Ravens Still Don't Get it it at WR

[G54377]

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.

[Shas]

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.

I agree that we don't disagree on his evaluation...we disagree on the factors that we want to include in his evaluation. I think I have been pretty consistent in talking about the factors I look at in my "system" of evaluation.

Just to be clear, here is how I sketch out the most recent WR draft picks:



I understand it is debatable wheter Duvernay, for instance, belongs on the right side of the Y for his speed, toughness and hands...or the left side because of his lack of flexibility, route running, twitchiness, size and separation. But you get the general idea.

Regardless, I totally agree it leaves out the third, Z dimension, which is Value. Value is how four objective dimensions net out. But how you net it out can be highly subjective. Different front offices may want to put more weight on a single factor, particularly based on the team's offensive system, or excuse the lack of another. They ask important, 'why' questions and adjust based on their answers. Which is what the Z axis would represent.

For Boykin I've been pretty stubborn in saying that we lack data to put him any higher than that in the Y axis. I think he objectively belongs there based on the stats. Rather than arguing that he needs to move up, you are entirely correct in asking the "why" questions and projecting where he belongs on this third dimension of value.

Here is how it might look for Boykin:



That's the best I can do to try to show it. I'm labelling the Z, or 'value' axis, as high or low ceiling.

I understand your point that you are looking at scouting reports and reasons why his production was limited...and of course the Raven's have their own scouting of Boykin...that pushes him positively out on the Z axis.

I admit I am totally not looking at the Z axis because I don't feel I have enough information. I'm just a fan who, as I said, is willing to go with what I see, but not with what I think I see, based on scouting reports. I've understood from the beginning that you are taking my position as a starting point and explaining why I should take the leap of faith with you on where his eventual value will land. Not arguing that you're wrong, but not yet agreeing with you until I see more. Until then I'm sticking in my two dimensional world.

Regarding Boykin, the prospect: from a scouting standpoint there's zero evidence to support any concern about his hands.

Like I've admitted, I recalled reading about his hands in the past, and the first draft profile site I Googled mentioned it as an issue. I'm not stuck on that. I would not grade his physical traits so highly if I did.

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?.

My first instinct was to scoff, but I see your point.

I saw the Duvernay interview after the draft and the dude seems like he's all business. Harbaugh compared his attitude to receivers like Boldin, SS Sr, and Mason---and I admit I saw that as a big positive.

I don't know if it's a requirement, however. Seems like Marvin Harrison was pretty low key (car wash shooting stories aside). Larry Fitzgerald seems pretty mild mannered. Calvin Johnson was always a favorite of mine, and he mostly kept quiet while he dominated you. D'Andre Hopkins too, is a more quiet, sensitive guy, despite any issues Bill O'Brien may have had with him. Julio Jones is laid back, doesn't take too much credit, mentors teammates, and when he's not on the field he's out fishing.

So while I agree there are a lot of Alphas (or Divas) at the position, I don't think it is a must-have trait.

[JimZipCode]

Just to be clear...

Dude. I am floored by this. Much respect for the work and the seriousness.

....here is how I sketch out the most recent WR draft picks:

So, for my clarity, that x-axis is "athleticism" and physical traits? We might proxy it with, say, Estimated SPARQ?

(Boykin's dot should be further to the right, about even with the arrow )

Then the North-South axis – er, the y-axis – would be the production stats. We might use something like Fantasy Points to consolidate it, get recving yds and TDs into one number. Mabe use PPR scoring, so we can include catches.

Regardless, I totally agree it leaves out the third, Z dimension, which is Value.

No. For me this z-axis will be Skills. We'll throw on the tape and grade the players on the level of proficiency they've shown with the Skills required to play the position. For WRs this will include route-running, releases vs press, ball tracking – hands, obvsly – I guess blocking will be part of it, and sight-adjustments. Maybe a bonus for verstality among the X/Y/Z positions.

