What does the absence of pro Days mean to the process

[jimthefin]

We have become used to lots of players doing less at the Combine and then working out in more comfortable conditions at their Pro days.

This is obviously not happening this year.

I see this possibly hurting some guys who might have impressed at their pro days(we will never know).

I also see this being a benefit to the teams that have good scouting departments.

Maybe we will learn that film study is more important than Combine/Pro Day measurables.

I have always felt that the most important part of the post season scouting was getting to meet the players and getting an idea about their character/personality. I concede that there are some fail safe numbers with certain positions, for example WR's that run over 4.7. But I think you should be able to project players from film study alone and do pretty well if you know what you are doing.

 

[SF Dolphin Fan]

I think teams will face time with players and players may send video workouts.

Not ideal, but sometimes maybe less can be more. Teams need to put the emphasis on the tape.

 

[mrbunglez]

Why can't a player do a pro day via video conferencing with a bunch of teams? They can also have private video conferencing with teams when, if needed, they can provide medicals and such.

 

[Tannenbombs]

I have some thoughts but Eric articulated them bettert than I could have here:

Coronavirus is having a major effect on the 2020 NFL draft (and even the 2021 draft)

The coronavirus pandemic has changed how NFL teams are scouting for the 2020 draft in a significant way. So who stands to lose and who might be helped?

sports.yahoo.com

 

[Awsi Dooger]

There should be some type of plug and play formula, combining multiple aspects like age, market share, subjective tape grade from multiple sources, and athletic testing including tests most vital to the specific position. Then it spits out a first to last bottom line.

j-off-her-doll posted a link like that regarding wide receivers recently. Naturally it earned zero response. For some inane reason that type of numerical nudge toward clarity is never preferred as opposed to tape, tape, tape, and then a smidge of supporting math. I'm always impressed when younger evaluators like Tannenbombs recognize that numbers/analytics are going to play an increasing role so you might as well embrace rather than deny.

Slimm could confidently do a draft two years ahead of time. Seemingly the teams with that type of approach will benefit, especially in the later rounds, while the late all-nighter teams are guessing. My advice to the all-nighter teams would be major college sleepers, the guys who were highly rated in the first place. Those players went through the athletic testing years ago so you have those numbers as guide already.

I'm struck by the opposite aspect...how incredibly fortunate it was that the combine wasn't slated for 2 weeks later. Otherwise it doesn't happen. My impression has always been that the combine is strangely early in the offseason process. Good thing my version has never been in play. Otherwise imagine the 2020 scrambling to figure this stuff out.

Actually it would have been more fun

BTW, if a guy is a freak athletic tester then why is he waiting until spring -- weeks prior to the draft -- to display as much? Let's just say I don't have any sympathy for that guy or respect for his connections. A guy with those particulars should be getting it out there a year or more in advance. Volunteer to do the drills with the juniors a year earlier. If you post eye popping numbers then the scouts will pay attention to you all season and find reasons to overplay the positives and rationalize they can work on the negatives.

 

[Awsi Dooger]

I should point out I've done that numerical plug and play type of thing countless times regarding wagering for the past 20 years. It is fascinating but there is one tendency that seemingly always applies: Once you have tinkered with everything from a backfit perspective and it looks fabulous, and then it spits out the fresh results pointing forward, inevitably those fresh results don't cooperate as well as the aged sampling.

Maddening as heck. It seemingly makes no sense. My summary was that I would lose 5% in translation -- like 63% projection down to 58% actual -- even if nothing had changed. That sent me back to more tinkering, and always the danger that you are amending things to improve the pretty bottom line instead of actually improving the logical formula.

I think Denzel Mims was atop that link that j-off-her-doll posted. I haven't looked at it fully. I remember the number 1.31 and above as where the top prospects have slotted over the past decade or so.

 

[j-off-her-doll]

There should be some type of plug and play formula, combining multiple aspects like age, market share, subjective tape grade from multiple sources, and athletic testing including tests most vital to the specific position. Then it spits out a first to last bottom line.

j-off-her-doll posted a link like that regarding wide receivers recently. Naturally it earned zero response. For some inane reason that type of numerical nudge toward clarity is never preferred as opposed to tape, tape, tape, and then a smidge of supporting math. I'm always impressed when younger evaluators like Tannenbombs recognize that numbers/analytics are going to play an increasing role so you might as well embrace rather than deny.

Slimm could confidently do a draft two years ahead of time. Seemingly the teams with that type of approach will benefit, especially in the later rounds, while the late all-nighter teams are guessing. My advice to the all-nighter teams would be major college sleepers, the guys who were highly rated in the first place. Those players went through the athletic testing years ago so you have those numbers as guide already.

I'm struck by the opposite aspect...how incredibly fortunate it was that the combine wasn't slated for 2 weeks later. Otherwise it doesn't happen. My impression has always been that the combine is strangely early in the offseason process. Good thing my version has never been in play. Otherwise imagine the 2020 scrambling to figure this stuff out.

Actually it would have been more fun

BTW, if a guy is a freak athletic tester then why is he waiting until spring -- weeks prior to the draft -- to display as much? Let's just say I don't have any sympathy for that guy or respect for his connections. A guy with those particulars should be getting it out there a year or more in advance. Volunteer to do the drills with the juniors a year earlier. If you post eye popping numbers then the scouts will pay attention to you all season and find reasons to overplay the positives and rationalize they can work on the negatives.

Awesome post. It's been a wild off season for the prospects. The Combine was a cluster, with the testing late in the day and prolonged periods between tests, and now all of this.

