According to these analytics Gettleman killed it again

[The Lobo]

18 minutes ago, KB_fan said:

By the way speaking of B/R got a huge laugh just now to see that our pick of Butler was graded lowest (C-) of any round 1 pick.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2637119-nfl-draft-2016-rounds-1-7-results-grades-and-hidden-gems

That will be a nice chip that Vernon can wear on his shoulder.  Thanks B/R.  And we can have fun dredging this up when he becomes a pro bowler or better still an All pro.

Laughable Eli Apple got higher than Butler. 

[KB_fan]

19 minutes ago, Bartin said:

Well, it seems this board has come full circle. Now everyone is excited Gettleman went for the underwear olympics champions and not the football players on tape guys?

Good question...

Personally, I thought it was fun to find someone who liked the picks (esp. Bradberry) and could give some evidence to explain why Gettleman might be so much higher on him than so many others...

But measurables alone will never be enough and alone can't predict how good a football player a kid will be.  So I'd never want us to go straight up analytics.  But at least with Gettleman who is an old school scout and just LOVES watching film, I'd never think that would ever be something we need to remotely worry about.

I guess the reason these analytics helped me process and better understand the Bradberry & Worley picks back to back was that it reinforced the idea that Gettleman was looking for players of a certain type / size that he thinks will fit our scheme and that our coaches will be able to develop.  I could see there was a clear plan, not just Gettleman being high on some player that no one else seemed to have on their radar.

 

[CatMan72]

2 hours ago, The Lobo said:

Which article?

5 things to know about James Bradbury on Panthers.com

[KB_fan]

FInding a few more interesting stats from the PFF Draft twitter feed:

 

[carpanfan96]

1 hour ago, Bartin said:

Well, it seems this board has come full circle. Now everyone is excited Gettleman went for the underwear olympics champions and not the football players on tape guys?

What you see in highlights isn't tape, when you look at tape... you're looking for certain things. For cb's you're looking for

 

Athleticism, ball skills, hip turn, footwork, and instinct  (ie. Angles they take, understanding what the offense is trying to do..ext)

 

If the player is smart you can teach technique and they will get it if they have the above skills and understand football.

 

Intelligence is where the visits come into play.

[MV%doe]

It's awful to label a player a "blue" before one snap. I posted a great link about one of the best football minds over in the draft forum, a blue label is earned. I remember last year Gary Peters was PFF's #1 overall CB...... Panthers signed him as a UDFA and only lasted a couple weeks before he was cut. The bills brought him for a visit and didn't sign him...... That was the last information on him.

I only researched around 70 players, panthers only got one in that group. Butler is a combo of KK and star. Watched the senior bowl and remember one play, in which bulter ran over 20 yards on a scrambling QB early in first quarter.

Cannot state there wasn't some shock about the next two picks. I felt like Dave was testing me---------- I hope Ethan and his formulas prove that these where in deed great picks.

FYI Dave's had a moneyball guy with him since he's arrived. Its a young fellow that follows him around.

 

[Bartin]

1 hour ago, carpanfan96 said:

What you see in highlights isn't tape, when you look at tape... you're looking for certain things. For cb's you're looking for

 

Athleticism, ball skills, hip turn, footwork, and instinct  (ie. Angles they take, understanding what the offense is trying to do..ext)

 

If the player is smart you can teach technique and they will get it if they have the above skills and understand football.

 

Intelligence is where the visits come into play.

I'm aware of all that. I just think it's funny that before this draft bringing up SPARQ scores and athletic profile rankings would get you bashed with "game isn't played in underwear" and now it's "OMG GMan is a genius for getting great athletes."

[carpanfan96]

12 minutes ago, Bartin said:

I'm aware of all that. I just think it's funny that before this draft bringing up SPARQ scores and athletic profile rankings would get you bashed with "game isn't played in underwear" and now it's "OMG GMan is a genius for getting great athletes."

I've always been big on Sparq and athletic measures when combined with other variables, so his raiting system is very interesting to me. 

 

The original reason I liked Bradberry was overall tape was pretty good plus his size and measurables

[Bartin]

34 minutes ago, carpanfan96 said:

I've always been big on Sparq and athletic measures when combined with other variables, so his raiting system is very interesting to me. 

 

The original reason I liked Bradberry was overall tape was pretty good plus his size and measurables

I agree with all that. I think I was of the few who liked the pick at the time for the reasons you stated. He has all the traits to be great at the position.

[tiger7_88]

1 hour ago, Bartin said:

I'm aware of all that. I just think it's funny that before this draft bringing up SPARQ scores and athletic profile rankings would get you bashed with "game isn't played in underwear" and now it's "OMG GMan is a genius for getting great athletes."

Did you watch the Gettleman post draft interview?

If you did and you still think they were drafted because of "SPARQ", then there's nothing I can do to help you.

[Bartin]

37 minutes ago, tiger7_88 said:

Did you watch the Gettleman post draft interview?

If you did and you still think they were drafted because of "SPARQ", then there's nothing I can do to help you.

They’re both big, they’re both long, they both can run, they’re both physical and they both have really good ball skills,” Gettleman said. “The best part of this thing, I promise you, I’m not lying, we did not reach. . . .

Big, long and can run is basically what SPARQ is. It's a weight adjusted athletic measurement based on combine testing. Add in length and ball skills and he basically described how Seattle drafts corners and they rely heavily on SPARQ for all positions. Whether or not SPARQ was specifically used in their actual evaluations is irrelevant because they drafted the guys SPARQ would tell you to draft. So whatever calculation or just plain eye test evaluation they used came to the same conclusion that SPARQ does and Gettleman said the size and athleticism was a big factor. Therefore SPARQ seems to be a pretty good indicator of ability to play CB in the NFL. It's obviously not the whole picture and stuff like intelligence and coach ability needs to be factored in but it's part of the whole picture.

[tiger7_88]

10 hours ago, Bartin said:

They’re both big, they’re both long, they both can run, they’re both physical and they both have really good ball skills,” Gettleman said. “The best part of this thing, I promise you, I’m not lying, we did not reach. . . .

Big, long and can run is basically what SPARQ is. It's a weight adjusted athletic measurement based on combine testing. Add in length and ball skills and he basically described how Seattle drafts corners and they rely heavily on SPARQ for all positions. Whether or not SPARQ was specifically used in their actual evaluations is irrelevant because they drafted the guys SPARQ would tell you to draft. So whatever calculation or just plain eye test evaluation they used came to the same conclusion that SPARQ does and Gettleman said the size and athleticism was a big factor. Therefore SPARQ seems to be a pretty good indicator of ability to play CB in the NFL. It's obviously not the whole picture and stuff like intelligence and coach ability needs to be factored in but it's part of the whole picture.

Of course its PART of the overall evaluation.  Not evaluating the physical side of a prospect would be dumb.

But even Gettleman himself in his post-draft press conference used the exact words "the game isn't played in underwear" so, yes, that is still a valid and true thing to say and encapsulates well (as Gettleman pointed out) how a 4.5 guy can stay with a 4.3 guy IN PADS and ON THE FIELD.