Just whatever we think goes into playing WR; weighted however we think it should go. A player like Duvernay who sometimes lined-up in the backfield, might get a little extra bonus for "versatility"; but that doesn't necessarily make his route-running any better.

Not trying to pretend I have any such skill-weighting system worked out. Waldman has one. NFL teams have something. Waldman's scoring is linear boiled down into one number; so hypothetically that or something like it would be a nice metric this "skill rating" axis. We'd have to be wary of double-counting, like if his skill evaluation includes a rating for speed or some such.

That gives our three dimensions:

x - estimated SPARQ athleticism / phsyical traits
y - production as measured by something like fantasy points (career? peak years?)
z - a scouting-report driven skill rating

That's the best I can do to try to show it. I'm labelling the Z, or 'value' axis, as high or low ceiling.

So to me, "value" doesn't enter into it before the draft. "Value" is a factor of where you get a guy. You might rate a player as the nth guy on your board; but to the league as a whole he's way under-valued for some reason (small school bias? injury?), so you're able to get him two whole rounds later than your board rates him.

Or – wait. Are you talking about value to a specific team? Like scheme-fit? Hmm. That seems to me like it would map very closely to "Skills". If we're a Kubiak-style outside-zone running team, then we need guys who score highly on the skills related to running OZ. In that case, yeah I'd agree that value to one team would be driven by z-axis qualities. But I still think it's skills itself on the axis, then teams doing something with the information.

"Ceiling" is something else too. Age enters into ceiling; also SPARQ-type athleticism. Not sure it's really separate from the x-axis stuff.

For Boykin I've been pretty stubborn in saying that we lack data to put him any higher than that in the Y axis. I think he objectively belongs there based on the stats. Rather than arguing that he needs to move up, you are entirely correct in... projecting where he belongs on this third dimension ...

I understand your point that you are looking at scouting reports and reasons why his production was limited – and of course the Raven's have their own scouting of Boykin – that pushes him positively out on the Z axis.

I admit I am totally not looking at the Z axis because I don't feel I have enough information. ... Until then I'm sticking in my two dimensional world.

This pretty exactly captures how we're talking different languages – or different planes – or looking at different things.

As a rule, I'm never sure how much stock to put in the y-axis info. College teams all operate in such different contexts, I think it's tough for those stats to tell a coherent story. I'm leery of them: unsure how to weight them.

Really, we were both pretty much sticking to 2-D worlds. But literally looking at different pictures:

• You were looking mostly at the xy plane
• I was looking mostly at the xz plane

No wonder we were seeing different things.

[Ortizer]

Dude. I am floored by this. Much respect for the work and the seriousness.


So, for my clarity, that x-axis is "athleticism" and physical traits? We might proxy it with, say, Estimated SPARQ?

(Boykin's dot should be further to the right, about even with the arrow )

Then the North-South axis – er, the y-axis – would be the production stats. We might use something like Fantasy Points to consolidate it, get recving yds and TDs into one number. Mabe use PPR scoring, so we can include catches.


No. For me this z-axis will be Skills. We'll throw on the tape and grade the players on the level of proficiency they've shown with the Skills required to play the position. For WRs this will include route-running, releases vs press, ball tracking – hands, obvsly – I guess blocking will be part of it, and sight-adjustments. Maybe a bonus for verstality among the X/Y/Z positions.

Just whatever we think goes into playing WR; weighted however we think it should go. A player like Duvernay who sometimes lined-up in the backfield, might get a little extra bonus for "versatility"; but that doesn't necessarily make his route-running any better.

Not trying to pretend I have any such skill-weighting system worked out. Waldman has one. NFL teams have something. Waldman's scoring is linear boiled down into one number; so hypothetically that or something like it would be a nice metric this "skill rating" axis. We'd have to be wary of double-counting, like if his skill evaluation includes a rating for speed or some such.

