Page 37 of 112 FirstFirst ... 3536373839 ... LastLast
Results 433 to 444 of 1344
  1. #433

    Re: Ravens Still Don't Get it it at WR

    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post
    The only thing that bugs me about this, is the volume vs efficiency question. The way you use "production" makes it sound like volume is the only consideration. As if a high-volume / low-efficiency player would be better than a low-volume / high-efficiency one.
    I feel a little bit like I am banging my head against the proverbial brick wall on this one.

    What I am saying is that when a player doesn't have a lot of production in college, I am neutral on him. I can't include this (important) factor in my assessment. It hampers my ability to evaluate and therefore dampens my confidence in selecting him.

    "Low Volume" (followed by anything) means "Incomplete Grade. Lack of information.

    I am trying to draw a distinction between saying I am giving that player a low rating...versus, I see that player as a risky pick because I am unable to fully assess him.

    If he had loads of production, I would have put him in Quad 4 and happily draft him earlier than round three. Instead, I think we need to adjust for the risk of an incomplete grade, and I think it was reasonable to use a 3rd round pick on him, betting on the idea that a different scheme, and health, will reveal him to be the undervalued Quad 4 player you see him as.

    I'm fine using that Day Two pick on him, but that's different than saying I am convinced he will prove to be a top producer in the NFL.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post
    I'd feel happier if you listed some great NFL players from this tier [3].
    Quote Originally Posted by WNCRavensFan View Post
    Side note... among SPARQ scores there is one highly drafted WR who is surprisingly low:

    99% Henry Ruggs
    98% Chase Claypool
    95% Denzel Mims
    93% Jaelen Reagor
    89% Brandon Aiyuk
    86% Michael Pittman
    82% Justin Jefferson
    71% CeeDee Lamb
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    22% Jerry Jeudy

    (no socre - Tee Higgins, Laviska Shenault, KJ Hamler, Van Jefferson)
    So there you go. Lamb and Jeudy could be seen as Quad 3.

    By the way, I have concerns that Claypool and Reagor as Quad 2 types who I was happy the Ravens steered clear of in round one, but may have been okay gambling on them later in the draft. That said, if negative comments on Boykin's hands were misguided, then I see Claypool and Reagor as bigger bust potential based on documented issues with hands.

    Antonio Freeman (Baltimore kid) was that kind of Quad 3 guy as a third round pick for the Packers. Hines Ward was smallish without great speed and learned at the combine that he didn't have an ACL in one knee. But he had production. Brandon Marshall fits here, a fourth rounder because of slow 40 times. DeAndre Hopkins ran a slow (4.57) at the combine but was drafted in the first round anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post
    Mark Clayton was a Quadrant 4 guy. Over 3000 yards and 30 TDs in his college career, 4.43 in the forty and 6.95 in the three-cone.
    I agree. That's how you get selected in the first round. Quad 4 could also be seen as High Ceiling/High Floor. (Whereas Quad 2 is High Ceiling/Low Floor). That's still no guarantee it will work. I recall Mark dealt with injuries as a rookie. Then he had a good sophomore season (67 receptions for 939 yards and 5 touchdowns). And then in Flacco's rookie season Clayton was pretty average and Mason started to get all the targets. The Ravens traded Mark to St. Louis (and used the resulting pick to take Tyrod Taylor in 2011) and drafted Torrey Smith, also in 2011, to fill Clayton's role. Mark torn is patella tendon in St. Louis and was never the same.

    Speaking of Ravens first round WRs, Travis Taylor was a classic Quad 2 player. Another Steve Spurrier WR who struggled in the NFL. Travis had just 72 receptions for 1,150 yards and fifteen touchdowns in eleven career starts.

    Red Flag!

    But he ran a 4.4 forty, was tall and was a team captain. He also shined in some big games, earning Most Valuable Player honors in the '99 Orange Bowl with seven catches for 159 yards and two touchdowns. In the 2000 Florida Citrus Bowl, he had eleven catches for 156 yards and three touchdowns.

    That's what I mean about being nervous when there isn't a track record, and why I am reluctant to allow some evidence of 'can-do' override the full record.


    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post
    Boykin needs to "land the plane" or "realize the potential", or whatever the language is. 200 yds a season is not going to cut it. Absolutely.
    We completely agree here. I never said he can't. I merely said I have questions about him and am anxious to see him answer those questions this year.





