What scouting sites do you trust?

[captain_insano]

I have to use someone else's eyes. Last year I trusted my eyes and totally whiffed on OBJ because of it.

[clarion contrarion]

don't fret it lots of people didn't see that coming.. he scored as many offensive tds in 12 games w/ the giants as he did in 3 years at LSU
if you picked bishop sankey at 1:1 or davante adams before mike evans seek help if not don't beat yourself up... it happens

[cactusdave]

Bales analytic perspective has been more wrong than right from my recollection. Guy loved Pettigrew. Predicted Trent Richardson would be #2 RB scoring in PPR in 2013. That Rob Housler would be top 10 TE. Just to name a few. So just as many hits as misses.

That's why I said data analytics are more powerful than cherry picking individual snippets of film study. When you have a sample size of 6 -7 drafts or more, to make comparisons from, it's pretty easy to see players with attributes that most often result in NFL success and compare that to the present crop of players to determine who belongs on your short list.

No system or person is infallible. Scouts fail in their assessments all the time. But if you're driven by the patterns that emerge out of the sheer number of contestants, you're going to see what works and what doesn't, the majority of the time.

Could you expand on this? Maybe i'm not following you correctly. I'm a film guy, watch hundreds of hours of tape every year. When I make rankings, I take into account a players size, speed, quickness, and how I project they may develop in the future. I'm curious what i'm missing.

Thanks Dave

Comparing film of prospects to one another from a single draft class is not without some merit, but it doesn't provide a macro view. So for most people, if that's their starting point, I contend, that they're leaning their ladder against the wrong wall.

Without a basis for comparing results over an extended period of time (meaning years worth of drafting), it's nothing more than a game of hunt and peck. You really don't need to spend tons of hours watching film, unless thats something you love to do and you have the time for it.

If you know in advance for example, that a very high percentage of RBs that succeed in the NFL have a common repeatable set of physical attributes, a similar pattern of successful production at the collegiate level, are typically selected in certain rounds of the draft, and so on, and all of this is empirical evidence gathered over many drafts and involving not tens of players but instead thousands, that is a HUGE starting point and a macro view to help you reach a short list.

There will always be exceptions of course. But who starts out evaluating anything by focusing on the exceptions first? Analyzing the results of the data from years gone by, is a science-based approach. You're not guessing at what the results are going to be, if you start out by trusting the data to exclude outliers based on comparing current prospects with historical patterns of successes and failures.

You can always go back and re-evaluate on a case by case basis if the evidence changes (and you should), but that's the sort of exception management that comes later in the process. Most people aren't scouts or coaches or GM's and they aren't going to be.

So watching tons of film hoping to identify a slight difference between players that will give them a draft advantage is absurd unless you love doing that sort of thing. Not even the professionals are that precise in their estimation of talent, which suggests to me that many if not most of them, would do a better job as well if they started out using analytics to guide them.

[italian_stallion21]

It's actually been shown that the most analytic-driven teams in pro-sports (not just football) tend to have the best teams. Interesting to say the least.

[nwhalen]

That's why I said data analytics are more powerful than cherry picking individual snippets of film study. When you have a sample size of 6 -7 drafts or more, to make comparisons from, it's pretty easy to see players with attributes that most often result in NFL success and compare that to the present crop of players to determine who belongs on your short list.

No system or person is infallible. Scouts fail in their assessments all the time. But if you're driven by the patterns that emerge out of the sheer number of contestants, you're going to see what works and what doesn't, the majority of the time.

Could you expand on this? Maybe i'm not following you correctly. I'm a film guy, watch hundreds of hours of tape every year. When I make rankings, I take into account a players size, speed, quickness, and how I project they may develop in the future. I'm curious what i'm missing.

Thanks Dave

Comparing film of prospects to one another from a single draft class is not without some merit, but it doesn't provide a macro view. So for most people, if that's their starting point, I contend, that they're leaning their ladder against the wrong wall.