That gives our three dimensions:

x - estimated SPARQ athleticism / phsyical traits
y - production as measured by something like fantasy points (career? peak years?)
z - a scouting-report driven skill rating

So to me, "value" doesn't enter into it before the draft. "Value" is a factor of where you get a guy. You might rate a player as the nth guy on your board; but to the league as a whole he's way under-valued for some reason (small school bias? injury?), so you're able to get him two whole rounds later than your board rates him.

Or – wait. Are you talking about value to a specific team? Like scheme-fit? Hmm. That seems to me like it would map very closely to "Skills". If we're a Kubiak-style outside-zone running team, then we need guys who score highly on the skills related to running OZ. In that case, yeah I'd agree that value to one team would be driven by z-axis qualities. But I still think it's skills itself on the axis, then teams doing something with the information.

"Ceiling" is something else too. Age enters into ceiling; also SPARQ-type athleticism. Not sure it's really separate from the x-axis stuff.


This pretty exactly captures how we're talking different languages – or different planes – or looking at different things.

As a rule, I'm never sure how much stock to put in the y-axis info. College teams all operate in such different contexts, I think it's tough for those stats to tell a coherent story. I'm leery of them: unsure how to weight them.

Really, we were both pretty much sticking to 2-D worlds. But literally looking at different pictures:

• You were looking mostly at the xy plane
• I was looking mostly at the xz plane

No wonder we were seeing different things.

To try and smooth out noise between career and peak for the y axis, maybe try something like average fantasy points + peak fantasy points /2?

Or maybe average of the top two years? Do something that benefits multiyear starters without completely crushing people that didn't play as much to start.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

[Shas]

[LISTThat gives our three dimensions:
x - estimated SPARQ athleticism / phsyical traits
y - production as measured by something like fantasy points (career? peak years?)
z - a scouting-report driven skill rating

Not to be a pain in the ass, but I am not sure that the semantically different concepts of "skill" and "ceiling" are really all that different at all in terms of the way I define it. We're still projecting in each case, more than we are measuring.

Can we agree that X and Y are measurable? I assume yes since you offered SPARQ and Fantasy points as measuring sticks.

Can we agree Z is subjective, since you called it scouting-report driven? I assume it's a given that different scouts will turn in different reports. But that is not to say it is purely arbitrary. Collectively you certainly get an idea on how the league feels about a player.

To me, saying "I put his skills rating at 8/10" is no different than saying "I put his ceiling at 8/10".

But for the sake of not arguing, I'll go with skills.

The way I have always viewed skills by the way is the ability to take physical traits and harness them into production. So the fact that we haven't seen substantial production yet makes me reluctant to make conclusions on skills.

So, anyway, I think we agree Boykin has the physical traits. And I think we've already agreed he has yet to fully harness them. And what you are saying is that, based on scouting reports, we can identify the necessary skills; we can see he is capable of executing on his physical traits.

All I ever said is I'd like to see more "at bats" before I conclude what level of execution he will achieve.

I said earlier that the Z axis is subjective, based on scouting reports, so you can't really put a number on it like you can for X and Y.

But that is not completely true. There are various quantitative ways of expressing scouting-report driven skill ratings. NFL.com for instance now publishes an overall grade for every prospect. I don't know where MB landed on that scale.

We do know that he ended up as the 93 player taken in the draft. That gives us a general consensus on how scouts saw his skill level. As I said, different scouts are going to rate his skills differently. And I do think how well a player is a scheme fit changes those ratings for different teams.

Some my have had him as a fourth rounder. Some as a second rounder. We know the Ravens traded up for him, so it's likely they rated him better than where they got him.

Ultimately, if he goes to probowls, we get another measure of skill and can conclude he truly was undervalued as a third rounder.

A lot still has to happen for that to happen.

[edromeo]

I agree that we don't disagree on his evaluation...we disagree on the factors that we want to include in his evaluation. I think I have been pretty consistent in talking about the factors I look at in my "system" of evaluation.

