Donte Moncrief-WR-Ole Miss

Originally posted by kronik:

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:

Originally posted by kronik:

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:
Hill averaged 2 catches per game his senior season, never caught more than 6 passes in one game (only did it once, and it was his last season) and never had more than 30 catches in an entire season. Unsurprisingly, he's not very productive as a pro either.

But you want to dismiss the entire chart because 1 guy out of 5 is a bust....even though the other 4 are pro-bowl caliber players?

I guess the guy is a pessimist

He's admittedly biased against Moncrief, so he's at least been honest about it.

Oh is he? What a more ron.

To each his own, I say.

Originally posted by kronik:

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:

Originally posted by kronik:

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:

Hill averaged 2 catches per game his senior season, never caught more than 6 passes in one game (only did it once, and it was his last season) and never had more than 30 catches in an entire season. Unsurprisingly, he's not very productive as a pro either.

But you want to dismiss the entire chart because 1 guy out of 5 is a bust....even though the other 4 are pro-bowl caliber players?

I guess the guy is a pessimist

He's admittedly biased against Moncrief, so he's at least been honest about it.

Oh is he? What a more ron.

Lol
I'm not knocking Moncreif! Geez fan boys lol
The formula is crap! You have 15 years of data and you only have 5 players ranked?
Why add the height and weight to the formula?
After adding that, then Jackson and andre j make the list
It's a failed attempt by the writer/Econ teacher

But there's no denying Moncriefs long speed and hopps

Originally posted by solidg2000:

Originally posted by kronik:

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:

Originally posted by kronik:

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:
Hill averaged 2 catches per game his senior season, never caught more than 6 passes in one game (only did it once, and it was his last season) and never had more than 30 catches in an entire season. Unsurprisingly, he's not very productive as a pro either.

But you want to dismiss the entire chart because 1 guy out of 5 is a bust....even though the other 4 are pro-bowl caliber players?

I guess the guy is a pessimist

He's admittedly biased against Moncrief, so he's at least been honest about it.

Oh is he? What a more ron.

Lol
I'm not knocking Moncreif! Geez fan boys lol
The formula is crap! You have 15 years of data and you only have 5 players ranked?
Why add the height and weight to the formula?
After adding that, then Jackson and andre j make the list
It's a failed attempt by the writer/Econ teacher

But there's no denying Moncriefs long speed and hopps

The three drills that are widely considered the most important for a wideout are the 40-yard dash, the broad jump and the vertical jump. The 40 measures a player's acceleration and long speed, while the jumps are a great indication of a player's explosiveness. All three traits are important to be a successful NFL receiver.

All the guy did is combine the concept of explosiveness to height/weight, which are two other traits that are critical to the success of WRs, especially in today's game. Unsurprisingly, the combination of being bigger and more explosive (fast forty, high vert/broad jump numbers) bodes well for WRs, percentage-wise.

BTW, those weren't the ONLY 5 guys he ran numbers on...those were just the 5 highest scoring WRs in the metric. In other words, those were the 5 guys who had the highest combination of explosiveness numbers and who were also the tallest/heaviest.

Finally, he made it clear that these are only numbers and that along with film study, help tell the story on WR prospects.

Originally posted by solidg2000:

Originally posted by kronik:

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:

Originally posted by kronik:

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:
Hill averaged 2 catches per game his senior season, never caught more than 6 passes in one game (only did it once, and it was his last season) and never had more than 30 catches in an entire season. Unsurprisingly, he's not very productive as a pro either.

But you want to dismiss the entire chart because 1 guy out of 5 is a bust....even though the other 4 are pro-bowl caliber players?

I guess the guy is a pessimist

He's admittedly biased against Moncrief, so he's at least been honest about it.

Oh is he? What a more ron.

Lol
I'm not knocking Moncreif! Geez fan boys lol
The formula is crap! You have 15 years of data and you only have 5 players ranked?
Why add the height and weight to the formula?
After adding that, then Jackson and andre j make the list
It's a failed attempt by the writer/Econ teacher

But there's no denying Moncriefs long speed and hopps

The formula is not at all failed, i'm not sure why you come to that conclusion. It's a very solid analysis, that uses a target variable to evaluate it's validity. You add height and weight because they factor into a player's success. This is basically a dumbed down linear regression using the 5 or so stated variables.

To clarify -- clearly the variables are not linearly combined in his model, and thus it's not a linear regression, but conceptually it's the same. Being in the denominator here leads to a lower outcome score (same as having a negative coefficient) and the numerator really is a linear combination, with even weights.

Heres something better then that
http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/The-Combine-Chronicles-Wide-Receiver.html

A few red flags were worth noting
-None of the 39 Combine participants that ran the 10-yard split in 1.64 or greater have become 3-year starters and only two became 1-year starters
-None of the 35 Combine participants that ran the flying 20 in 1.98 or greater have become 3-year starters and only three became 1-year starters
-Only four of the 71 Combine participants who had a vertical jump 33 inches or lower became 3-year starters and only eight became 1-year starters

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:

The three drills that are widely considered the most important for a wideout are the 40-yard dash, the broad jump and the vertical jump. The 40 measures a player's acceleration and long speed, while the jumps are a great indication of a player's explosiveness. All three traits are important to be a successful NFL receiver.

All the guy did is combine the concept of explosiveness to height/weight, which are two other traits that are critical to the success of WRs, especially in today's game. Unsurprisingly, the combination of being bigger and more explosive (fast forty, high vert/broad jump numbers) bodes well for WRs, percentage-wise.

BTW, those weren't the ONLY 5 guys he ran numbers on...those were just the 5 highest scoring WRs in the metric. In other words, those were the 5 guys who had the highest combination of explosiveness numbers and who were also the tallest/heaviest.

