This is a great mailbag, Mike, and I really liked your discussion about QB evaluation and how difficult it is for these young guys to succeed when all it takes for them to fail is for the rest of the organization to stay crappy and/or for him to turn out to be merely average.
I also liked how you linked the quality of information availabl…
This is a great mailbag, Mike, and I really liked your discussion about QB evaluation and how difficult it is for these young guys to succeed when all it takes for them to fail is for the rest of the organization to stay crappy and/or for him to turn out to be merely average.
I also liked how you linked the quality of information available about a prospect to the degree of risk in drafting him. Information, or the lack of it, is why I have throttled back on how much time I spend consuming pre-draft analysis. Most media a) focuses too much on the top-50 players; and b) lacks historical perspective.
I would pay for a service that could place grades of current prospects in some framework so that we could see how, where, and why Caleb Williams compares or contrasts to say, Trevor Lawrence, Andrew Luck, etc. The only guy I know of who is doing this now is Matt Waldman at the RSP. Even there, however, we don't see the data as such, just his conclusions. So I guess my question is: is something like this feasible and worthwhile?
I think we will get better data soon, now that Air Yards and other splits are widely available. That stuff was not available, say, 6 years ago. With better access to data comes better longitudinal comparisons and a better sense of what makes a good statistical indicator.
What I seek, across draft coverage, is better use of objective measures/stats and clearer application of all the subjective elements, from "ooh a swim move" to personality traits. I crave specificity: "he converted 6 third-and-longs with passes past the sticks against Georgia" as opposed to "resets his feet and throws with balance and rhythm on passes between the hashes," or even "Has a QWARBASEVOA of 72.8786%, trust me that's good." I would rather have readers come away with a collage of facts and ideas than a barrage of conclusions.
This is a great mailbag, Mike, and I really liked your discussion about QB evaluation and how difficult it is for these young guys to succeed when all it takes for them to fail is for the rest of the organization to stay crappy and/or for him to turn out to be merely average.
I also liked how you linked the quality of information available about a prospect to the degree of risk in drafting him. Information, or the lack of it, is why I have throttled back on how much time I spend consuming pre-draft analysis. Most media a) focuses too much on the top-50 players; and b) lacks historical perspective.
I would pay for a service that could place grades of current prospects in some framework so that we could see how, where, and why Caleb Williams compares or contrasts to say, Trevor Lawrence, Andrew Luck, etc. The only guy I know of who is doing this now is Matt Waldman at the RSP. Even there, however, we don't see the data as such, just his conclusions. So I guess my question is: is something like this feasible and worthwhile?
I think we will get better data soon, now that Air Yards and other splits are widely available. That stuff was not available, say, 6 years ago. With better access to data comes better longitudinal comparisons and a better sense of what makes a good statistical indicator.
What I seek, across draft coverage, is better use of objective measures/stats and clearer application of all the subjective elements, from "ooh a swim move" to personality traits. I crave specificity: "he converted 6 third-and-longs with passes past the sticks against Georgia" as opposed to "resets his feet and throws with balance and rhythm on passes between the hashes," or even "Has a QWARBASEVOA of 72.8786%, trust me that's good." I would rather have readers come away with a collage of facts and ideas than a barrage of conclusions.
I am not there yet. But maybe next year.