protected at all costs, let's argue that in the NFL he will be surrounded by elite competition anyway, so elite college teammates are irrelevant. Well, yes, OK, but then the fact that another player had crappy college teammates is irrelevant too, but because he did, you're giving him a DOMINATOR RATING that is predictive of success...

Once you have to start defying logic to make sense of a stat, it's time to be honest about the flaws of that stat. Let's look logically at a scenario, using the predictive power of Dominator Rating. Let's say that hypothetically we had transferred Ruggs, Waddle and Smith out of Alabama and sent them to San Jose State, transferring into Alabama the might of Tre Walker, Bailey Gather and Isaiah Hamilton and as a result we saw the following change.

Real 2019 Alabama Receiving Stats:
Devonta Smith 68 1256 14
Jerry Jeudy 77 1163 10
Henry Ruggs 40 746 7

Hypothetical 2019 Alabama Receiving Stats
Jerry Jeudy 77 1163 10
Tre Walker 48 856 6
Bailey Gather 32 490 5

Are any of you going to tell me honestly that the second set of stats shows me that Jerry Jeudy is a better player than the first set? That his higher DOMINATOR RATING should tell me that he now crosses a threshold that he doesn't with the first set? That the quality of his teammates/competition is irrelevant in both sets of statistics?

No chance. In version 1, Jeudy is playing well with high class competition for targets. The fact that he isn't dominating is a concern and should make me examine Smith, Ruggs and Waddle carefully. I should look at scheme, at the QB's strengths and weaknesses and be skeptical of anointing him a great talent because he isn't dominating at the college level. I shouldn't cross him off my list because he is below a clumsy cut-off though. I should acknowledge that he is surrounded by excellent WRs and that therefore figuring out his ability relevant to theirs will be important in accurately valuing him.

In version 2, if he isn't more dominant than this over hugely inferior competition, I should be incredibly wary of him. If he's not earning more yards than players like Walker and Gather put together than he really isn't looking very special to me at all. I would expect a first round NFL talent to blow away guys like this.

And yet, of course, in version 2, Jeudy's dominator rating will be above the magic cut-off line and I should draft him with confidence...

Let's have a bit of honesty here please people. Measuring DR as a rough yardstick to flag a lack of relative production makes sense as a way of making sure that we aren't film or trait blinded to what a player actually did. Seriously insisting that a cut-off line exists, above or below which an individual player's score- REGARDLESS OF CONTEXT- has powerful predictive implications is nonsense. Identifying a correlation between a statistic and future performance is good. When that statistic is so complicated by individual context as to make it obviously risible to insist upon its predictive power in every situation, you just clown yourself by doing so.

[FantasyFreak]

I believe Nate Liss has incorporated a "teammate score" into his breakout finder that touches on these issues you discussed. Level of competition within your own offense matters.

[Factory of Sadness]

That makes sense. It is still a somewhat ridiculous stat to take too seriously though. As the title indicates, it is a measure of how a WR dominated his teammates. Depending on player turnover we are measuring him against perhaps five or six other players and charting that against hundreds of other players and their own, entirely different sets of five or six other players. As an at a glance measurement of the extent to which a WR was the main man on campus, it has some utility. To see the viability of an arbitrary cut-off from such 'data' strikes me as highly credulous.

[Orenthal Shames]

Whats the deal with Cam Akers? I see so many mocks with him being the No.1/No.2 running back and I just can't fathom anyone taking him Before the big 3. He's meant to be athletically very good but I've heard bad marks against his vision which to me is just a big no-no (Trent Richardson).

Is he a riser that could sneak up or is it just more clickbait mocks.

At this point I won't be touching him early, the big 3 all seem to have plus vision and athleticism which is why they are being valued so highly, what does Akers do that is better than any of them?

I've heard one guy reference him as belonging in the big 3, and I think there may be some hidden individuals, like myself, here and there that wonder if he doesn't belong in the grouping, but I haven't seen anyone emphatically say #1 or #2 w/him, just, he could belong in that tier.