Agree that if a guy is a freak athlete, he should be advertising it.

Also agree that the Twitter thread I posted is really good. He also has one for RB's and TE's, too, but I think people have struggled to produce good models for TE's. I like finding good blockers with great athleticism. The TE's value is his versatility, and Kittle is the perfect example. I thought Foster Moreau was a lesser version last year, and he was a quality 2nd TE in Oakland as a rookie - only 25 targets, but he blocked well and caught 5 TD's. Oakland only had 22 passing TD's. But, his WR and RB threads are excellent.

 

[j-off-her-doll]

I should point out I've done that numerical plug and play type of thing countless times regarding wagering for the past 20 years. It is fascinating but there is one tendency that seemingly always applies: Once you have tinkered with everything from a backfit perspective and it looks fabulous, and then it spits out the fresh results pointing forward, inevitably those fresh results don't cooperate as well as the aged sampling.

Maddening as heck. It seemingly makes no sense. My summary was that I would lose 5% in translation -- like 63% projection down to 58% actual -- even if nothing had changed. That sent me back to more tinkering, and always the danger that you are amending things to improve the pretty bottom line instead of actually improving the logical formula.

I think Denzel Mims was atop that link that j-off-her-doll posted. I haven't looked at it fully. I remember the number 1.31 and above as where the top prospects have slotted over the past decade or so.

Here's the thread. Mims, Reagor, Jefferson, Jeudy, Peoples-Jones, and Lamb all rated highly.

 

[Tannenbombs]

I understand the the thought process of a player breaking out early in his career versus later. Usually if you can play against 22 year olds at 18-19 you're good.

However, I don't care for market share. It makes Jeudy, Ruggs, Justin Jefferson, Odell Beckham, Landry, etc look like scrubs. That metric has been around for like 6 years and no one can account for multiple good players on the same team.

* I have a hard time putting much stock anything that has Denzel Mims as a better prospect than Jeudy, Lamb and Ruggs.

 

[Tannenbombs]

In the same breath, whenever I see the those lists, I never care much about where the blue guys such as a Jeudy. It moves the needle more for me on the prospects that you usually don't see that highly. In J-offs example it would be Peoples-Jones.

I've yet to find the balance of incorporating any data into evaluations, but I think you at least have to be aware of it. It's all a piece of the puzzle

 

[SF Dolphin Fan]

There should be some type of plug and play formula, combining multiple aspects like age, market share, subjective tape grade from multiple sources, and athletic testing including tests most vital to the specific position. Then it spits out a first to last bottom line.

j-off-her-doll posted a link like that regarding wide receivers recently. Naturally it earned zero response. For some inane reason that type of numerical nudge toward clarity is never preferred as opposed to tape, tape, tape, and then a smidge of supporting math. I'm always impressed when younger evaluators like Tannenbombs recognize that numbers/analytics are going to play an increasing role so you might as well embrace rather than deny.

Slimm could confidently do a draft two years ahead of time. Seemingly the teams with that type of approach will benefit, especially in the later rounds, while the late all-nighter teams are guessing. My advice to the all-nighter teams would be major college sleepers, the guys who were highly rated in the first place. Those players went through the athletic testing years ago so you have those numbers as guide already.

I'm struck by the opposite aspect...how incredibly fortunate it was that the combine wasn't slated for 2 weeks later. Otherwise it doesn't happen. My impression has always been that the combine is strangely early in the offseason process. Good thing my version has never been in play. Otherwise imagine the 2020 scrambling to figure this stuff out.

Actually it would have been more fun

BTW, if a guy is a freak athletic tester then why is he waiting until spring -- weeks prior to the draft -- to display as much? Let's just say I don't have any sympathy for that guy or respect for his connections. A guy with those particulars should be getting it out there a year or more in advance. Volunteer to do the drills with the juniors a year earlier. If you post eye popping numbers then the scouts will pay attention to you all season and find reasons to overplay the positives and rationalize they can work on the negatives.

Good point on the combine. Fortunately, that came before the Coronavirus.

I'm more of a what you see guy, but I appreciate more information as well. I liked what j-off put out there on the wide receivers.

Those explosion numbers seem to be especially important for pass rushers. Another reason I'm not sold on Espenesa despite good tape.

 

[SF Dolphin Fan]

I understand the the thought process of a player breaking out early in his career versus later. Usually if you can play against 22 year olds at 18-19 you're good.

However, I don't care for market share. It makes Jeudy, Ruggs, Justin Jefferson, Odell Beckham, Landry, etc look like scrubs. That metric has been around for like 6 years and no one can account for multiple good players on the same team.

* I have a hard time putting much stock anything that has Denzel Mims as a better prospect than Jeudy, Lamb and Ruggs.

Sometimes it does seem like information overload, but I think it helps in the evaluation of players who might have played with lesser programs.

 

[jimthefin]

I see two things that could come of this lack of time with the prospects.

One is that we might see more late round "steals", meaning guys who turn out to be underrated due to a lack of exposure.

I would also imagine that this is bad news for the smaller school types who might have moved up given a chance to be seen more.



And second we might discover that looking at game tape is more than enough information to go on and a lot of the post Combine stuff is not really needed.I think you need some measurable data to use if for no other reason than to disqualify some prospects based on poor times or being smaller than expected.that does matter at some positions.I think there has never been a successful NFL WR that ran slower than 4.7 for instance.

I do think that too much data does talk teams out of things they were going to do originally and I have always felt that a Draft in Feb would be very different from one in April. Maybe better, maybe worse.