Ravens Still Don't Get it it at WR

[Culex]

Boykin needs to progress to around Hollywood's 2019 stats this upcoming year. 600-800 yards 5-8 TD's. Assuming he get's the appropriate targets. He will be the third option at best on a running team, but he should be open or at least 1V1 a lot.

That's the thing is there can only be so many targets. I'm cool with Boykin if he just shows up in clutch situations or becomes a postseason hero like Jacoby Jones.

[edromeo]

What does it take to get a 4 in production if the guy who led the NCAA in receptions is a 2

James Proche led in receptions and I had his production+market share at 3 not 2.
Conference, scheme and ypc kept Proche's production+market share from being 4.

I would have graded DuVernay's final season as 4 in production+market share even with 13.1 ypc. But, I take the whole career into account and he only has 1 year of big time production and marketshare domination.

How would you grade the receivers?

[JimZipCode]

James Proche led in receptions and I had his production+market share at 3 not 2.
Conference, scheme and ypc kept Proche's production+market share from being 4.

Scale tops out at 4? It's not a 1 to 5 scale, I gather?

[edromeo]

Scale tops out at 4? It's not a 1 to 5 scale, I gather?

Scale only goes to 4 here's the categories:

Here's my grades from the WR class 2 years ago:

SCALE: 0-4
0 – DOES NOT DISPLAY TRAIT
1 – SHOWS SOME ABILITY
2 – AVERAGE
3 – ABOVE AVERAGE
4 – EXCELLENT

---

[WNCRavensFan]

So a 4 would be like, Amari Cooper Jr year at Alabama.

[JimZipCode]

If that were true, wouldn’t all scouts (and teams for that matter) evaluate all players the same?

No, for reasons along the lines of what Ed wrote about. Different offensive coordinators might have different needs for what constitutes a "deep" pass, etc.

– And let's tell the truth, most organizations do not use a fully-described template-driven approach to evaluate all players. Most teams do a much softer "that guy's a 4, that's guy's a 3, I have this special one as a 5, he's going to be All-Pro."

,,,you have no objective way of evaluating nuance when you are using a yes/no system. (E.g., what if a guy uses active hands technique to catch balls waist-high and over 95% of the time? What if another guy does it 80%? And another one does it 57%?)

That part's easy, and probably more along the lines of how methods like this actually work. I described it as yes/no; but more likely you get (say) 5 pts for doing it over 95% of the time, 3 pts for doing it 60-80% of the time, and 1 pt for doing it 50-60% of the time.

Or something like that. A "graded" metric on that aspect. Like getting partial credit on one question on a test at school.

No one argues whether a player ran a 4.52 or a 4.75. But “exhibits general area accuracy to 45 yards” is not nearly as concrete.
...
you have no objective way of knowing the exact impact of a scouted trait on the performance of the player...I don’t see how you get away from subjectivity.

I'm not terrified of subjectivity. If I had to pick one, I'd rather have "expertise" in my scouts than "pure objectivity".

You train them in the method, you have the players cross-checked – the Ravens describe how each player is evaluated by three scouts I think: the area scout, the national position scout, and some other role – and where there's a huge discrepancy, you flag the player to be looked at again.

It's one of those things that in theory sounds like a huge source of variability, but in practice works fine, as an organization gains experience with it and develops a standard.




And anyway, we're talking about a theoretical 3-D model of a prospect. Whether we can measure it all perfectly or not, prospects have a track record of production along one dimension, they have physical traits along another dimension, and they have technical skills (to some level of refinement) along another dimension. We don't have a perfect system for either of the other two dimensions either: production is impacted by the surrounding players and the game situation; players skip the Combine either for fiscal or injury reasons, a 40 time isn't the best measure of game speed, etc etc. The "skill dimension" isn't unique that way.

[edromeo]

….
– And let's tell the truth, most organizations do not use a fully-described template-driven approach to evaluate all players. Most teams do a much softer "that guy's a 4, that's guy's a 3, I have this special one as a 5, he's going to be All-Pro."

I don't think that's what teams do at all. I think that's what draft media does. I think NFL teams take a much more wholistic approach to scouting and drafting that includes analytics, verifiable measurables, intangibles assessments via interviews with the prospect and people around the prospect and sometimes even includes private investigators.

But on the whole I think the teams are objective in their acquisition of data and subjective in the application.

[edromeo]

So a 4 would be like, Amari Cooper Jr year at Alabama.

That year I had, Hollywood, AJ Brown, N'Keal Harry and Hakeem Butler at 4 in terms of production and market share.

https://forum.russellstreetreport.co...93#post1906393

[sflegend89]

Bump

Nobody ever listens to me about this and I have been making this thread yearly since 2013

[seraph]

I changed my mind that Dobbins is p good and will come good eventually.

[ShadeRaven]

For a team that cant develop wide receivers, the Ravens FO seems to only draft project guys.

[WNCRavensFan]

For a team that cant develop wide receivers, the Ravens FO seems to only draft project guys.

Hollywood Brown is definitely not a project guy. He was the first round pick and he looks just fine.

Duvernay and Proche don't strike me as project guys either. Duvernay just needs to learn the playbook and Proche's problem is he's got mediocre athleticism for an NFL WR.