He was the #1 RB coming out of High School and one of the top 10-20ish prospects period. He ended up on a horrific team w/particularly horrific blocking. You can get him on a discount, but he looks like he could be like a more extreme version of Reagor, w/just a ton of volatility in terms of real rookie draft selections. For now I get a feeling he'll slide in somewhere between 5th and 8th in terms of ADP by mid summer, probably around sixth, after the big 3, and 2 WR's. For me, that makes him a steal in the same vein of guys like Chubb in '18, Brown and Sanders in '19, and Cook in '17. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but he will be a locked in target for picks of mine in that zone. My only concern will be if he somehow falls out of the top 75 or so and/or lands in a horrific situation, but even then, so long as it isn't a committee w/legit competition that I respect, I'll probably pull the trigger anyway.

I'm beginning to wonder whether he should be 3 over Swift myself.

[cantguardjake]

Why is everyone so fixated on Jeudy’s dominator, it passes the “magic” 25% threshold which has been mentioned multiple times

[lanemitchell96]

I believe Nate Liss has incorporated a "teammate score" into his breakout finder that touches on these issues you discussed. Level of competition within your own offense matters.

Yes he did! I mentioned this earlier in the thread. I think this is important to consider with WR prospects.

[lanemitchell96]

Here's a cut up of a podcast talking about CeeDee Lamb > Jerry Jeudy.

It's Matt Kelley aka The Podfater (a strong analytics guy) AND Ray Garvin (a strong film guy).

I found it interesting and wanted to share.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSLrckTWjv0

[killer_of_giants]

so i spent the weekend watching film, what have i missed on here??

[FantasyFreak]

Whats the deal with Cam Akers? I see so many mocks with him being the No.1/No.2 running back and I just can't fathom anyone taking him Before the big 3. He's meant to be athletically very good but I've heard bad marks against his vision which to me is just a big no-no (Trent Richardson).

Is he a riser that could sneak up or is it just more clickbait mocks.

At this point I won't be touching him early, the big 3 all seem to have plus vision and athleticism which is why they are being valued so highly, what does Akers do that is better than any of them?

I've heard one guy reference him as belonging in the big 3, and I think there may be some hidden individuals, like myself, here and there that wonder if he doesn't belong in the grouping, but I haven't seen anyone emphatically say #1 or #2 w/him, just, he could belong in that tier.

He was the #1 RB coming out of High School and one of the top 10-20ish prospects period. He ended up on a horrific team w/particularly horrific blocking. You can get him on a discount, but he looks like he could be like a more extreme version of Reagor, w/just a ton of volatility in terms of real rookie draft selections. For now I get a feeling he'll slide in somewhere between 5th and 8th in terms of ADP by mid summer, probably around sixth, after the big 3, and 2 WR's. For me, that makes him a steal in the same vein of guys like Chubb in '18, Brown and Sanders in '19, and Cook in '17. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but he will be a locked in target for picks of mine in that zone. My only concern will be if he somehow falls out of the top 75 or so and/or lands in a horrific situation, but even then, so long as it isn't a committee w/legit competition that I respect, I'll probably pull the trigger anyway.

I'm beginning to wonder whether he should be 3 over Swift myself.

Swift is the better football player. Akers isn't as nuanced a player. More athlete, less natural instinct at the position IMO.

[OhCruelestRanter]

Whats the deal with Cam Akers? I see so many mocks with him being the No.1/No.2 running back and I just can't fathom anyone taking him Before the big 3. He's meant to be athletically very good but I've heard bad marks against his vision which to me is just a big no-no (Trent Richardson).

Is he a riser that could sneak up or is it just more clickbait mocks.

At this point I won't be touching him early, the big 3 all seem to have plus vision and athleticism which is why they are being valued so highly, what does Akers do that is better than any of them?

I've heard one guy reference him as belonging in the big 3, and I think there may be some hidden individuals, like myself, here and there that wonder if he doesn't belong in the grouping, but I haven't seen anyone emphatically say #1 or #2 w/him, just, he could belong in that tier.

