Ghost of

Any of these guys apply their models retrospectively? I don't mean going back to Brady or hell, Montana, but about 12 years? Maybe a guy running his own site can't do that but,  uh, what about NFL teams? Any reason they don't do it? Having a model that reliably "predicts" success looking back would seem useful.  Yes I know there are stats going back a few years but we need more. 

41 minutes ago, RandyHolt said:

Got a record player? I'll bring Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds... on 45 of course.

 

Only the William Shatner cover for me,  dawg.

Just now, SkinsFTW said:

"Then Joel Klatt reluctantly admits that Jayden Daniels is an amazingly efficient full field post-snap processor… "

 

I wonder what the take is on Daniels in that Ole Miss game, under 4 to go with the lead, where he had a wide open receiver immediately and would have picked up the first but instead ran around and took a sack. Then Miss took the lead and LSU lost.

I am detecting something from some of the QB analysis commentary that makes me a bit uncomfortable. Like guys are being held to different standards in public discussion for non football reasons. Like I am comfortable saying JD was embarrassing on the podium but I feel like people are holding back (not socal lol).

How do guys who don't throw down the middle get known as post snap processors if they also get sacked a high percentage of times and run so much and not keep eyes downfield? 

"He's got to see it to believe it."

No thank you.  

4 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

.381 is a fantastic average for a baseball player.

 

Aint just about nothing good at 38.1% in the NFL.

 

And yes, those two numbers are the same for those that failed 4th grade math.  

But this appears to be this particular guy's metrics based on his Twitter thread. Or maybe he's commenting on a larger company's.  He's now touting Spencer Rattler and diminishing JJ McCarthy.  But this is the issue with even metrics that favor "my guy." Who is categorizing on-target 25+ yards down the field? How do I know this dude is legitimate, I'd need to go back now. Is he with PFF or Ourlads? He developed his own "Weighted On-Target %."  This is a bit different than the situation (past the sticks, dropbacks, etc.)  Way more subjective.

4 minutes ago, illone said:

Interesting quote from the TV mini-series Shōgun that applies to the draft process:

 

“Every man has three hearts: one in his mouth for the world to know, another in his chest just for his friends, and a secret heart buried deep where no one can find it. That is the heart a man must keep hidden if he wants to survive.”

 

If we can engineer a way to uncover this elusive "third heart", then we can unlock draft success for years to come.

 

 

It's all about smiles and cries.

You gotta control your smiles and cries, because that's all you have and nobody can take that away from you.

4 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

Yeah, 100% agree with questioning how good the league is at testing for processing.  My guess is not very good, though that’s not necessarily a reflection on their acumen.  

With that said, maybe I’m naive/ignorant, but it seems like it should be possible to have a group of scouts (or whoever) charting games, watching in slow motion to time stamp each progression a qb goes through.  Compare data across games and seasons to come up with averages and chart improvement.

 

After years in academic and the private sector and interacting with other organizations:

No one really has the time. The level of competence you assume is too high, not because any individual is lazy or dumb, but because the items you identify as key are just part of the job that the people in that org have to do. Then there's miscommunications, changes in rules, workflows, databases, measures, trends in HR and talent evaluation, etc. I think over time you can get to a more scientific process with QB prediction but you're still going to miss because as illone says, some of it is between the ears. And not just intelligence but persistence, resilience, applying intellectual concepts or mental models to physical performance and then back again. These are possibly easy to do in isolation, but not remotely as easy to do together. 

I think scouts and others should also look at how they speak in post game. Do they accept (even meekly) credit but when it's "blame" time it's "we're all in this together?" I find that to be very worrisome trait as both Campbell and Brunell did it. 

7 minutes ago, illone said:

 

As with ANY job interview with big dollars on the line, you only get to see the mask, not the real person. Probably why these in-person interviews are so important in that you are trying to dissolve as much of the mask as possible and get a glimpse of the guys soul.  What makes him tick. What's important to him. Why does he want to be great (if at all?).

 

Throw in the fact that people change over time and you have yourself a nearly impossible psychological riddle to solve.

 

It's the human element that will probably remain a mystery forever.  

 

 

I also think too many people are willing to just tear up the S2 because Stroud but we have no idea if Stroud needs testing accommodations and didn't get them (I'd assume that specific type of test means no such things) or if he blew it off because he thought he was already one of the top 2 QBs. I assume the analytics guys for teams have run the statistical analyses but it also would not surprise me if they have not given them proper priority. Like maybe S2 combined with a rating of processing, or weighted scores based on system (route vs. defense reads), weight/height. One of the most interesting things I found is that medium size is correlated with performance in QBs. So not 5-6, but not 6-8 (Dan McGwire lol) and 205-215, not 245.

