Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Defining Productivity

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Defining Productivity

    I was reading on various sites, mainly Giants', and was piecing together Jerry Reese's strategy last year. Besides need and talent, it's odd that all but one(Michael Johnson) placed inthe top 5 at their position in the 3 cone. I also saw a trend of maturity and leadership thoughout these players college careers. But what really got me, was all of our picks were VERY productive in their last season. Which brings me to this: how do you define a players productivity? This can mean either(let's take a QB) passer rating? low INT's? high TD's? High completion %? Also, another thing, do you base their productivity on their most recent college season? or compile it through their college career? We've got some typical cases of that in this draft, ala Kenny Philips, Calias Campbell, Antoine Cason. And on the flip side, there are also quite a few players who were one year wonders last season, such as, say, a Curtis Lofton.

    It's a long offseason, but the draft is less than a month away, and I thought this would make some good conversation
    We ALL bleed scarlet
    New York Giants Super Bowl 46 Champs
    UNITED: I actually attend the college I root for
    Originally posted by PalmerToCJ
    BTW, if it's 3rd and 97... I'm throwing a screen pass to Brian Leonard and he will convert.

  • #2
    Most recent, IMO
    Usually players who started out productive but never got much better productivy throw a red flag.
    I actually like one-year wonders better



    Sig thanks to Bonekrusher

    Comment


    • #3
      I look for how well certain players do against the best competition. For a CB, I look to see how they cover the best WRs. For a RB, how do they do against a go DL and so on and so forth.


      Originally posted by Halsey
      I don't have to watch it to know it was not interesting.

      Comment


      • #4
        I think the most vital step, and the one that most draftnicks are excluded from, is trying to figure if that recent production is evidence of a player finally breaking out, or if it is the product of some other variable. Even then, the conclusion that teams arrive on obviously aren't always accurate.

        There really are somethings that can't be discerned from a distance. In the end, a player's failure or success at the pro level is going to come down to commitment, not to talent.

        Generally, I think that placing the most emphasis on the latest season is a good way to work. Certainly, the way a player played most recently is going to give you the best frame of reference for the player you'd get if you drafted the kid. That said, one must always make for allowances. If some asserted (for example), that Calais Campbell's production fell off this year because he was the main focus of blocking schemes, then you'd want to investigate with 2007 film, and you'd probably want to take a look at what was different with Campbell in 2006 (if it was really the product of blocking schemes, or something else).

        Generally, teams aren't going to want to draft a player who they need to rehab back into a form he held early in his college career. They want self motivated professionals, and (whether it's fair or not), those types mostly improve over time, not degrade.

        Comment


        • #5
          I like to look at short shuttle times before 40's if im looking at their combine #'s.

          As far as playing i like to hear good motor, decent size, athletic, increasing to above average stats, good technique, has a good head on their shoulders.

          Comment


          • #6
            I've actually seen numerous articles that point out how players who inexperienced (started less than 2 years) have very high bust rates. One-year wonders are definitely not preferable, and I have concerns about players like Devin Thomas and Curtis Lofton.

            It's not really fair how people look at production on this board. Calais Campbell had better production as a Sophomore than Chris Long had as a Senior, and their Junior statistics are very similar. I never see posters talking about how Long didn't really produce until his final year in college. I see plenty of posters talking about how Campbell had a poor final season, but in reality his and Long's Junior years were comparable and Campbell could've returned and possibly outproduced Long as a Senior. And then there's Phillip Merling: Campbell's disappointing Junior season was slightly less productive than Merling's breakout Junior season. We all have to learn to look at the big picture...

            sig by BoneKrusher

            Comment


            • #7
              On their pre-draft season performance:

              Say some guy has 14 sacks in a season, I look at what he did negatively in his most recent Big Game and base most alot of my opinion on that. I do this especially if that player is described as a quiet type.

              But say a guy has a nice smile, strong, American jaw, and a motor that doesn't quit, he gets alot of credit for having 14 sacks.
              Last edited by SenorGato; 03-29-2008, 12:25 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by etk View Post
                It's not really fair how people look at production on this board. Calais Campbell had better production as a Sophomore than Chris Long had as a Senior, and their Junior statistics are very similar. I never see posters talking about how Long didn't really produce until his final year in college. I see plenty of posters talking about how Campbell had a poor final season, but in reality his and Long's Junior years were comparable and Campbell could've returned and possibly outproduced Long as a Senior. And then there's Phillip Merling: Campbell's disappointing Junior season was slightly less productive than Merling's breakout Junior season. We all have to learn to look at the big picture...
                It's as simple as this. On the surface, Long and Merling progressed. Campbell regressed.

                I like Campbell, especially considering that it appears that he'll be there in the 40-60 range, but if a player regresses noticeably, then that should always throw up huge red flag.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Yes but it's not a reason to overlook production over a career. Saying Campbell can't get after the QB but Long and Merling can is completely false.

                  sig by BoneKrusher

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by etk View Post
                    Yes but it's not a reason to overlook production over a career. Saying Campbell can't get after the QB but Long and Merling can is completely false.
                    I'll be honest, I've never heard anyone say that. Ever.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The NFL Draft is a "what have you done for me lately" thing. Very few times do players who regress their final year, end up keeping their draft stock where it is at. Career stats are nice, but NFL teams seem to put a major emphasis on senior year stats and production (junior year stats and production for underclassmen). Whether that is right or wrong is another debate, but that seems to be the trend.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        That is true, but not in all cases. Look at Limas Sweed as an example.

                        sig by BoneKrusher

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X

                        Debug Information