  2. #434

    Re: Ravens Still Don't Get it it at WR

    Quote Originally Posted by seraph View Post
    Pass catchers who can catch the ball but can't run the route tree that well would be traditional blocking fullbacks. Think about it....

    Catching the ball is just reps of hand-eye and we'll find out who put in the work and which players didn't.
    And pass catchers who run can run great routes but can't catch become cornerbacks.

    I don't necessarily agree with you that guys with bad hands are just lazy.

    Can we think of players who struggled with drops, worked on it, and became great receivers? I'm sure there are out there, but I can't think of examples.





  3. #435
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Posts
    11,098

    Re: Ravens Still Don't Get it it at WR

    Quote Originally Posted by Shas View Post
    And pass catchers who run can run great routes but can't catch become cornerbacks.

    I don't necessarily agree with you that guys with bad hands are just lazy.

    Can we think of players who struggled with drops, worked on it, and became great receivers? I'm sure there are out there, but I can't think of examples.
    Like anything else, you can improve marginally on a skill. You can get faster, you can be a better blocker, you can get stronger, you can improve your route-running. But at some point you run into the ceiling of what you were born with.

    Look, I never thought of Jacoby Jones as lazy. He just looked awkward catching the ball. 12 hours a day on a JUGS was not going to change his catching mechanics. I'm sure he practiced plenty and was coached by some of the brightest football minds on the planet. But he was never going to look like Anquan Boldin snatching a football.

    (Of course he was great a fielding punts and interestingly his two huge post-season catches in 2013 were both fielded like a punt.)
    "Chin up, chest out."





  4. #436

    Re: Ravens Still Don't Get it it at WR

    Quote Originally Posted by HotInHere View Post
    Like anything else, you can improve marginally on a skill. You can get faster, you can be a better blocker, you can get stronger, you can improve your route-running. But at some point you run into the ceiling of what you were born with.

    Look, I never thought of Jacoby Jones as lazy. He just looked awkward catching the ball. 12 hours a day on a JUGS was not going to change his catching mechanics. I'm sure he practiced plenty and was coached by some of the brightest football minds on the planet. But he was never going to look like Anquan Boldin snatching a football.

    (Of course he was great a fielding punts and interestingly his two huge post-season catches in 2013 were both fielded like a punt.)
    Jacoby was from a different planet. Never sure what to make of him. But those are interesting names. JJ was never going to have AB's hands. And AB was never going to have JJ's speed, or height for that matter. (Jacoby was 2 inches taller and ran a fast, but not blazing 4.50 40; Anquan ran a 4.73). We can all agree on who the better receiver was.

    I'm with you that you are born with certain physical traits that include hand size, hand-eye coordination, body flex/control, height, speed, stride, twitch.... And you can only improve on these traits so much.

    Where you can improve are skills. Traits are innately your DNA; working them out allows you to max-out that last 10% you refer to. But skills are 100% learned and are completely dependent on dedication to your craft. In college receivers can get by with their athleticism and you often see them coming into the league needing to work on route running. Or reading defenses. Or how to plant and sink hips to make cuts. Or how to hand fight to get off the line, Or little tricks to get separation.

    As with all positions guys get better when they work on these skills. But if you don't have certain natural physical traits no amount of work can overcome that.

    Some of pass catching is a skill. Guys who don't use consistent hand positioning can be taught to improve. But I think most of it comes down to instinctual hand-eye and concentration traits that some guys never overcome.





  5. #437

    Re: Ravens Still Don't Get it it at WR

    Quote Originally Posted by Shas View Post
    I feel a little bit like I am banging my head against the proverbial brick wall on this one.

    What I am saying is that when a player doesn't have a lot of production in college, I am neutral on him. I can't include this (important) factor in my assessment. It hampers my ability to evaluate and therefore dampens my confidence in selecting him.

    "Low Volume" (followed by anything) means "Incomplete Grade. Lack of information.

    I am trying to draw a distinction between saying I am giving that player a low rating...versus, I see that player as a risky pick because I am unable to fully assess him.

    If he had loads of production, I would have put him in Quad 4 and happily draft him earlier than round three. Instead, I think we need to adjust for the risk of an incomplete grade, and I think it was reasonable to use a 3rd round pick on him, betting on the idea that a different scheme, and health, will reveal him to be the undervalued Quad 4 player you see him as.

