What's the difference in athletes?

#1
V

volberry

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2010
Messages
2,827
Likes
401
#1
Some are HS all americans then go to college and bust! Some are college all americans then go to the pros and BUST! Some are marginproducers in college (we have hada lot of those) yet go on to be probowlers and have extendd careers. Can somebody please explain how this appens. I get frustrated seeing the Arian Fosters, etc.of the world leave and blow up and we get almost no production on the hill.
 
#2
#2
volberry said:
Some are HS all americans then go to college and bust! Some are college all americans then go to the pros and BUST! Some are marginproducers in college (we have hada lot of those) yet go on to be probowlers and have extendd careers. Can somebody please explain how this appens. I get frustrated seeing the Arian Fosters, etc.of the world leave and blow up and we get almost no production on the hill.
Click to expand...

Fosters line here wasn't that great. But for most it's a system thing.

Tebow and Eric Couch for example. They looked great in college because of the system they were in. But no one runs that in the NFL.

Sometimes it's the opposite and a guy finds a system that fits his skill set better in the NFL. Although I can't think of any right now.

As far as being a bust out of high school, you have a couple of main reasons:

1. They were overrated to begin with because it's difficult to evaluate how good the competition someone plays against is.

2. They either lacked the work ethic to continue improving or had legal issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3
#3
volberry said:
Some are HS all americans then go to college and bust! Some are college all americans then go to the pros and BUST! Some are marginproducers in college (we have hada lot of those) yet go on to be probowlers and have extendd careers. Can somebody please explain how this appens. I get frustrated seeing the Arian Fosters, etc.of the world leave and blow up and we get almost no production on the hill.
Click to expand...

It's called timing and drive
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4
#4
volberry said:
Some are HS all americans then go to college and bust! Some are college all americans then go to the pros and BUST! Some are marginproducers in college (we have hada lot of those) yet go on to be probowlers and have extendd careers. Can somebody please explain how this appens. I get frustrated seeing the Arian Fosters, etc.of the world leave and blow up and we get almost no production on the hill.
Click to expand...

He only has the second most rushing yards in UT history.....................
 
  • Like
Reactions: 11 people
#5
#5
Easy. He didn't have enough tacos to eat when he was here, so his performance suffered. Houston has great tex mex.
 
#9
#9
A lot of guys from high school going to the college game don't adjust to the speed of the game. Some are just over rated and some just don't have the work ethic to make it.
 
#10
#10
Biopsyman said:
Remember Coker took some carries as well.. Would have been number 1
Click to expand...

So did every other RB pretty much.........AF had nearly 100 more carries than anyone else. But "almost no production on the Hill" is a rather ignorant statement IMO.
 
#11
#11
Pay close attention to the career of Johnny Me to see how backyard football doesn't translate to the NFL, especially in a sh** organization like Cleveland with sh** talent and a qb who thinks he's a god. It'll be too much fun watching the train wreck. Now, if he had a humble attitude, a tremendous defense and surrounding offensive talent, and a coach that knew how to devise a system that hides his weaknesses, then he would have a chance (*Russell Wilson*) but he has NOTHING.
 
#13
#13
BearCat204 said:
So did every other RB pretty much.........AF had nearly 100 more carries than anyone else. But "almost no production on the Hill" is a rather ignorant statement IMO.
Click to expand...

He was inconsistant. For every 200 yard game he had 3 fumbles and crunch time. He lost us a lot of games. Nob ody had a good feeling of him while he was here. In Houston they love him because he rarely makes mistakes and only produces. We couldn't ride Foster like uga did Moreno or bama did the last 3 rb they had.
 
#14
#14
volberry said:
He was inconsistant. For every 200 yard game he had 3 fumbles and crunch time. He lost us a lot of games. Nob ody had a good feeling of him while he was here. In Houston they love him because he rarely makes mistakes and only produces. We couldn't ride Foster like uga did Moreno or bama did the last 3 rb they had.
Click to expand...

AF didnt fumble nearly as many times as you are trying to suggest. Yes, it seemed as though every time he fumbled, it was at the worst time possible, but he didnt lose us a lot of games.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#17
#17
volberry said:
There has neve been a spread qb succeed in the nfl. And like another poster said it may have to do with the system.
Click to expand...

Cam Newton. Russell Wilson. Colin Kaepernick. Drew Brees. Aaron Rodgers.

I consider all of those guys to be succeeding
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#18
#18
It's what makes football so great. Each position is truly dependent on every other position.

A-Rod will hit 40HRs...it doesn't matter who he plays for.
LeBron will avg 30 pts...it doesn't matter who he plays for.

Give a good WR a terrible QB.
Give a good RB a terrible OLine.
 
#19
#19
Vol8188 said:
Cam Newton. Russell Wilson. Colin Kaepernick. Drew Brees. Aaron Rodgers.

I consider all of those guys to be succeeding
Click to expand...

Good point. So maybe like another person said the other guys like Tebow, etc. just didn't have it anyway as an athlete.
 
