DMN Blog: Five Downs With Football Outsiders (Roy, Pac, Felix, Romo)

[YosemiteSam]

And why would they have to have a completely high standard when selling nonsense like this? If someone pays for this amateurish work when there is "official" and "correct" information to compare it to, who cares? I don't quite understand your statistical snobbishness.

If your selling information, you would expect it to be as correct as possible. Otherwise why would someone purchase data they know is poorly collected.

My guess is, anyone who actually buys the data doesn't know it's a poor source otherwise they wouldn't pay for it. They could just jot down random number and be just as correct as the numbers they would pay for from such a source.

If it was actually ok to sell garbage numbers, I just found a new business to start!

Just to note, I don't actually know how correct their numbers are. I'm only responding to your question.

 

[Wrangler87]

Go to wonder how Emmitt's score would have turned out?

 

[dallasfaniac]

Go to wonder how Emmitt's score would have turned out?

According to what I could find, his best 40 time in college was either a 4.78 or a 4.8. His weight was listed anywhere from 212 to 216. Given those numbers, his speed to weight score would range anywhere from 81.4 to 86.9.

 

[YosemiteSam]

According to what I could find, his best 40 time in college was either a 4.78 or a 4.8. His weight was listed anywhere from 212 to 216. Given those numbers, his speed to weight score would range anywhere from 81.4 to 86.9.

It's offical. Emmitt sucks! :laugh2:

 

[faninjersey]

Maybe our guys are the ones doin' the hurtin' around the league...

 

[Temo]

As far as speed scores, while I wasn't impressed with the Felix Jones pick back in April, I don't think you should put a big emphasis on speed scores when it comes to a back like him.

First, the cowboys themselves said on draft day that he's not an every down back. He's got a specific skill set that will come in handy as a role player. There's nothing wrong with that (although I would argue that such a role does not warrent a first round pick).

Second, the most prominent speed-score "failure" on their list is none other than Brian Westbrook (4.57, weighs 200 lbs, 91.7 speed score). If you compare players by how similar their skillsets are, I think Jones is very close to Westbrook. That's not to say that he will be the next Westbrook (who I think is currently the most valuable back in the game after LDT). There is also speculation that Westbrook simply did not run well at the combine and the same is said of Jones.

Third, Emmitt Smith's speed score (221 lbs, 4.7 dash) was 90.6, just a tad bit behind Westbrook's. Yes, he succeeded. But the reason that data only goes back so far in the FO analysis is that speed scores from prior eras aren't the same as now. Speed in general has gone up in the last decade (Emmit ran in 1990, the first year from which 40 dash times at the combine are considered "official"). Players now work on their 40 yard dashes in speed schools with track coachs. Players did not do so back in the day, and it may be that Emmitt's speed score was better relative to his draft class than it is now.

Lastly, this metric enjoys a .45 correlation with yards, carries and DPAR. Roughly speaking, that means that it explains 45% of a back's performance. If you work in statistics like me, you know that .45 in the real world is good, but not great. That means there's a bunch of other stuff that determines how good a college back will be in the NFL. The nice thing about this metric is that it is intuitive and probably better than LOOKING AT JUST 40 YARD DASH TIMES. In other words, guys like LaMont Jordan, Rudi Johnson, Correll Buckhalter and Brandon Jacobs shouldn't fall on draft boards due to weak 40 times, because, compared to their weight, their 40 times were actually quite good.

 

[dallasfaniac]

Third, Emmitt Smith's speed score (221 lbs, 4.7 dash) was 90.6

It's funny how 5 pounds can make the difference between a 86.9 and 90.6 speed rating. Why, that's almost 5 rating points difference.

As far as new combine techniques, Terrell Davis also would have scored in under 90.

 

[DaBoys4Life]

According to what I could find, his best 40 time in college was either a 4.78 or a 4.8. His weight was listed anywhere from 212 to 216. Given those numbers, his speed to weight score would range anywhere from 81.4 to 86.9.

No not even but if your going to use Emmitt as the reason why the as the ratings doesn't work. List more RB's that have been able to do what emmitt done or have had similar success or any type of success. Could it be that Emmitt is the expection and not the norm ?

 

[dallasfaniac]

I don't have time to go through all of the players; I merely pointed out Emmitt Smith's numbers because someone asked what Emmitt would have scored. I posted those scores and then Temo comes on and posts Emmitt's numbers if you took his highest weight and his lowest 40 time.

