SPARQ Ratings

[Alexander]

Since we seem to be going this direction a good bit, this site breaks down the SPARQ ratings for this class and the 2015 draft class.

Might be interesting to look back on once the draft is over and see how much we seem to have bought into it.

http://3sigmaathlete.com/rankings/

 

[Leadbelly]

Didn't realize Dan Vitale tested so well at the Combine. 97th percentile among not just FBs but all NFL RBs.

 

[Direwolf63]

Interesting. They have Buckner as barely above the NFL average.

 

[Direwolf63]

What is it about Goff that results in such a terrible score?

 

[Alexander]

Didn't realize Dan Vitale tested so well at the Combine. 97th percentile among not just FBs but all NFL RBs.

He is going to get overdrafted as a result. He tests well, but looks like JAF (Just Another Fullback) to me when I have watched him.

 

[Alexander]

What is it about Goff that results in such a terrible score?

Mockdraftable.com shows a graphical representation.

http://www.mockdraftable.com/player_embed/6502/selected/graph/

 

[texbumthelife]

Mockdraftable.com shows a graphical representation.

http://www.mockdraftable.com/player_embed/6502/selected/graph/

I feel like SPARQ is least effective in measuring QB's. So little of the success of a QB is based on those numbers.

 

[RS12]

O Line scores are from last year. Austin Johnson and Adolphus Washington arent great athletes.

 

[stilltheguru88]

What is it about Goff that results in such a terrible score?

Hes wack like I've been saying, thats why. Most people just look at stats or follow the experts. Goff is not a top pick. He'll be ok/capable but nowhere near a star.

 

[Alexander]

I feel like SPARQ is least effective in measuring QB's. So little of the success of a QB is based on those numbers.

I think it has serious challenges at other positions as well. But hey, everyone is into this analytic number crunching nonsense because of Seattle. And a lot of their prized SPARQY players have busted out pretty quick.

 

[Alexander]

Hes wack like I've been saying

That is a very detailed and specific analysis you have provided. Can I start using that?

 

[RS12]

Shilique Calhoun is gonna be 25 this year? Is that right?

 

[Alexander]

Shilique Calhoun is gonna be 25 this year? Is that right?

He was born in 1992, so no.

 

[stilltheguru88]

That is a very detailed and specific analysis you have provided. Can I start using that?

Yes. You have to have a certain (swag) to it though. I dont think you can pull it off.

 

[dogberry]

David Irving's 2015 rank was second in the defensive line category.

Goff clocked second in the radar test at the combine.

Is there a mph cutoff for NFL quarterbacks who have won Super Bowls?

 

[Direwolf63]

I feel like SPARQ is least effective in measuring QB's. So little of the success of a QB is based on those numbers.

Agreed. I bet Tom Bradys SPARQ numbers would have been terrible.

The QB spot is a much more cerebral position than any other. Tremendous work ethic and love of the game is required to be successful at the NFL level.

None of this stuff measures that.

At others positions though, there is some useful data.

 

[Leadbelly]

He is going to get overdrafted as a result. He tests well, but looks like JAF (Just Another Fullback) to me when I have watched him.

I think his primary problem is he's a TE in a FB body. One of the best receiving FBs in recent memory. If he were 6-4 he'd be the best TE in this class.

Blocking is probably not where teams want it to be though. He's not going to move a LB out...but hey, neither did Clutts.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I feel like SPARQ is least effective in measuring QB's. So little of the success of a QB is based on those numbers.

It's measuring athleticism and size variables. So you can be perfectly within those reasonable variables for the average NFL player at that position, but be a great football player.

Somebody like Byron Jones was interesting because he didn't have a ton of tape, but the tape he had was good. And then you see a player you think can play and has a high SPARQ score, he's likely a good investment. Other positions that this can work is on special teams where it's more about pure athleticism instead of technique, awareness, etc.

So for a QB, it's really about how well these guys can pick up the techniques and nuances of the position rather than athleticism. But if all things are equal between two QB's, I'd likely take the better SPARQ QB.






YR

 

[Stash]

I feel like SPARQ is least effective in measuring QB's. So little of the success of a QB is based on those numbers.

You are not alone!

 

[Alexander]

I just realized that Carson Wentz is the third ranked QB in this.

That alone tells me it is all a bunch of hooey.