And LLevron above is correct that you need to approach this from a mixed methods lens, not merely quant and no, not just the eye test. 

But you didn't post his counter points:

If you’ve followed me for any amount of time, you know that I like to establish what I’m not saying. What I’m not saying is:

Mobile quarterbacks are injured less frequently than statue quarterbacks.

Running the football, as a whole, is less dangerous and results in fewer injuries than passing the ball.

Pocket passers won’t stay healthy/are injury prone.

Also what the fantasy community values isn't what I'm valuing in the future. 

About those interview videos. Again, I ask Daniels backers: This y'alls QB?!

Daniels grew up in San Bernardino. Why is it that I have a hard time understanding him? Why is he saying the commanders already did their homework. Is this mumblecore shy guy demeanor going to inspire his teammates? I guess he had no issue at LSU but at some point I'd like to see something that fills me with confidence.

Dan Quinn talks about post snap processing. In what way if you're not using the scramble to keep your eyes down field? 

Every time I see a chart like that it looks good for McCarthy. It's funny to see so many dismiss based on an eye test for games they ain't even watch but advanced stats show a well balanced performance in areas that would matter most. Combine with physical talent and mental makeup...

Schlereth talked about something with Maye that I also find concerning (I'll get to Breer on McCarthy.)

He said his release is "loopy." Meaning maybe not "slow" but long. And watching the Pro Day it jumped out at me. It's not the end of the world but it is a concern and Schlereth talked about how when your release is long, it leads to easier flubs of the easy stuff as you try to quicken your release. Hence, missing short throws.

Breer said McCarthy puts his whole body into his throws. That's not entirely accurate (especially on the run) but I do see that at times.  Just something for people to consider. Daniels has a nice release but someone mentioned kicking his foot out. Not sure how consistently that occurs though.

I was struck by the fact that when Jim Brown passed there was not even a thread, I think. Or maybe one post.  That's how I know the internet sports talk game had changed.

Just now, DogofWar1 said:

Hey now at nearly 24, Daniels is basically a boomer.  Nix and penix too.

 

Don't lump him in with the spry millenials

Z...Z dude. 

Millenials. Talk about Boomers, calling everything Millenials.

No one is as cool as X though. It's in the name. X...Xtreme.

3 minutes ago, SoCalSkins said:

Maybe she was still breastfeeding him? A lot of this new generation go longer than before before they are weaned off. The blue tent kinda looks like one of those rooms in airport for that purpose. Who knows.

 

 

It's got anti-concussive properties. It's like Tussin but from bewbs.

2 minutes ago, illone said:

Mark Schlereth clip:

"I want a guy who can do the boring well. How often do you see the 60 yard dimes?"

4 minutes ago, SoCalSkins said:

I didn’t think it could get any worse. Wow. I have been too easy on him. 

Where is ThatNFLChick, BayouBrave, etc?

This y'all King?

7 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Exactly how much NIL money did Jayden’s mom offer Drake Maye?

Drake: Dad, I just got this letter from BWC, Inc. Enterprises? But for the million I have to sign and pick up the check at the Motel 6. That's odd."

1 hour ago, wit33 said:

 

The way analytics are often pushed by the masses is lazy. They should be used as part of the overall player analysis, but too often, mathematical metrics are presented as absolute truth without proper context. They're then used as a major reason to dismiss a player in fan forums. This has been a primary argument against Daniel, while the prospect you support faces similar scrutiny.

 

I understand you apply nuance and context to explain how Maye can overcome it, but you fail to provide Daniel with similar consideration. The presentation lacks depth, and there's been a lack of effort to break down the sacks and provide personal context. Some in the media have, like Sheehan who I’ve heard provide some personal context to the stat that I appreciate. 

 

Take a look at how often a guy's ratio carries over in some way to the pros. Mahomes pretty much mirrors his college career. Now, maybe Mac Jones was protected by being at Alabama. But then one might wonder if Jayden Daniels had a similar situation last year.  You are saying that the presentation lacks depth and maybe in an individual post that's true, but what about these numbers fills you with hope that a guy who is career at the bottom (though PFF weights the grade somehow--don't know in what way) of QBs in the last several years is somehow the one shining exception?  Like yes, he may still come in and be good like Burrow. but look at that list---it's just Burrow. 

1 hour ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Power ball numbers are random. The numbers would be easier to predict if they stayed relatively consistent for three years like JJ McCarthy’s stats have. The kid has never… literally NEVER led his team to even one win.

Three years? JJ McCarthy started two full seasons and did backup duty in his first year of play in 2021. 

And he drove out the QB of a CFP team because the talent differential (physically) was that much higher and he was a better QB and leader.