    I'm fine using that Day Two pick on him, but that's different than saying I am convinced he will prove to be a top producer in the NFL.





    So there you go. Lamb and Jeudy could be seen as Quad 3.

    By the way, I have concerns that Claypool and Reagor as Quad 2 types who I was happy the Ravens steered clear of in round one, but may have been okay gambling on them later in the draft. That said, if negative comments on Boykin's hands were misguided, then I see Claypool and Reagor as bigger bust potential based on documented issues with hands.

    Antonio Freeman (Baltimore kid) was that kind of Quad 3 guy as a third round pick for the Packers. Hines Ward was smallish without great speed and learned at the combine that he didn't have an ACL in one knee. But he had production. Brandon Marshall fits here, a fourth rounder because of slow 40 times. DeAndre Hopkins ran a slow (4.57) at the combine but was drafted in the first round anyway.



    I agree. That's how you get selected in the first round. Quad 4 could also be seen as High Ceiling/High Floor. (Whereas Quad 2 is High Ceiling/Low Floor). That's still no guarantee it will work. I recall Mark dealt with injuries as a rookie. Then he had a good sophomore season (67 receptions for 939 yards and 5 touchdowns). And then in Flacco's rookie season Clayton was pretty average and Mason started to get all the targets. The Ravens traded Mark to St. Louis (and used the resulting pick to take Tyrod Taylor in 2011) and drafted Torrey Smith, also in 2011, to fill Clayton's role. Mark torn is patella tendon in St. Louis and was never the same.

    Speaking of Ravens first round WRs, Travis Taylor was a classic Quad 2 player. Another Steve Spurrier WR who struggled in the NFL. Travis had just 72 receptions for 1,150 yards and fifteen touchdowns in eleven career starts.

    Red Flag!

    But he ran a 4.4 forty, was tall and was a team captain. He also shined in some big games, earning Most Valuable Player honors in the '99 Orange Bowl with seven catches for 159 yards and two touchdowns. In the 2000 Florida Citrus Bowl, he had eleven catches for 156 yards and three touchdowns.

    That's what I mean about being nervous when there isn't a track record, and why I am reluctant to allow some evidence of 'can-do' override the full record.




    We completely agree here. I never said he can't. I merely said I have questions about him and am anxious to see him answer those questions this year.
    Responding to just one example out of many, but Brandon Marshall, if anything, was quad 2. He had ~300 yards more than Boykin during their respective final seasons but did nothing at all during his first three years in college. And Marshall played against a lower level of competition. In his junior year Marshall played 10 games and posted just 8 catches for 84 yards and no TDs.


    Meanwhile his measurables were damn good. 4.54 is hardly slow for his size, and he had an elite frame and explosiveness numbers.





  6. #438
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    11,805
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Ravens Still Don't Get it it at WR

    Deebo Samuel SR year is a good comp to Miles Boykin college production





  7. #439
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    24,538

    Re: Ravens Still Don't Get it it at WR

    Quote Originally Posted by Shas View Post
    I feel a little bit like I am banging my head against the proverbial brick wall on this one.
    Me too, a little.



    Quote Originally Posted by Shas View Post
    If he had loads of production, I would have put him in Quad 4 and happily draft him earlier...
    Yah, so this is part of what I was trying to say. "Loads of production" does not ALL BY ITSELF make for a draftable WR, to me.

    The opposite of Boykin's profile would not be a "perfect WR prospect". Instead it'd be a WR who racked up loads of production stats – because he played in a high-volume offense with a decent QB, and got a TON of looks. This would not be proof that the player is any good. He could drop 20% of his targets; but if the team doesn't have any other good options (and they're behind a lot), they're going to keep throwing to him. If his QB happens to be like Andrew Luck or something – a truly great college passer – then he might never have adjusted to an imperfect throw in his life. He could be The Flash and take every tunnel screen to the house against his conference's level of competition, but not know a damn thing about running a route or getting off the line vs press.

    High volume statistical production is not enough to answer the questions we must have about any WR prospect. To "decode" or "verify" that statistical production, we will have to go to the tape and do a little scouting. We'll have to engage in exactly the exercise that produced that positive eval of Boykin.

    High production raises the same questions as low production does. Or some of the same questions, anyway.