#20
#20
volberry said:
Some are HS all americans then go to college and bust! Some are college all americans then go to the pros and BUST! Some are marginproducers in college (we have hada lot of those) yet go on to be probowlers and have extendd careers. Can somebody please explain how this appens. I get frustrated seeing the Arian Fosters, etc.of the world leave and blow up and we get almost no production on the hill.
Click to expand...

When viewed from the perspective of an individual player outward, I can understand how it would seem that "making it" to the next level is less predictable than it really is.

When viewed as a group from a birds eye view, a group of players has a quantifiable attrition rate. Don't quote these numbers, but it is something like 30% of five star players out of high school, 15% of four star players and 5% of three star players go on to the pro's. That doesn't mean that the players will go on to be successful, just that there is a quantifiable rate of pass-through from one level to the next. That also shows that the majority of players don't actually pan out, not if playing in the professional ranks is the measure of success.

I read something last night that blew my mind. In Stumbling on Wins by D.J. Berri and M.B. Schmidt, they look at the economy of the NFL draft. The findings are basically that the NFL draft, especially when looking at quarterbacks as an example, is really bad at determining actual value.

When looking at the performance of the first QB's selected from 1990 to 2004, only 5 had stats after five years that would consider them "above average." Those five were: Carson Palmer, Michael Vick, Chad Pennington, Peyton Manning and Steve McNair. When viewed another way, that is the top QBs that entered the NFL for each of those given years, only 6 of 15 were the first QBs chosen. Those were Carson Palmer, David Carr, Peyton Manning, Tony Banks, Steve McNair and Drew Bledsoe. Only Carson Palmer, Peyton Manning and Steve McNair were both the first pick at their position and had careers that could objectively be considered "above average."

Two of the top QB's produced during that period were undrafted (Jake Delhomme and Jeff Garcia), and 8 of 15 of the best QB's produced during that time were drafted in this order: 3,3,4,5,5,8,NA, NA. In other words, being first drafted at your position, especially if you are QB, has a weak relationship to your success.

For UT fans there is an interesting note. Both the BEST and WORST QBs drafted first during that period, using the methodology described in the book, came from UT. That is Peyton Manning (1998, first round, first pick) and Heath Shuler (1994, first round, third pick). Both were Heisman runner's up, right? In other words "draft position gets the quarterback on the field, but draft position doesn't appear to tell us anything about how well the quarterback plays when he's on the field." About Shuler, the authors noted that "f the Redskins were looking for leadership-and if people in Congress are examples of leaders-the choice of Shuler might make sense. With respect to production on the field, though, it is pretty clear that Washington's choice...didn't quite work out." After a comprehensive study, the authors' bottom line, is that "teams in the first round, especially at the top of the first round, should be making every effort to trade down."

Another interesting note: the authors addressed the factors that are statistically significant when drafting a QB, and factors that are statistically insignificant (in other words, here are the actual things that the numbers indicate matter to those choosing the QB, even though the data shows that where the QBs are chosen in the draft is unrelated to his performance).

Significant
1. Player's performance at the combine
2. Height
3. Body Mass Index (between 27.8 and 29.1 is most valuable).
4. 40 yard dash time
5. Wonderlic score
6. Playing for an FCS school

Insignificant
1. Performance of the Quarterback's college team
2. Race of Quarterback
 
Last edited:
#21
#21
daj2576 said:
When viewed from the perspective of an individual player outward, I can understand how it would seem that "making it" to the next level is less predictable than it really is.

When viewed as a group from a birds eye view, a group of players has a quantifiable attrition rate. Don't quote these numbers, but it is something like 30% of five star players out of high school, 15% of four star players and 5% of three star players go on to the pro's. That doesn't mean that the players will go on to be successful, just that there is a quantifiable rate of pass-through from one level to the next. That also shows that the majority of players don't actually pan out, not if playing in the professional ranks is the measure of success.

I read something last night that blew my mind. In Stumbling on Wins by D.J. Berri and M.B. Schmidt, they look at the economy of the NFL draft. The findings are basically that the NFL draft, especially when looking at quarterbacks as an example, is really bad at determining actual value.

When looking at the performance of the first QB's selected from 1990 to 2004, only 5 had stats after five years that would consider them "above average." Those five were: Carson Palmer, Michael Vick, Chad Pennington, Peyton Manning and Steve McNair. When viewed another way, that is the top QBs that entered the NFL for each of those given years, only 6 of 15 were the first QBs chosen. Those were Carson Palmer, David Carr, Peyton Manning, Tony Banks, Steve McNair and Drew Bledsoe. Only Carson Palmer, Peyton Manning and Steve McNair were both the first pick at their position and had careers that could objectively be considered "above average."

Two of the top QB's produced during that period were undrafted (Jake Delhomme and Jeff Garcia), and 8 of 15 of the best QB's produced during that time were drafted in this order: 3,3,4,5,5,8,NA, NA. In other words, being first drafted at your position, especially if you are QB, has a weak relationship to your success.

