Slim Reaper comes in at 6’ and 166 pounds. | Page 46 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Slim Reaper comes in at 6’ and 166 pounds.

Do you have any second thoughts/reservations about drafting 'The Slim Reaper' when he's 166lbs?

  • Total voters
    132
Digital said:
I'm very interested in analytics too. My biggest issues are:

A. People tend to like what they like and ignore the data, OR
B. People get so focused on the analytics that they misunderstand how the analytics fit into the big picture.

So, for me when analyzing an NFL prospect the biggest element is the film. I use statistics like combine numbers to verify what I saw on film. So I was a huge Mike Gesicki fan because on tape I saw a rare athlete in a huge frame who made tremendous strides. He went from a skinny volleyball player who just barely learned how to play WR to being converted to a bulkier TE in college. He went from being a kid who had bad hands to becoming THE BEST contested catcher in his draft class and vice-grip hands. When the Combine came around and revealed he was 6'6, 245 lbs., with long arms and a 41.5" vertical ... it was not a surprise. It merely confirmed my view of his physique and athleticism. The film already explained how he was exceptional at high-pointing the ball. The Combine measured bench press, but not grip and rip strength to snatch and hold the ball, so that element wasn't quantified, but was obvious on tape. While his route running was so so, it had improved significantly and he showed to be continuing to improve. His blocking was poor and his blocking effort was poor, but his coaches simply didn't stress it with him, so that was an open evaluation.

When the higher level analytics compared him at his position vs. other prospects and he showed up in the very top tier of length etc., it was no surprise. But, despite his fast forty time of 4.56, it was clear that he was a long strider, and despite his 41.5" vertical, he wasn't bursty out of his cuts. The stats didn't really tell that story, but the film did. Ideal weapon for seam routes, red zone throws, 3rd down throws, and check downs. That profiles fantastically to a Move TE. I was a huge fan, advocated for drafting Minkah Fitzpatrick and Mike Gesicki, and when we drafted them 1, 2, I was ecstatic. Unfortunately, despite me advocating to use Minkah in the FS role exclusively even before we drafted him ... we foolishly didn't, he was disgrunteld, traded, and became an instant-All-Pro at Pittsburgh as they played him exclusively as a FS. I explained how Mike Gesicki would need time to transition as all TE's do ... and he has. I'm ecstatic to see him growing into the potential his analytics showed.

But, IMHO, most people try to treat football like baseball ...but we don't really keep track of the right statistics to quantify it the way it is so well quantified in baseball. Our RB's are so dependent upon their OL, the defense presented, and of course down and distance. Averaging 5 yards per carry looks great unless he's only used on 3rd and long. The RB able to average 3 yards per carry who is only used on 3rd and 1 is the better football player, but we cannot capture all that data into one stat, so it tends to be misleading in football. In baseball the On Base Percentage is a great metric, like the Slugging Percentage or Earned Runs Average. We simply do not have those equivalent metrics in the NFL. So when people compare QB's ... there's just less definitive data, and we need to over-rely on things like YPA. When we look at pass rushers, we over-rely on Sacks and it's even hard to compare Pressures because some teams use stunts and blitzes more than others or play coverage and leave their pass rushers to win 1v2 a lot. Whereas in baseball, essentially, every batter is isolated depending very little on any teammates, and every defense is essentially the same. There are a lot less dynamic variables to throw off the game statistics.

In football, we tend to rely more on athletic statistics of the player (40 time, vertical leap, height, wingspan, weight) than their actual play, so there is much more of a disconnect when evaluating players. I'm sure you are just as excited as I am about where analytics is headed and can't wait for the analytics world to start reaching deeper into providing meaningful data.

Of course, we're always at the mercy of the human element, because no matter how much data analytics provides, it's still the individual who needs to weight what is important and prioritize what they want. :)
Click to expand...
In discussions that disparage analytics, it always seems to deteriorate into a black and white argument between analytics and the "eye test."

But my stance is analytics are simply there to help supplement and substantiate what we see. If you literally aren't watching the games or haven't seen the guy play, you aren't invited to the conversation.

Numbers lie, our eyes deceive, and our minds play tricks. I just attempt to find the truth as best I can with all the tools at my disposal.

But yes, football (and basketball) are not as favorable to analytics as baseball. Not even close. And you are right that I am interested in what the future will bring. Who knows what advances in technology and other new ideas are in store?

But the last thing you said about the human element is a great point. In 2019 the the Ravens became quite analytically driven. One thing they embraced was going for it more on 4th and 2 or less (bc the number's say it's very often the right move). But Harbaugh's staffers informed him that quantitative analysis only works when the decision-makers are willing to use it.