1 minute ago, jg77 said:

 

I think this was a pretty good explanation of the pressure to sack ratio. For those who are worried about...I mean the kid was only sacked 22 times. 

Was that because he wasn't pressured as much as other guys? 

6 minutes ago, The Consigliere said:

They all have warts, but Daniels and Penix and JJ are the guys w/the warts that are blaring warning signs and patently obvious ones at that.

 

I agree with just about your entire post, including the earlier part about JJ but I don't know that there's a blaring warning sign with him.  He performs better under pressure and "high leverage" situations and over the middle than Maye. Ourlads had a video on this maybe 3 weeks? a month ago.  It's not even close actually. Now, of course, who the hell knows, maybe they're all lying or fudging these stats. But I'd say the guys who handle "high leverage" situations are always someone you take another look at, then when you add in having the right mindset. If he's a wiz at the whiteboard/film breakdown, is good in pressure situations, takes things "personal" (a la Jordan) He went to Michigan after Ohio State's Ryan Day lied to him and went with McCord) and wins. It's not true that he doesn't elevate his team, there's a reason he took the job from McNamara and he was one of the few 5 star players on Michigan's roster (thus somewhat less of the SEC/Halo effect you mentioned.)

There are definitely warts but being the youngest guy in the draft and having some of the performances/metrics and physical gifts (he's probably the best moving in the pocket of anyone in the draft not named Caleb) means that "projecting" means something.  

7 minutes ago, jg77 said:

A poster here already debunked this.

Who debunked the advanced stats? I know there was an error in third down stuff at some point but what do you mean? who? when? where?

Just now, Warhead36 said:

So this might sound crazy but I think this notion that people in the NFL are automatically smarter than fans all of the time is not necessarily true anymore. Not nowadays when there is so much more information out there. We have access to film and can analyze etc. Its not like the 80s or 90s or even early 00s.

 

I mean look at how often coaches bungle simple things like timeout usage and clock management. I guarantee there are fans whos only experience is playing Madden that could manage those things better.

 

Blindly accepting authority figures is dumb. They are just as prone to effing up as anyone else. And often times, those of us on the outside actually end up getting it right more than they do.

Crazy? we had this same discussion back in the 00s. There are ways of intuiting things that go beyond statistical measures. Say, for instance, you're a Michigan student telling other people at school that Tom Brady had a magic about him and he'll be good in the NFL.  But what round did he go in? By qualified NFL scouts and GMs?  Why did that student at Michigan get it right?  Why did some nutjob on Extremeskins not only call Brunell from the first game of 2004 as a disaster but then broke down his drops and explained one reason why he was failing?  Did he know something Gibbs and company did not?

Perhaps so.

12 minutes ago, Going Commando said:

It's not like the medical field, or any field where the experts within it are genuine, super smart, highly professional, constantly renewing and cultivating their knowledge, and can't perform even the most basic functions of their job without authentic expertise.  

Hell, you can apply that to the entertainment business outside of sports. I mean someone greenlit Ghostbusters 2016.

But as to the quote, I have personal experience with friends and family who would cause you to question the above. I don't mean flubbing taking your temperature or diagnosing a broken arm, obviously. 

8 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

I'm not necessarily resigned to it, but I am starting to get a bit of a sinking feeling. I really do enjoy watching Daniels play, but the more I watch the more difficulty I have convincing myself that picking him would be a good move. There are just so many red flags for me that it seems other people are ignoring.

 

As I said above, it could be that I'm just clueless, that those aren't actually the red flags they seem, and that the people making the pick should be trusted as they have way more experience than I do. But at the same time, scouts and coaches also completely whiff on QBs plenty of times.

Look at the quotes above. They all read like posts on Extremeskins. And when I say they read, I mean it reads like a thread on each QB. Daniels "processing" speed, McCarthy and Daniel Jones. It's bizarre. At least when I watch Thinking Football or someone similar, I get comments, terminology, etc. and it seems like they actually watched someone and took into account other context.

That section from Dane Brugler points out what I've said. Going into Penn State, McCarthy was a Heisman candidate. He injured his lower leg and had trouble throwing the rest of the regular season/Big 10 title game. Then people act like it's somehow out of bounds to consider him with the top ranks and then blame him for them running the ball when their head coach was suspended and his leg is preventing a solid throwing base for most attempts. The question is when these guys get into the whiteboard or film with teams---who is processing best? And who actually performed under pressure (from defenses and in big moments)?

It's odd to see people talk about Daniels processing---I don't get it. I mean, I get that he may have shown mastery at the line this year from what you can tell but this all sounds like scouts don't know anything different than us lay "experts."