For UT fans there is an interesting note. Both the BEST and WORST QBs drafted first during that period, using the methodology described in the book, came from UT. That is Peyton Manning (1998, first round, first pick) and Heath Shuler (1994, first round, third pick). Both were Heisman runner's up, right? In other words "draft position gets the quarterback on the field, but draft position doesn't appear to tell us anything about how well the quarterback plays when he's on the field." About Shuler, the authors noted that "f the Redskins were looking for leadership-and if people in Congress are examples of leaders-the choice of Shuler might make sense. With respect to production on the field, though, it is pretty clear that Washington's choice...didn't quite work out." After a comprehensive study, the authors' bottom line, is that "teams in the first round, especially at the top of the first round, should be making every effort to trade down."

Another interesting note: the authors addressed the factors that are statistically significant when drafting a QB, and factors that are statistically insignificant (in other words, here are the actual things that the numbers indicate matter to those choosing the QB, even though the data shows that where the QBs are chosen in the draft is unrelated to his performance).

Significant
1. Player's performance at the combine
2. Height
3. Body Mass Index (between 27.8 and 29.1 is most valuable).
4. 40 yard dash time
5. Wonderlic score
6. Playing for an FCS school

Insignificant
1. Performance of the Quarterback's college team
2. Race of Quarterback
Click to expand...


I'm confused.
 
#22
#22
volberry said:
I'm confused.
Click to expand...

Unless you're considering Peyton Manning or Andrew Luck, don't waste the top pick on a QB. It's a crap-shoot and more times than not, you wind up with Ryan Leaf or Heath Shuler than Luck or Manning.

Hope that helps. :)
 
#23
#23
Boca Vol said:
Unless you're considering Peyton Manning or Andrew Luck, don't waste the top pick on a QB. It's a crap-shoot and more times than not, you wind up with Ryan Leaf or Heath Shuler than Luck or Manning.

Hope that helps. :)
Click to expand...

It's worse than that.

It is basically that NFL scouts and decision makers are really bad at picking players that matter. Using QB's as an example, there is a mountain of evidence to show that what even the "experts" value in a player, any player, is unlikely to actually predict success.

You can look at the conundrum two ways.

The first is that recruiting services do a good job of differentiating the talent pool at-large, and that you can mathematically define how that pool will progress through college to the pros (and the success that pool will have in college).

The second is that the NFL is really not good at combing through that talent in a way that predicts success in the NFL. That means that the draft, as an economic system, substantially over-inflates the value of incoming players because the traditional metric of evaluating talent is inherently and perhaps fatally flawed.
 
#24
#24
daj2576 said:
It's worse than that.

It is basically that NFL scouts and decision makers are really bad at picking players that matter. Using QB's as an example, there is a mountain of evidence to show that what even the "experts" value in a player, any player, is unlikely to actually predict success.

You can look at the conundrum two ways.

The first is that recruiting services do a good job of differentiating the talent pool at-large, and that you can mathematically define how that pool will progress through college to the pros (and the success that pool will have in college).

The second is that the NFL is really not good at combing through that talent in a way that predicts success in the NFL. That means that the draft, as an economic system, substantially over-inflates the value of incoming players because the traditional metric of evaluating talent is inherently and perhaps fatally flawed.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind the owners and teams need to sell tickets. Missing out on a highly rated QB is somehow more acceptable than missing out on a DT. DT's don't sell tickets but QB's do.

Remember the groan from Texans fans when they selected Mario Williams over Reggie Bush? Mario Williams wasn't an exciting pick but he was a good player for them.

If I owned a team, I would probably never draft a QB or RB if I had a top 10 pick. Cleveland taking Manziel late in the 1st round makes sense. He creates the Buzz of a top 5 pick without having to use a top 5 pick.
 
#25
#25
Boca Vol said:
Keep in mind the owners and teams need to sell tickets. Missing out on a highly rated QB is somehow more acceptable than missing out on a DT. DT's don't sell tickets but QB's do.

Remember the groan from Texans fans when they selected Mario Williams over Reggie Bush? Mario Williams wasn't an exciting pick but he was a good player for them.

If I owned a team, I would probably never draft a QB or RB if I had a top 10 pick. Cleveland taking Manziel late in the 1st round makes sense. He creates the Buzz of a top 5 pick without having to use a top 5 pick.
Click to expand...

That is a good point and it goes to the very real aversion that fans and sports experts have to conforming their perception to reality.

If I was an owner, I would hope that I could weather the storm of short term fan criticism to gain the long term success that getting better athletes, cheaper, would produce.

Everything I am reading suggests that the NFL draft is ripe for a "Money Ball" Oakland A's style shake-up. Wasn't it that from like 1999-2004 the A's (the team with the smallest budget) and the Yankee's (the team with the largest budget, who economically behave like the NFL where expensive players are viewed as better) were within 4 games a year of each other?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top