    Quote Originally Posted by Shas View Post
    Instead, I think we need to adjust for the risk of an incomplete grade, and I think it was reasonable to use a 3rd round pick on him...
    I liked Boykin in the 3rd more than I liked Marquise in the first, at the time. Measurables have their place. I don't think I'll ever NOT be concerned about a 5-9 170# WR. (And injured!) That's teeny for the NFL. Hell, it's small for the real world, even.

    Marquise seems to be in the process of proving me wrong. Which: great. Fine with me if he rubs my stupid nose in it this year.



    Quote Originally Posted by Shas View Post
    I am trying to draw a distinction between saying I am giving that player a low rating versus, I see that player as a risky pick because I am unable to fully assess him.
    I getcha. You're not saying there IS info to assign a bad grade. You're saying there ISN'T (sufficient) info to assign a grade at all, either high or low.

    I didn't hear you say the implicit corollary, which is that this "incomplete" rating must be better than a low rating.



    Quote Originally Posted by Shas View Post
    I agree [about Mark Clayton]. That's how you get selected in the first round. Quad 4 could also be seen as High Ceiling/High Floor. (Whereas Quad 2 is High Ceiling/Low Floor).
    Except Clayton was a fairly low ceiling pick. At least compared to other first rounders. His measurables were fine, but they weren't blow-the-doors-off great in any way.

    I think an offense needs some high-ceiling guys, to be truly effective. I think that teams drafting as low as the Ravens usually do, need to take on some risk in order to get high-ceiling guys. And I think we did, in the case of Marquise. (Boykin in the 3rd is a lot less risky, to my mind.)

    The risk with Marquise was not the same kind of bust / can't play / bad hands risk that you've been talking about in these posts. Instead it's rehab risk with the Lisfranc, and durability risk with his size. But it's real enough.



    Quote Originally Posted by Shas View Post
    By the way, I have concerns that Claypool and Reagor as Quad 2 types who I was happy the Ravens steered clear of in round one...
    I had concerns about them too.



    Quote Originally Posted by Shas View Post
    And pass catchers who run can run great routes but can't catch become cornerbacks.
    Ha.

    One buddy of mine, with whom I used to co-own fantasy sports teams in the 90s, used to have a fond saying he'd dust off whenever a DB dropped an interception:

    "If he could catch, he'd be a wide receiver."

    One of my favorite football aphorisms. I swear I'm reminded of that almost every other game. My wife's gotta be tired of hearing it.
    Last edited by JimZipCode; 06-02-2020 at 07:55 PM.





  8. #440
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    1,760

    Cool Re: Ravens Still Don't Get it it at WR

    Quote Originally Posted by Shas View Post
    And pass catchers who run can run great routes but can't catch become cornerbacks.

    I don't necessarily agree with you that guys with bad hands are just lazy.

    Can we think of players who struggled with drops, worked on it, and became great receivers? I'm sure there are out there, but I can't think of examples.
    What about Owens? He always had drop issues but he was a great receiver!





  9. #441
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    11,805
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Ravens Still Don't Get it it at WR

    I agree that Boykin had drops last year. But those drops were uncharacteristic to his college profile.
    Boykin was a sure handed prospect. His hands were a strength of his game.





  10. #442

    Re: Ravens Still Don't Get it it at WR

    Jim the mistake you made is a common mistake with people of not looking at the fundamentals. Sure, Hollywood is small but the kid is fundamentally sound and he's difficult to catch in the open field. You play a guy to their strengths and Hollywood had a TON of upside as a prospect. He was explosive in college and dare I say, elusive.





  11. #443
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    11,805
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Ravens Still Don't Get it it at WR

    Everyone has there own system for evaluating players.

    I like to mirror the processes I’ve read or been told about from coaches and scouting because I think it removes a lot of subjective creep that can occur when looking at prospects.

    Anyhow list WR traits and measurables that you feel are important to the position and apply that same grading criteria to every prospect.

    I think it works because every prospect has flaws and strengths and there are several traits that matter and contribute to their draftability ranking.

    Anyhow, based on his film and college metrics, Boykin is the type of prospect whose success in the NFL won’t be limited by height, speed, agility or hands. Physically he’s a plus prospect. He also had a higher catch rate then Hollywood which is only mentioned as reminder that drops weren’t any issue for him.