So after embracing these new strategies himself, Harbaugh would put a lot of effort into showing game tape and using other methods to make sure his players had bought in.

I just find it very interesting that you can objectively have the correct strategy, but it really doesn't mean **** if the players don't believe it to be the case.

These games are played by humans that have their own biases and beliefs that can still be more traditional or conservative. We are not running a computer simulation here.

(But I just want to be clear that I'm not talking about combine numbers when I'm referencing analytics. I'm more interested in things like data that influences in-game decision making and finding information that dispells prevalent preconceived notions that might be incorrect)
 
Last edited:
Digital said:
I'm very interested in analytics too. My biggest issues are:

A. People tend to like what they like and ignore the data, OR
B. People get so focused on the analytics that they misunderstand how the analytics fit into the big picture.

So, for me when analyzing an NFL prospect the biggest element is the film. I use statistics like combine numbers to verify what I saw on film. So I was a huge Mike Gesicki fan because on tape I saw a rare athlete in a huge frame who made tremendous strides. He went from a skinny volleyball player who just barely learned how to play WR to being converted to a bulkier TE in college. He went from being a kid who had bad hands to becoming THE BEST contested catcher in his draft class and vice-grip hands. When the Combine came around and revealed he was 6'6, 245 lbs., with long arms and a 41.5" vertical ... it was not a surprise. It merely confirmed my view of his physique and athleticism. The film already explained how he was exceptional at high-pointing the ball. The Combine measured bench press, but not grip and rip strength to snatch and hold the ball, so that element wasn't quantified, but was obvious on tape. While his route running was so so, it had improved significantly and he showed to be continuing to improve. His blocking was poor and his blocking effort was poor, but his coaches simply didn't stress it with him, so that was an open evaluation.

When the higher level analytics compared him at his position vs. other prospects and he showed up in the very top tier of length etc., it was no surprise. But, despite his fast forty time of 4.56, it was clear that he was a long strider, and despite his 41.5" vertical, he wasn't bursty out of his cuts. The stats didn't really tell that story, but the film did. Ideal weapon for seam routes, red zone throws, 3rd down throws, and check downs. That profiles fantastically to a Move TE. I was a huge fan, advocated for drafting Minkah Fitzpatrick and Mike Gesicki, and when we drafted them 1, 2, I was ecstatic. Unfortunately, despite me advocating to use Minkah in the FS role exclusively even before we drafted him ... we foolishly didn't, he was disgrunteld, traded, and became an instant-All-Pro at Pittsburgh as they played him exclusively as a FS. I explained how Mike Gesicki would need time to transition as all TE's do ... and he has. I'm ecstatic to see him growing into the potential his analytics showed.

But, IMHO, most people try to treat football like baseball ...but we don't really keep track of the right statistics to quantify it the way it is so well quantified in baseball. Our RB's are so dependent upon their OL, the defense presented, and of course down and distance. Averaging 5 yards per carry looks great unless he's only used on 3rd and long. The RB able to average 3 yards per carry who is only used on 3rd and 1 is the better football player, but we cannot capture all that data into one stat, so it tends to be misleading in football. In baseball the On Base Percentage is a great metric, like the Slugging Percentage or Earned Runs Average. We simply do not have those equivalent metrics in the NFL. So when people compare QB's ... there's just less definitive data, and we need to over-rely on things like YPA. When we look at pass rushers, we over-rely on Sacks and it's even hard to compare Pressures because some teams use stunts and blitzes more than others or play coverage and leave their pass rushers to win 1v2 a lot. Whereas in baseball, essentially, every batter is isolated depending very little on any teammates, and every defense is essentially the same. There are a lot less dynamic variables to throw off the game statistics.

In football, we tend to rely more on athletic statistics of the player (40 time, vertical leap, height, wingspan, weight) than their actual play, so there is much more of a disconnect when evaluating players. I'm sure you are just as excited as I am about where analytics is headed and can't wait for the analytics world to start reaching deeper into providing meaningful data.

Of course, we're always at the mercy of the human element, because no matter how much data analytics provides, it's still the individual who needs to weight what is important and prioritize what they want. :)
Click to expand...
As a new coach I had to do a lot of film review and scouting last year for the team i volunteered for. When you watch a play develop there are eleven people trying to execute assignments on each end. My issue with analytics is that yeah it can help you make real time decisions, but player evaluation is important without the numbers. Each position has its own stance, its own job and how they execute on a given play. If one guard or linebacker is out of position it can create huge problems for everybody else. The film is important because how well a player can play his position. Analytics and numbers cannot do that.