Without a basis for comparing results over an extended period of time (meaning years worth of drafting), it's nothing more than a game of hunt and peck. You really don't need to spend tons of hours watching film, unless thats something you love to do and you have the time for it.

If you know in advance for example, that a very high percentage of RBs that succeed in the NFL have a common repeatable set of physical attributes, a similar pattern of successful production at the collegiate level, are typically selected in certain rounds of the draft, and so on, and all of this is empirical evidence gathered over many drafts and involving not tens of players but instead thousands, that is a HUGE starting point and a macro view to help you reach a short list.

There will always be exceptions of course. But who starts out evaluating anything by focusing on the exceptions first? Analyzing the results of the data from years gone by, is a science-based approach. You're not guessing at what the results are going to be, if you start out by trusting the data to exclude outliers based on comparing current prospects with historical patterns of successes and failures.

You can always go back and re-evaluate on a case by case basis if the evidence changes (and you should), but that's the sort of exception management that comes later in the process. Most people aren't scouts or coaches or GM's and they aren't going to be.

So watching tons of film hoping to identify a slight difference between players that will give them a draft advantage is absurd unless you love doing that sort of thing. Not even the professionals are that precise in their estimation of talent, which suggests to me that many if not most of them, would do a better job as well if they started out using analytics to guide them.

Does anyone know the sets of data that produces successful NFL RBs? WRs? TEs? QBs? I think it's an unknown.

Jeremy Hill was one of the least athletic RBs over 210 lbs from the last 7 years(i'm working on an article to be released soon), yet he was RB10 in 2014 as a rookie. He's ranked top 5 in many dynasty rankings.

Chris Conley/Stephen Hill/Lache Seastrunk/CJ Spiller all very athletic, but didn't have the football skills to be FF assets(Spiller had 1 season I guess).

So how does analytics help sort it out?

[cactusdave]

Go read some of the articles on rotoviz about RB and WR "marketshare". Writers like Jonathan Bales publish fantasy football analytics articles all season long. He also attributes lots of work done by other sources which help you gain other perspectives.

Advanced football analytics has EPA and RB Successs Rate Metrics which they coined. Football Outsiders invented a metric called Adjusted Line Yards which is useful. Pro Football Focus and Pro Football Metrics have their own home grown favorite metrics that provides interesting insight into historical data. More are being developed all the time.

Don't be pre-occupied with the idea that one system over another is going to prevent the exceptions like Jeremy Hill.

[italian_stallion21]

Go read some of the articles on rotoviz about RB and WR "marketshare". Writers like Jonathan Bales publish fantasy football analytics articles all season long. He also attributes lots of work done by other sources which help you gain other perspectives.

Advanced football analytics has EPA and RB Successs Rate Metrics which they coined. Football Outsiders invented a metric called Adjusted Line Yards which is useful. Pro Football Focus and Pro Football Metrics have their own home grown favorite metrics that provides interesting insight into historical data. More are being developed all the time.

Don't be pre-occupied with the idea that one system over another is going to prevent the exceptions like Jeremy Hill.

Rotoviz actually had Hill as their #2 RB last year, so they're doing something right.

[Swampdonkey17]

I was also but got a jump start last year. I really like withthefirstpick.com, and google matt waldman

I also like draftbreakdown, but I just came from their rankings...ALOT of surprises. Gurley #3 rb, Strong #13 WR?? I either gotta do more tape watching or not visit that site.

[dynastyDR]

Great ? I found a site last year and loved it, thought I had it bookmarked and can not re find it. So I have been looking as well! I like walterfootball.com, newly found EDS eatdrinksleepfootball.com.

[Diti51]

does anyone subscribe to rotoviz? football insiders?

I have membership to fantasy guru which provides great in season and some dynasty/keeper advice. Curious what others use or think of any pay sites with so much free info/data out there. Thanks.