I have seen so many people try to come up with formulas to try to predict whether someone will be good in the NFL or not and this is one of the worst. They don't even enter BMI into the equation, so if two players have the same 40 time and weigh the same, they would end up with the same weight speed rating even though one could be 3 inches taller and therefore skinier.

 

[DaBoys4Life]

I don't have time to go through all of the players; I merely pointed out Emmitt Smith's numbers because someone asked what Emmitt would have scored. I posted those scores and then Temo comes on and posts Emmitt's numbers if you took his highest weight and his lowest 40 time.

I have seen so many people try to come up with formulas to try to predict whether someone will be good in the NFL or not and this is one of the worst. They don't even enter BMI into the equation, so if two players have the same 40 time and weigh the same, they would end up with the same weight speed rating even though one could be 3 inches taller and therefore skinier.

Ok but do you are you not going to recognize emmitt smith as the exception and not the norm if you can't do that then continuing this conversation is pointless.

 

[AdamJT13]

All I'm asking, and you didn't answer, is exactly what was inaccurate in the charts.

I didn't have the charts handy at the time I replied. But here's a short list of things I've found already (I haven't compared everything yet, such as formations, rushers and blockers) --

-- Too many passes are listed as "charter did not list" the targeted defender. Given that there are options for when it's difficult to determine (including "hole in zone," "crowd" and even "unknown"), simply leaving out the information is inexcusable. Two of Terrell Owens' touchdown catches are listed as "charter did not list." Huh? Nobody even bothered to fill in the blank on a touchdown catch? And if you watch those two plays (1:21 of the second quarter against Washington and 9:58 of the second quarter against Green Bay), they're not difficult to figure out. He beat Shawn Springs 1-on-1 on a simple stop fade against Washington, and he beat Nick Collins for a 10-yarder against Green Bay (at worst, it should have been "hole in zone" as defender1 and Collins as defender2, given how badly Collins blew the coverage).

-- I disagree with a lot of the "targeted" defenders. Too many plays just list the guy who made the tackle or the guy who ended up being closest when the pass was caught instead of the guy responsible for the coverage. I know there's a certain degree of error on those type of things, but it's much bigger than I previously thought. Too many plays seem that the charter didn't bother to examine the coverage, but just marked down who seemed to be in the area at first glance.

-- The figures in the charting data don't always match the figures in the book, and the figures in the book don't always match the other figures in the book. For example, Jacques Reeves is listed in the book as being targeted 107 times and allowing 7.7 yards per pass (the "unadjusted" figure given). In the back of the book, it says he allowed 818 yards. But 818/107 = 7.64, which rounds off to 7.6, not 7.7. And in the charting data, he's listed as "defender1" 112 times and "defender2" eight times, which would mean he was targeted 120 times, not 107. And if you add up the yardage on those plays, he allowed 884 yards in completions, plus a 14-yard pass interference penalty. Why are ALL of the numbers different? It's the same with other players, too. They list Jason David as allowing 1,051 yards, but also list him with 82 targets and 12.4 yards per attempt, which doesn't come out close to 1,051. Unless they're making other "adjustments" that they don't reveal, something isn't right.

I'm sure there are other things I'm forgetting at the moment that I've noticed, but those are a few.

 

[dallasfaniac]

Ok but do you are you not going to recognize emmitt smith as the exception and not the norm if you can't do that then continuing this conversation is pointless.

So you want me to find a player that holds the all time rushing record other than Emmitt or just players that performed well even though they had lower ratings? I pointed out Terrell Davis and we already know about Brian Westbrook. Those are just two guys off the top of my head that succeeded when they shouldn't, I'm sure I can find a bunch that failed when they should be all world. How many players is it going to take? What is considered a good career? I can't pull up players from years ago because evidently they had different preparations for the combine so what timeframe am I to look?

Edit:
Ronnie Brown 120.9 rating
L Tomlinson 111.3 rating

Who would you rather have?

 

[DaBoys4Life]

So you want me to find a player that holds the all time rushing record other than Emmitt or just players that performed well even though they had lower ratings? I pointed out Terrell Davis and we already know about Brian Westbrook. Those are just two guys off the top of my head that succeeded when they shouldn't, I'm sure I can find a bunch that failed when they should be all world. How many players is it going to take? What is considered a good career? I can't pull up players from years ago because evidently they had different preparations for the combine so what timeframe am I to look?

Hmmm well if you consider that the guy already said WestBrook was one of them I guess it's a wash however I don't think 3 RB is a clear sign of a norm or a trend. IDK how many people who over achieved will it take for it to be considered the norm.