    That doesn’t mean he’ll succeed. There are many other traits required for transition. His film makes me optimistic.
    Imho IF Boykin and Hollywood switched usage from last year Boykin would have a much different perception. Boykin lined up at X a lot. That’s typically vs the opposing team’s top CB.
    Didn’t get schemed open through motion or receive easy catch and run targets like screens.

    On film i recall at least 1 mistakes/miscommunication with Lamar on a drag route. There were also a couple drops early. And sometimes that’s all it takes especially in an offense that doesn’t throw the ball a lot and has to feed the #1 WR in the draft.

    Also, I think on film you can see Boykin improve his ability to separate and get open as the season went on.

    These are the reasons why I’m optimistic about
    Boykin. Not saying he’s gonna catch 70 balls. But in this offense he can become a solid contributor in the passing game.





  12. #444
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    24,538

    Re: Ravens Still Don't Get it it at WR

    Quote Originally Posted by Shas View Post
    I feel a little bit like I am banging my head against the proverbial brick wall on this one.
    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post
    Me too, a little.
    Y'know, I went for the quip there almost reflexively. But on reflection, I don't really feel like I'm banging my head against a wall "trying to get thru to you" or anything. I suspect we're at least 75% to 85% in agreement overall. We certainly agree that Boykin hasn't established himself yet as a productive NFL receiver, by whatever metric we use for that.

    The one point I've repeated is that your quadrant system completely ignores the whole dimension of scouting. We can put players on a stat volume - athleticism plane, but it doesn't convey any information about skills. If the quadrants are on an x-y axis, scouting would be on the z-axis: invisible from this frame.

    If you're talking quadrants, and I'm talking skills, then we're talking past each other. Not engaging on the same content.



    Regarding Boykin, the prospect: from a scouting standpoint there's zero evidence to support any concern about his hands. Maybe he'll develop the yips going forward; but off his college tape, "hands" was a strong part of his game. At the NFL level, I can't say there's "zero" evidence for hands-concern, but there certainly isn't much. I only remember one (reg season) drop, and that was early, and I think a contested catch situation. Mostly what we've seen from Boykins hands in the NFL is the same smoothness and catch-technique we saw on his college tape.

    The legit question about Boykin the prospect has to do with running NFL-caliber routes. There were some gaps in his resume coming out of college, around speed breaks. Edgar Allen made a rookie rundown vid of Boykin on YouTube; he called out a few instances where Boykin was slowing on his breaks. It's a common-enough thing for young WRs that it's not especially concerning; not uniquely disqualifying or whatever. It's a regular, normal stage in the development process. But that is a concrete skill-area where Boykin must show improvement in year 2.



    I have another potential concern about Boykin, that I haven't heard anywhere else. It's not something I'm at all sure about, just a lingering thought in the back of my mind. At the risk of psychoanalyzing a kid I've never met:

    Is there a possibility that he's not "alpha" enough to assert his athletic traits the way he needs to, to win in the NFL?

    I'm not talking about "toughness". No one who's seen Boykin busting his ass downfield to sustain a block and help his teammate score, can sustain questions about his "toughness". I will ruthlessly make fun of anyone here who alleges softness.

    BUT.

    Great WRs tend to have a showboating diva aspect to them. An air of "That's MY mothafucken ball!" Terrell Owens, Antonio Brown. The title of Keyshawn Johnson's autobio. You need to be a little bit of an asshole. I wouldn't call DK Metcalf a great WR; but he clearly has enough of that mindset to translate his athletic traits to NFL productivity. Hollywood seems like an utterly charming kid; but he's clearly got some showboat to him, too.

    Boykin comes across as a mature thoughtful guy in interviews. In his college offense, he was a team-first player, showing toughness in giving up his body to help his teammates to make plays. So far in the NFL he's been a quiet, shut-your-mouth-and-do-your-job, take what the offense gives guy.

    Is Boykin too nice? Is his personality such that he'll always be a hard-grinding, do-the-dirty-work supporting player, and never a star? Block his face off, and go deep on run-off decoy routes all day long; but not run thru a DB to win a contested-catch situation?

    There's worse things to be, of course. (Torrey Smith was "nice" too.) And anyway, that's a whole lot of freight to put on very damn little evidence. It's not something I'm gonna parade around as "the answer" on him. Just a lingering question in the back of my mind.





Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Link To Mobile Site
var infolinks_pid = 3297965; var infolinks_wsid = 0; //—->