He was the #1 RB coming out of High School and one of the top 10-20ish prospects period. He ended up on a horrific team w/particularly horrific blocking. You can get him on a discount, but he looks like he could be like a more extreme version of Reagor, w/just a ton of volatility in terms of real rookie draft selections. For now I get a feeling he'll slide in somewhere between 5th and 8th in terms of ADP by mid summer, probably around sixth, after the big 3, and 2 WR's. For me, that makes him a steal in the same vein of guys like Chubb in '18, Brown and Sanders in '19, and Cook in '17. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but he will be a locked in target for picks of mine in that zone. My only concern will be if he somehow falls out of the top 75 or so and/or lands in a horrific situation, but even then, so long as it isn't a committee w/legit competition that I respect, I'll probably pull the trigger anyway.

I'm beginning to wonder whether he should be 3 over Swift myself.

I'm interested to see how Akers performs at the combine. If I'm going to buy into the notion that his lackluster production was due to poor offensive line play, then I want to see him show out as a strong athlete at the combine.

[Cult of Dionysus]

so i spent the weekend watching film, what have i missed on here??

Basically your weekend was a waste and you should've just waited to read Waldmanns report.

[FantasyFreak]

so i spent the weekend watching film, what have i missed on here??

[clarion contrarion]

Just say Michael Thomas... Not some 80s no names WR lol

I think I responded to this earlier, but I just wanted to expand on it just w/the point that I think having a deeper range of comps beyond guys from the aughts or this past decade can be actually helpful, even if the league has changed a ton, going back to the eighties. I think you probably start running into major issues w/the seventies when you find plenty of teams at 50/50 or even lower pass to run ratios (the Steelers in particular stuck out to me, which is why evaluating Stallworth and Swann was so damn hard, the volume of that passing game was often literally half of what you see today in many instances) but I still think it's helpful.

Some guys off the top of my head worth remembering for comps include: guys like Toon, and Morgan, the Marks Brothers, Wesley Walker, Eddie Brown, Roy Green, Harold Carmichael and Mike Quick, Wes Chandler and Charlie Joiner, James Lofton and Stanley Sharpe, Tony Hill, Anthony Carter, Gary Clark, Art Monk, Harold Moore, Dwight Clark, Freddie Solomon, John Taylor, Ellard etc just lots and lots of guys. We shouldn't confine comps to the last couple of years when we find matches. It was a silly comp at the time, especially when considering the comps AJ Brown is getting now (Andre Johnson from a lot of people) but when I watched him, his style of play reminded me a lot of the ferocity that Gary Clark played with circa '85-'92 when you always got the sense he was willing to break his own bones to reach the end zone. Looking at Brown, he just played with a similar ferocity to me. Physically, they weren't similar at all, but just the hunger and edge they played with seemed so on point which is why I ended up with AJ Brown on almost all of my 14 teams.

Anyway, using comps that include guys like Eric Martin can work. You just need to dig a little. History's always relevant.

beautiful post although the legions of self absorbed super genius posters here that think the world begin the day they were born will find many faults with it , I personally find it .... like I said beautiful. Gary clark was a monster and one of the most underappreciated wr in NFL history.

[Orenthal Shames]

I've heard one guy reference him as belonging in the big 3, and I think there may be some hidden individuals, like myself, here and there that wonder if he doesn't belong in the grouping, but I haven't seen anyone emphatically say #1 or #2 w/him, just, he could belong in that tier.

He was the #1 RB coming out of High School and one of the top 10-20ish prospects period. He ended up on a horrific team w/particularly horrific blocking. You can get him on a discount, but he looks like he could be like a more extreme version of Reagor, w/just a ton of volatility in terms of real rookie draft selections. For now I get a feeling he'll slide in somewhere between 5th and 8th in terms of ADP by mid summer, probably around sixth, after the big 3, and 2 WR's. For me, that makes him a steal in the same vein of guys like Chubb in '18, Brown and Sanders in '19, and Cook in '17. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but he will be a locked in target for picks of mine in that zone. My only concern will be if he somehow falls out of the top 75 or so and/or lands in a horrific situation, but even then, so long as it isn't a committee w/legit competition that I respect, I'll probably pull the trigger anyway.

I'm beginning to wonder whether he should be 3 over Swift myself.

I'm interested to see how Akers performs at the combine. If I'm going to buy into the notion that his lackluster production was due to poor offensive line play, then I want to see him show out as a strong athlete at the combine.