It's kind of like players like Tony Romo, Tom Brady, Marques Colston. Yea they weren't high picks but they have exceeded the expectations of them. So does that mean that you start focusing your draft around the later picks and disregard the 1st round because sometimes 1st round draft picks don't live up to their draft status and such. However the success ratio of players selected in the 1st round compared to those picked later is huge.

Just like what is better draft the Big school player from the big time program or the small school player.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Edit:
Ronnie Brown 120.9 rating
L Tomlinson 111.3 rating

Who would you rather have?

Ronnie Brown is actually a pretty damn good RB. Of course, he is injured a lot.

 

[dallasfaniac]

Hmmm well if you consider that the guy already said WestBrook was one of them I guess it's a wash however I don't think 3 RB is a clear sign of a norm or a trend. IDK how many people who over achieved will it take for it to be considered the norm.

It's kind of like players like Tony Romo, Tom Brady, Marques Colston. Yea they weren't high picks but they have exceeded the expectations of them. So does that mean that you start focusing your draft around the later picks and disregard the 1st round because sometimes 1st round draft picks don't live up to their draft status and such. However the success ratio of players selected in the 1st round compared to those picked later is huge.

Just like what is better draft the Big school player from the big time program or the small school player.

So basically, I can't disprove the formula at all because you won't say how many players it would take that over-exceeded or under-exceeded. You can't even look at my example (I may have edited while you were typing) that shows that Ronnie Brown was rated much higher merely because he weighed so much and had a decent 40. LT has a higher BMI, meaning though he weighs less than Brown, he has more mass because he's 2 inches shorter. The Browns are really stupid, they should be starting Joe Staley at RB instead of OT, because his rating was a 117.23.

 

[DaBoys4Life]

So basically, I can't disprove the formula at all because you won't say how many players it would take that over-exceeded or under-exceeded. You can't even look at my example (I may have edited while you were typing) that shows that Ronnie Brown was rated much higher merely because he weighed so much and had a decent 40. LT has a higher BMI, meaning though he weighs less than Brown, he has more mass because he's 2 inches shorter. The Browns are really stupid, they should be starting Joe Staley at RB instead of OT, because his rating was a 117.23.

Well I would obv take LT. However if Brown can stay injury free and can pick up where he left off at last season and strings those together than he would start to live up to that score.

 

[dallasfaniac]

Here's just a handfull of RBs from the 2005 NFL combine as reported by nfldraftscout. Who would you rather have?

Rating - Player
122 - Nehemiah Broughton
116 - Ronnie Brown
113 - Cadillac Williams
110 - Cedric Benson
105 - Marion Barber

I have absolutely no faith in a formula based upon weight and 40 alone. I could be really tall, heavy and fast but could never make it in the NFL because I am such a big target and take too many hits.

 

[AdamJT13]

They don't even enter BMI into the equation, so if two players have the same 40 time and weigh the same, they would end up with the same weight speed rating even though one could be 3 inches taller and therefore skinier.

They examined BMI and found it inconsequential.

"Speed Score" seems a bit contrived, though, like they were determined to make it sound the most important, even if other things were more important. Their correlation figures show that things such as the 20-yard shuttle and vertical jump have a much higher correlation to production than weight does, and that height has almost exactly the same correlation that weight does (and a higher correlation to DYAR than weight does). So why, exactly, did they choose weight as the second factor to go with speed?

 

[DaBoys4Life]

Here's just a handfull of RBs from the 2005 NFL combine as reported by nfldraftscout. Who would you rather have?

Rating - Player
122 - Nehemiah Broughton
116 - Ronnie Brown
113 - Cadillac Williams
110 - Cedric Benson
105 - Marion Barber

I have absolutely no faith in a formula based upon weight and 40 alone. I could be really tall, heavy and fast but could never make it in the NFL because I am such a big target and take too many hits.

Well MB3 if the average 1st RB is 112 and MB3 is a4th round pick at 105 i think its a solid choose and MB3 has had a better career thus far than Ronnie Cadillac and Cedric all though Ronnie and Cadillac both have been hit by the injury bug. I have no clue who Nehemiah Broughton is therefore I will not say anything about him however he must be a scrub.

 

[dallasfaniac]

They examined BMI and found it inconsequential.

Yeah, I don't buy into BMI much myself I was just pointing it out because almost everyone knows what it is.

Just as two people can have the same 40 and weight but different height causing the numbers to be innaccurate, so too can two people have the same weight, height and 40 but one have huge thighs while the other has huge arms.