Finally, he made it clear that these are only numbers and that along with film study, help tell the story on WR prospects.

I know those weren't the only 5 he ran, but those are the only 5 that ranked above 107 (I think that's what it was)

And I said it was a failure because it was a failure.

My goal when I started filling spreadsheet after spreadsheet with every player's performance at the combine since 1999 was to find a metric that was predictive in any way of NFL success. To be brutally honest, I failed miserably at first.

He's trying to predict success, yet his first list had 3 good players, some young ones, and some nobodies

And I'm questioning him adding the height and weight because the height of the player doesn't affect either vert. or broad numbers. I can understand the weight as that does affect it.

Originally posted by solidg2000:

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:

The three drills that are widely considered the most important for a wideout are the 40-yard dash, the broad jump and the vertical jump. The 40 measures a player's acceleration and long speed, while the jumps are a great indication of a player's explosiveness. All three traits are important to be a successful NFL receiver.

All the guy did is combine the concept of explosiveness to height/weight, which are two other traits that are critical to the success of WRs, especially in today's game. Unsurprisingly, the combination of being bigger and more explosive (fast forty, high vert/broad jump numbers) bodes well for WRs, percentage-wise.

BTW, those weren't the ONLY 5 guys he ran numbers on...those were just the 5 highest scoring WRs in the metric. In other words, those were the 5 guys who had the highest combination of explosiveness numbers and who were also the tallest/heaviest.

Finally, he made it clear that these are only numbers and that along with film study, help tell the story on WR prospects.

I know those weren't the only 5 he ran, but those are the only 5 that ranked above 107 (I think that's what it was)

And I said it was a failure because it was a failure

My goal when I started filling spreadsheet after spreadsheet with every player’s performance at the combine since 1999 was to find a metric that was predictive in any way of NFL success. To be brutally honest, I failed miserably at first.

And I'm question him adding the height and weight because the height of the player doesn't affect either vert. or broad numbers. I can understand the weight as that does affect it.

1.) The height of a WR is an important factor IN BEING A WR. When you're also explosive, even better (according to the top 5 scores).
2.) He failed at finding a predictive metric...it was clear that he wasn't saying the list of 5 was predictive. This is what he said:

A player scoring above a 107 in this metric seems to signal a highly elevated chance at NFL success, and that is exactly what Donte Moncrief displayed at the 2014 Combine. It is important to note that neither of these metrics is truly predictive in that poor performance does not guarantee failure.

Btw
Vernon Davis is at 113
AJ Green is at 99

I liked what i saw....i would draft him if hes available in the 2nd

Originally posted by solidg2000:
Btw
Vernon Davis is at 113
AJ Green is at 99

And Jordan Matthews?

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:

Originally posted by solidg2000:

Btw
Vernon Davis is at 113
AJ Green is at 99

And Jordan Matthews?

99

Originally posted by solidg2000:

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:

Originally posted by solidg2000:
Btw
Vernon Davis is at 113
AJ Green is at 99

And Jordan Matthews?

99

Then clearly he's the next AJ Green!

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:

Originally posted by solidg2000:

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:

The three drills that are widely considered the most important for a wideout are the 40-yard dash, the broad jump and the vertical jump. The 40 measures a player's acceleration and long speed, while the jumps are a great indication of a player's explosiveness. All three traits are important to be a successful NFL receiver.

All the guy did is combine the concept of explosiveness to height/weight, which are two other traits that are critical to the success of WRs, especially in today's game. Unsurprisingly, the combination of being bigger and more explosive (fast forty, high vert/broad jump numbers) bodes well for WRs, percentage-wise.

BTW, those weren't the ONLY 5 guys he ran numbers on...those were just the 5 highest scoring WRs in the metric. In other words, those were the 5 guys who had the highest combination of explosiveness numbers and who were also the tallest/heaviest.

Finally, he made it clear that these are only numbers and that along with film study, help tell the story on WR prospects.

I know those weren't the only 5 he ran, but those are the only 5 that ranked above 107 (I think that's what it was)

And I said it was a failure because it was a failure

My goal when I started filling spreadsheet after spreadsheet with every player’s performance at the combine since 1999 was to find a metric that was predictive in any way of NFL success. To be brutally honest, I failed miserably at first.

And I'm question him adding the height and weight because the height of the player doesn't affect either vert. or broad numbers. I can understand the weight as that does affect it.

1.) The height of a WR is an important factor IN BEING A WR. When you're also explosive, even better (according to the top 5 scores).
2.) He failed at finding a predictive metric...it was clear that he wasn't saying the list of 5 was predictive. This is what he said:

A player scoring above a 107 in this metric seems to signal a highly elevated chance at NFL success, and that is exactly what Donte Moncrief displayed at the 2014 Combine. It is important to note that neither of these metrics is truly predictive in that poor performance does not guarantee failure.

1) he said he failed AT FIRST. Second attempt was much more successful
2) just because a model fails to rank beyond a certain threshold, doesn't mean its not succesful, as long as it works at some level. Here, the model works really well to say player scoring above 107 are very likely to be successful. It's rare, but if they pass it, it's a strong indicator of success. Same thing with the analysis you posted. It doesn't say that someone will be great if they run anything faster than a 1.98 flying 20, but if they're slower, they've very unlikely to be successful.

Hey solid, can I offer you a nice refreshing glass of..............

I'd rather have Moncrief than Matthews, seen lots of games with both and Moncrief is more of a downfield threat than Matthews, who I also like, but as a possession type receiver. If we could land both, I'd be one happy SEC/Niner fan.