Small rant: but why is the draft turning into an Excel spreadsheet for so many? Reading things about saving on potential APY due to the rate of growth on the positional value of position X over position Y means that in a scenario such as this you pass on the better player and draft a guy that is an a premium position because… maths.
I understand the economic stuff matters. And roster / cap management matters, but we’re living in a world where you can manipulate the cap in so many ways.
The draft is more about numbers than on field play.
“This receiver who has been great all season ran a 4.5… I think I’m out”
I mean I get it to a point, really, I do. Analytics are a thing in football and absolutely ALWAYS need to be considered, but when do we say, “you know what, analytics point to doing X, but our situation could use Y and Y has the better graded player…” and then making it happen?
Even regarding arm length… all sorts of data say not to take Bain. And you know what? I cannot argue the data points. My only question is… how many guys with his arm length have actually been given a chance to buck that trend? That is a bit of an off topic conversation piece, and I am fully aware that Bain is 99% not on our board and I have a hard time arguing it other than “I think he’s going to break the chain” - but that is such an out there take that I can’t even stand on a mountain and yell about it.
But aside from Bain, people all of a sudden think Tate isn’t a quality football player?
I saw there was a guy who ran a 4.26 last night. And JUST from that people are posting in comments, “welcome to SF!” “a Ram for sure!”
OFF OF A 40!?
I have watched zero of Brenen Thompson. His 40 will cause me to peak at him. But in a general sense there is such an over reliance on data points in football.
What happened to finding guys who can play the game and pass the eye test? What happened to using numbers to confirm hypothesis for each player?
“Wow, he ran a 4.4 but he looked slower on film…” and then going to watch it and see why that might be the case. Or “wow! He ran a 4.5 but on film he looks faster…” and then you rewatch and see that while he may not be as fast as you think he has such high quality footwork and body manipulation with ball tracking that he just plays faster than that.
To be fair, this is more of a problem outside of here. The takes here, for the most part, using numbers are a lot more nuanced and more thought out. So I can appreciate that.
This is just a Sunday morning rant on the state of the game.
This game is a major part of my life and sometimes I think people try to make it a spreadsheet simulator rather than what it should be: who plays this game better?
Again, I understand the necessity of analytics and why they exist and why they need to be valued. But sometimes it really should come down to: does this guy help our team more despite xyz because he is such a good football player?
And if that answer is yes, why quibble? Just do it. Build a winner. Surround your talent with talent. Get butts in seats.
I love this game and talking about it with all of you. I respect the hell out of guys bringing the AAV and APY and historical data to the convo. None of it is irrelevant. There is nuance to every conversation. I am not saying that the people who value this stuff are wrong.
But I am saying that sometimes just getting the best football player should matter more.
Anyways… going to watch some film soon and post about players. Thanks for letting me rant for the 2 people who read this.
This is the Mel Kiper effect multiplied by the analytic nerds who don't understand football but do understand statistics.
I think it's always kindof been this way, but it's getting worse.
Is the combine important? I think so. Years ago, there were coaches who would say the only things at the combine that really mattered were the medicals and the interviews. I still think that's why it's important. Others referred to it as the "underwear Olympics."
The thing is, you can train for these specific drills, and if you are a good athlete, and willing to put in the time, you can get really good at the drill without being a really good football player.
I think some of the measurables are also bogus and ridiculous. Joe Burrow tweeted "Considering retirement after I was informed the ball would be slipping out of my tiny hands. Please keep me in your prayers." If he had anything remotely close to an NFL defense, he would be considered a shoe-in HOF player. As it is, he's considered in the top group with Mahomes, Allen and Lamar.
Yeah, you can't play DT if you're 6-foot even and 200 lbs. But you couldn't play college ball at that size either.
What the analytics people do a really good job of is taking disparate pieces of data and then drawing conclusions based on that analysis. but sometimes they end up making the mistake of causation without correlation. Which is a fancy way of saying the numbers lie to them.
But they are also easier to talk about by the idiot draftnick talking heads. Again, Mel Kiper started this trend, it's been amplified by morons like Thor Nystrom since then. (And I believe Mel should be in the HOF in the contributor section, and should have been inducted YEARS ago. None of the draft stuff, or combine stuff as a leadup to the draft, explodes in interest without Mel. But the dirty little secret is he's not right that much, and never has been. Which doesn't make him less important in the history of the NFL.)
However, it doesn't factor in actual game play.
Anyway, that's my general agreement with your mini-rant.
 }})