A good example was this year we played a team with a very good receiver. His stats looked great three games in and he seemed like he was going to give us a ton of trouble. The DC and i noticed though when breaking him down that he would not be in a proper stance if a run play was called. He would stand straight up and slow his release. Another give away was on any play where he was not a read in the passing game, he would run very sloppy routes and do a weird hesitation/hop step at the release point. We ended up giving him his worst game of the season at that point, and won a close game because of spotting things like that.

In conclusion it is really important to acknowledge the film and use that as the primary evaluation tool. The game is won and lost by players executing their assignments and knowing how to play sound football. You can draft prototypes and go by the numbers but it you better make sure who you draft can play his position. If not the numbers wont matter
 
Mach2 said:
Out if curiosity, your favorite?
Click to expand...
There are hundreds of better bands than BOC (who... btw I have seen in concert many times)...

I probably dont have a favourite... and if I did, I'd likely pick a small band that few had ever heard of, bypassing the ZZ Tops, the Aerosmiths, the Lynard Skynards for a Toadies or a Local H.
Never really cared for Van Halen till they signed Sammy, or Springsteen at all, but you'd have to consider them... and then there's Cobain... and Soundgarden... brilliant writers and wonderful voices...

BOC? Blerg... thin singing voices and mostly silly material.
 
Feverdream said:
There are hundreds of better bands than BOC (who... btw I have seen in concert many times)...

I probably dont have a favourite... and if I did, I'd likely pick a small band that few had ever heard of, bypassing the ZZ Tops, the Aerosmiths, the Lynard Skynards for a Toadies or a Local H.
Never really cared for Van Halen till they signed Sammy, or Springsteen at all, but you'd have to consider them... and then there's Cobain... and Soundgarden... brilliant writers and wonderful voices...

BOC? Blerg... thin singing voices and mostly silly material.
Click to expand...
I agree, hard to pick a favorite.

Depends on genre, mood, etc.

Chili Peppers, GNR..... A lot of great show bands.
 
Mach2 said:
I agree, hard to pick a favorite.

Depends on genre, mood, etc.

Chili Peppers, GNR..... A lot of great show bands.
Click to expand...
As I've gotten older, I've discovered the beauty of the larger bar shows...
I lived near Hollywood and have seen great, slightly older bands... in settings of 100-500 fans.
Just way.. way better than the big halls.

The Roxy, the Viper Room, Music Box... there's this place literally in the middle of Skid Row...forgotten the name now.

Now that I'm in Minnesota, there is 2nd avenue/7th avenue... just the BEST way to see a show.

Back in the 80s, I was a huge mosh pit guy... Black Flag baby! Bruised but came home all lit up.
Buck Cherry...

Dead Kennedys...

There are too many.
 
Feverdream said:
There are hundreds of better bands than BOC (who... btw I have seen in concert many times)...

I probably dont have a favourite... and if I did, I'd likely pick a small band that few had ever heard of, bypassing the ZZ Tops, the Aerosmiths, the Lynard Skynards for a Toadies or a Local H.
Never really cared for Van Halen till they signed Sammy, or Springsteen at all, but you'd have to consider them... and then there's Cobain... and Soundgarden... brilliant writers and wonderful voices...

BOC? Blerg... thin singing voices and mostly silly material.
Click to expand...
This is an odd take I've honestly never heard before.

Donald Buck Dharma Roeser has more talent in his pinky than The Toadies and Local H combined times infinity.

And I like The Toadies and Local H!
 
circumstances said:
This is an odd take I've honestly never heard before.

Donald Buck Dharma Roeser has more talent in his pinky than The Toadies and Local H combined times infinity.

And I like The Toadies and Local H!
Click to expand...
My buddy liked them better than I did, so we saw them every single year... they always came to Bakersfield.
They are the epitome of a hard working B band, like Cheap Trick but without the quality singer.
 
Feverdream said:
My buddy liked them better than I did, so we saw them every single year... they always came to Bakersfield.
They are the epitome of a hard working B band, like Cheap Trick but without the quality singer.
Click to expand...
Saw them a couple times in the late 70s witg Black Sabbath.

Always thought their studio work was very "clean", but live not so much.

I also agree about the small venue appeal. Dives can be awesome.
 
Feverdream said:
My buddy liked them better than I did, so we saw them every single year... they always came to Bakersfield.
They are the epitome of a hard working B band, like Cheap Trick but without the quality singer.
Click to expand...
I've probably seen them 50 or 60 times.

I think seeing them live so many times, you might have missed the rest of the catalog and what a seminal band they were for rock music (especially heavy rock music) in 1972, 1973, etc.

I love Cheap Trick, and Robin Zander does have a better voice than Buck or Eric, but BOC could never be classified as a B band.

Too many great albums, too much great material, too much influence on the genre.

Once Albert was kicked out at Castle Donnington in late 1981, things were never the same. There might have been some B band material and shows from 1982 on, lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom