Give me the right statistics on a player and I don't even need to watch film...

I love looking at stats...

Give me the right stats and info, and I don't need to know anything else to know how good of a football player someone is...I don't even need to watch film. I don't need to know how tall the player is.. how many bench press reps he can do.. the size of his hands... 40yd dash numbers... most conventional combine stats are unnecessary.

For you draft fanatics, what statistics do you wish you had that aren't commonly available?

Here's a few that come to mind:

For O-line: sacks allowed (also holding penalties and false starts)

For defensive backs: receiving yards allowed, receiving TDs allowed, (also pass interference penalties)

For QB's:
Here is a neat statistic I came across online - Adjusted Comeback Efficiency:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2010/guest-column-adjusted-comeback-efficiency

This also reminds of the reason former Giant GM Ernie Accorsi bet the farm on Eli Manning on the notion that Eli Manning had special intangibles and is a clutch performer after watching him at Ole Miss.

The Ernie Accorsi Theory
http://newyorkfootballgiantstalk.com/2009/01/ernie-accorsi-theory.html

Even these intangibles can be captured in a statistic.

(I'm not saying film is unnecessary. You want all the advantages you can get. However I think following the right statistics is the foundation of finding the best players in the draft.)

Any statistics you think should be tracked? Any unconventional ones?

"I have to look at the film."...

[ Edited by SanDiego49er on Jan 8, 2011 at 00:38:26 ]

Yeah but this isnt an official stat that you can look at for college QBs. It might be a stat that works but we we cant look at it for college QBs. I wonder what this would say about Jake Locker? He has had some notable comebacks vs USC where he led game winning drives. This would probably reflect negatively on Ryan Mallett, but he has had some comebacks too. Same with Gabbert.

On the other hand, you look at random QBs who have had success against us like Matt Moore and even though he'll probably be on the trash heap this season, there might be something there with him. But maybe not.

Oh and don't forget that this effects certain QBs differently. For example, VY was able to do it in college vs USC but not in the NFL consistently. Cam Newton's running ability may not translate to comebacks in games like it did in college, because in the NFL the guys are faster and stronger and when he's throwing he'll be throwing into tighter windows. Vince's ACE looks good in their thing but he wasnt the answer for the titans this season obviously btw. Not to mention their list doesn't include this season. Not to mention the fact that it is harder to lead a total POS team back in a game. Look at Jason Campbell, his ACE was bad on the Skins but he lead the Raiders back vs the Chiefs this year in a really good game.

Overall I think that you need to look at everything. Its just like coach Harbaugh said how he evaluates QBs, and some of that stuff is stuff that I believe Walsh told him. For example, does the guy have the instincts of a QB? Does he have good accuracy? His athleticism? etc. Because all of those things are going to be tools a QB will need to be able to use.

[ Edited by WillistheWall on Jan 8, 2011 at 01:13:29 ]

The sacks allowed for the oline isn't really comparable. If a guy who plays in a team that runs 80% of the plays gives up 0.5 sacks a game, thats much worse than a guy who plays in a team that passes on 80% of the plays and gives up 1 sack a game.
The qb has a role in the sack total. If you have a guy who isn't able to get rid of the ball or plays like a statue in the pocket, the sack total will be higher.

I don't know about the other stat evaluations, but the oline thing does not work.

Originally posted by WillistheWall:
Yeah but this isnt an official stat that you can look at for college QBs. It might be a stat that works but we we cant look at it for college QBs. I wonder what this would say about Jake Locker? He has had some notable comebacks vs USC where he led game winning drives. This would probably reflect negatively on Ryan Mallett, but he has had some comebacks too. Same with Gabbert.

On the other hand, you look at random QBs who have had success against us like Matt Moore and even though he'll probably be on the trash heap this season, there might be something there with him. But maybe not.

Oh and don't forget that this effects certain QBs differently. For example, VY was able to do it in college vs USC but not in the NFL consistently. Cam Newton's running ability may not translate to comebacks in games like it did in college, because in the NFL the guys are faster and stronger and when he's throwing he'll be throwing into tighter windows. Vince's ACE looks good in their thing but he wasnt the answer for the titans this season obviously btw. Not to mention their list doesn't include this season. Not to mention the fact that it is harder to lead a total POS team back in a game. Look at Jason Campbell, his ACE was bad on the Skins but he lead the Raiders back vs the Chiefs this year in a really good game.

Overall I think that you need to look at everything. Its just like coach Harbaugh said how he evaluates QBs, and some of that stuff is stuff that I believe Walsh told him. For example, does the guy have the instincts of a QB? Does he have good accuracy? His athleticism? etc. Because all of those things are going to be tools a QB will need to be able to use.

I agree with you. QB is by far the hardest position to get right whatever method you use. There are many factors involved and the ACE statistic (or a variation of it) is just one measure of intangibles and you can use. I would start with a variation of the QB rating and adjust it to the level of competition (ie. SEC being the most difficult.) There are QB's that are just great statistically in college in good or above average competition - Peyton Manning (avg QB rating 145+ over three years), Sam Bradford (avg QB rating 170+), Phillip Rivers (170+) Aaron Rodgers (154) etc... then there are those that have average QB ratings that excel (Matt Ryan although he threw for 4000+ yds his last year in college he had a QB rating of 127 his final year and had a 59%completion rating...BTW Matt Ryan got the nickname 'Ice', but I suspect he had favorable ACE statistics in college. )

Some factors for adjustment for QB rating:
Level of competition (Biased against weak divisions)
Offensive scheme (I'd be heavily biased against spread/shotgun schemes and favorable to pro-style)
Strength of o-line
Strength of receivers
Winning percentage
Comeback winning % (variation of ACE)

Originally posted by stever:
The sacks allowed for the oline isn't really comparable. If a guy who plays in a team that runs 80% of the plays gives up 0.5 sacks a game, thats much worse than a guy who plays in a team that passes on 80% of the plays and gives up 1 sack a game.
The qb has a role in the sack total. If you have a guy who isn't able to get rid of the ball or plays like a statue in the pocket, the sack total will be higher.

I don't know about the other stat evaluations, but the oline thing does not work.

There's an easy adjustment that I've seen before. I think it was sacks allowed per pass attempt.

True the QB has a role, but you can always make adjustments..

Some adjustments:
Number of pass attempts
Level of competition (Division and/or strength of pass rushers)
QB mobility

Originally posted by Jd925:
I love looking at stats...

Give me the right stats and info, and I don't need to know anything else to know how good of a football player someone is...I don't even need to watch film. I don't need to know how tall the player is.. how many bench press reps he can do.. the size of his hands... 40yd dash numbers... most conventional combine stats are unnecessary.

For you draft fanatics, what statistics do you wish you had that aren't commonly available?

Here's a few that come to mind:

For O-line: sacks allowed (also holding penalties and false starts)

For defensive backs: receiving yards allowed, receiving TDs allowed, (also pass interference penalties)

For QB's:
Here is a neat statistic I came across online - Adjusted Comeback Efficiency:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2010/guest-column-adjusted-comeback-efficiency

This also reminds of the reason former Giant GM Ernie Accorsi bet the farm on Eli Manning on the notion that Eli Manning had special intangibles and is a clutch performer after watching him at Ole Miss.

The Ernie Accorsi Theory
http://newyorkfootballgiantstalk.com/2009/01/ernie-accorsi-theory.html

Even these intangibles can be captured in a statistic.

(I'm not saying film is unnecessary. You want all the advantages you can get. However I think following the right statistics is the foundation of finding the best players in the draft.)

Any statistics you think should be tracked? Any unconventional ones?

Im the complete opposite. I wish I had access to film. In most cases the stats and film match up. But there are cases where stats don't do justice. Look at Dumervil. Yes he had great stats going for 6 in a game but there was a stretch of 3 games at the end of his senior season where he didn't get any sacks. Turn on the film to see he was constantly doubled and getting chipped. I would rather see a guy play than see what he produced.

You need to watch the film, you can't judge a player on stats alone. Stats don't reflect the whole story.

As an example, with an OL sacks allowed don't reflect how often he was beat and if the timing of the play was disrupted, or if said lineman had help (double team with another lineman, back, tight end) and how well he can run block. It doesn't show you how well he moves his feet, bends his knees, gets below the defenders pad level or how well he uses his hands.

If you are going to base your opinions soley off of statistics you are going to have a half assed opinion on a player. Film is where you learn the most about a player.

Originally posted by redmanc07:

Originally posted by Jd925:
I love looking at stats...

Give me the right stats and info, and I don't need to know anything else to know how good of a football player someone is...I don't even need to watch film. I don't need to know how tall the player is.. how many bench press reps he can do.. the size of his hands... 40yd dash numbers... most conventional combine stats are unnecessary.

For you draft fanatics, what statistics do you wish you had that aren't commonly available?

Here's a few that come to mind:

For O-line: sacks allowed (also holding penalties and false starts)

For defensive backs: receiving yards allowed, receiving TDs allowed, (also pass interference penalties)

For QB's:
Here is a neat statistic I came across online - Adjusted Comeback Efficiency:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2010/guest-column-adjusted-comeback-efficiency

This also reminds of the reason former Giant GM Ernie Accorsi bet the farm on Eli Manning on the notion that Eli Manning had special intangibles and is a clutch performer after watching him at Ole Miss.

The Ernie Accorsi Theory
http://newyorkfootballgiantstalk.com/2009/01/ernie-accorsi-theory.html

Even these intangibles can be captured in a statistic.

(I'm not saying film is unnecessary. You want all the advantages you can get. However I think following the right statistics is the foundation of finding the best players in the draft.)

Any statistics you think should be tracked? Any unconventional ones?

Im the complete opposite. I wish I had access to film. In most cases the stats and film match up. But there are cases where stats don't do justice. Look at Dumervil. Yes he had great stats going for 6 in a game but there was a stretch of 3 games at the end of his senior season where he didn't get any sacks. Turn on the film to see he was constantly doubled and getting chipped. I would rather see a guy play than see what he produced.

Dumervil is a bad example for your point. I actually had Dumervil way higher than all the draft boards because I was focusing on his stats and production. His low projections were an anomaly to me. He was my big sleeper that year and was one of the players that reinforced my draft philosophy. He was the league leader (by far) in sacks and in a decent conference (played at Lousiville - Big East). He was among the leaders the year before as well. He won the Nagurski award for best defensive player in the NCAA in 2005. The reason no one wanted him was because of his 'measurables' . The guy was short and a lightweight so he was a projected 4th rounder or less on all the boards. Unbelievable that the guy who won the top defensive award in college football with 20 sacks was projected so low. That's why I like short guys because I know they'll be undervalued. You know who's Big East record Dumervil broke? Dwight Freeney - another undersized DE Bill Polian picked in #11 in the first round in 2002 - had 17.5 sacks his last year in college. Most analysts said Polian really reached on the pick because Freeney was too small. Many pro bowls later I think analysts have changed their tune about Freeney.

I do agree with your point that stats and film correlate, but I focus more on the numbers because I don't care how a player succeeds as much as that he does. You make a good point about double teams for receivers and defensive lineman, but I think you can put that in a supplementary stat: # of double teams. (All statistics in the end have to be observable by some one and so I would have scouts record all these unconventional stats. My focus would be formulating the best statistics to focus on.)

Originally posted by KRS-1:
You need to watch the film, you can't judge a player on stats alone. Stats don't reflect the whole story.

As an example, with an OL sacks allowed don't reflect how often he was beat and if the timing of the play was disrupted, or if said lineman had help (double team with another lineman, back, tight end) and how well he can run block. It doesn't show you how well he moves his feet, bends his knees, gets below the defenders pad level or how well he uses his hands.

If you are going to base your opinions soley off of statistics you are going to have a half assed opinion on a player. Film is where you learn the most about a player.

I think you can get a very good opinion on a player on stats alone. That's why I made that statement in the title of the thread. You just have to formulate the right stats though. Many things like disruption in timing of the play, help from others are random that get washed out over the long run. The right stats will measure the overall effectiveness of a player. You can coach up players that have bad mechanics, but the draft should focus first on current production instead of uncertain 'coached-up' potential.

I agree with your point about run blocking and that's an area that definitely needs better statistical tracking.

Some may include:
Avg rush yards in o-lineman's gap.

Stats may be broken down into:
Avg rush yds for: Up the middle/ Toss-Sweep/ Trap plays
Adjusted for RB ability
Adjusted for o-line play on other side of gap

You can also supplement with situational stats:
% success in short yardage (3rd/4th and 1 situations)
% of 3+, 4+,5+ yd gains in o-line gap per attempt (to limit effects of long runs)

Additional stats for pass blocking:
sacks allowed per pass attempt
Level of competition (strength of conference and/or strength of pass rushers)
QB mobility

..also add QB hurries allowed per pass attempt (the QB hurries stat on the defensive side is pretty good)

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
"I have to look at the film."...

Yes. I'm sure Mike Singletary would not agree with my statement.

lmao at OP thinking he can tell how good a player is from just stats.

Football is a team sport. I can show you why any of those stats you want can not tell a whole story.

You don't think great linemen can block forever do you? If a QB is holding the ball forever or none of the receivers can get open the QB will get sacked.

Anyone of those stats there can be a scenario which makes the stats null and void...you HAVE to watch film/game to actually figure out how good a guy is.

Originally posted by genus49:
lmao at OP thinking he can tell how good a player is from just stats.

Football is a team sport. I can show you why any of those stats you want can not tell a whole story.

You don't think great linemen can block forever do you? If a QB is holding the ball forever or none of the receivers can get open the QB will get sacked.

Anyone of those stats there can be a scenario which makes the stats null and void...you HAVE to watch film/game to actually figure out how good a guy is.

+1. Not to mention strength of schedules/opponents. Sometimes smaller market teams face crappier opponents or post lesser stats, but also big teams can have inflated stats or have a funny gimmicky system. Can go either way really in that regard. You're right about it also depending on the o-line, what kind of talent he's throwing to, how good the opposing cb's are, how strong the opposing pass rushers are...

Originally posted by Jd925:

Originally posted by redmanc07:

Originally posted by Jd925:
I love looking at stats...

Give me the right stats and info, and I don't need to know anything else to know how good of a football player someone is...I don't even need to watch film. I don't need to know how tall the player is.. how many bench press reps he can do.. the size of his hands... 40yd dash numbers... most conventional combine stats are unnecessary.

For you draft fanatics, what statistics do you wish you had that aren't commonly available?

Here's a few that come to mind:

For O-line: sacks allowed (also holding penalties and false starts)

For defensive backs: receiving yards allowed, receiving TDs allowed, (also pass interference penalties)

For QB's:
Here is a neat statistic I came across online - Adjusted Comeback Efficiency:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2010/guest-column-adjusted-comeback-efficiency

This also reminds of the reason former Giant GM Ernie Accorsi bet the farm on Eli Manning on the notion that Eli Manning had special intangibles and is a clutch performer after watching him at Ole Miss.

The Ernie Accorsi Theory
http://newyorkfootballgiantstalk.com/2009/01/ernie-accorsi-theory.html

Even these intangibles can be captured in a statistic.

(I'm not saying film is unnecessary. You want all the advantages you can get. However I think following the right statistics is the foundation of finding the best players in the draft.)

Any statistics you think should be tracked? Any unconventional ones?

Im the complete opposite. I wish I had access to film. In most cases the stats and film match up. But there are cases where stats don't do justice. Look at Dumervil. Yes he had great stats going for 6 in a game but there was a stretch of 3 games at the end of his senior season where he didn't get any sacks. Turn on the film to see he was constantly doubled and getting chipped. I would rather see a guy play than see what he produced.

Dumervil is a bad example for your point. I actually had Dumervil way higher than all the draft boards because I was focusing on his stats and production. His low projections were an anomaly to me. He was my big sleeper that year and was one of the players that reinforced my draft philosophy. He was the league leader (by far) in sacks and in a decent conference (played at Lousiville - Big East). He was among the leaders the year before as well. He won the Nagurski award for best defensive player in the NCAA in 2005. The reason no one wanted him was because of his 'measurables' . The guy was short and a lightweight so he was a projected 4th rounder or less on all the boards. Unbelievable that the guy who won the top defensive award in college football with 20 sacks was projected so low. That's why I like short guys because I know they'll be undervalued. You know who's Big East record Dumervil broke? Dwight Freeney - another undersized DE Bill Polian picked in #11 in the first round in 2002 - had 17.5 sacks his last year in college. Most analysts said Polian really reached on the pick because Freeney was too small. Many pro bowls later I think analysts have changed their tune about Freeney.

I do agree with your point that stats and film correlate, but I focus more on the numbers because I don't care how a player succeeds as much as that he does. You make a good point about double teams for receivers and defensive lineman, but I think you can put that in a supplementary stat: # of double teams. (All statistics in the end have to be observable by some one and so I would have scouts record all these unconventional stats. My focus would be formulating the best statistics to focus on.)

Good point sir but in order to do all this you would have to watch the film lol But I do understand what you mean. There is too much emphasis on meaningless stats

Paraag, is that you?