Just to be clear, here is how I sketch out the most recent WR draft picks:

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

Player/Trait	DK Metcalf	M. Brown	AJ Brown
Size	4	1	4
Speed	4	4	3
Agility+Exp	2	4	3
Injury	0	1	4
RAC	4	4	4
Prod+MS	1	4	4
Hands	2	4	4
Contest	3?	2?	2?
Routes	2	4	3
High Pt	3	1	2
Press	3	4	3
Separation	2	4	3
Total	30	37	39

Brought to you by K&J scouting service (my sons).

---

Player/Trait	Isabella	H. Butler	Boykin	McLaurin	N'Keal H	JJ Cega
Size	2	4	4	3	4	4
Speed	4	4	4	4	3	3
Agility+Exp	4	2	4	4	1	1
Injury	4	4	4	4	4	4
RAC	3	3	2	2	3	2
Prod+MS	3	4	1	1	4	3
Hands	4	1	4	4	2	4
Contest	2?	2?	3?	2?	3?	4
Routes	3	3	2	2	2	2
High Pt	2	3	3	2	3	4
Press	3	2	3	3	2	2
Separation	4	3	3	4	2	2
Total	36	33	34	33	30	31

SCALE: 0-4
0 – DOES NOT DISPLAY TRAIT
1 – SHOWS SOME ABILITY
2 – AVERAGE
3 – ABOVE AVERAGE
4 – EXCELLENT
Brought to you by K&J scouting service (my sons).

---

[edromeo]

Here's for this thread:

Player/Trait	M.Boykin	Duvernay	Prosche
Size	4	2	2
Speed	4	4	1
Agility+Exp	4	1	2
Injury	4	4	4
RAC	2	4	2
Prod+MS	1	2	3
Hands	4	4	4
Contest	2?	3	4
Routes	2	3	3
High Pt	3	2	4
Press	3	2	2
Separation	3	3	1
Total	34	34	32

[JimZipCode]

Can we agree that X and Y are measurable? I assume yes since you offered SPARQ and Fantasy points as measuring sticks.

Can we agree Z is subjective, since you called it scouting-report driven?

No. That's not what I'm thinking of. The "skills" assessment can be driven by a series of yes/no evaluations:

• (QB) Exhibits "pinpoint" accuracy to 35 yards?
• Exhbits "general area" accuracy to 45 yards?
• (WR) Shows a "rocker-step" release?
• Takes the DB's back early in route?
• Uses "active hands" thumbs-together technique to catch balls waist-high and over?

And so forth. A zillion different points of evaluation; but each one "replicable" in the sense that different scouts (with training) would grade them the same. Then a scoring/weighting system on the evaluations, that totes up the yes/no's into a single skills score.

This is pretty much what Waldman does with his RSP. It's doable.

I was always thinking measurable / quantifiable metrics on all the axes.

[edromeo]

---

I have another potential concern about Boykin, that I haven't heard anywhere else.

?
https://forum.russellstreetreport.co...reply&t=193938

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?

...

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.

I don't think off the field demeanor is an indicator of on field performance.

But, I do agree that last year Miles wasn't playing with the same confidence that he displayed in college and even in college he was just beginning to scratch the surface of his potential because the passing game was low volume and plain.
But he was capable of making plays like this:


Miles, like many players, must quickly reach a higher level of development and growth that eclipses the player they were in college.
Confidence comes from success, and success comes from knowing what you're doing. Miles is gonna have to work hard and master the playbook and his assignments, he's gonna have to build chemistry with Lamar and earn trust from the coaches.

IF Miles can do the above and show in practice and in games that he can be relied upon to be at the right place at the right time...the catches will become routine and he'll get confident to start making plays.
We haven't seen the best from Boykin and we might not ever that's up to him. But the skills are there.

[HotInHere]

No. That's not what I'm thinking of. The "skills" assessment can be driven by a series of yes/no evaluations:

• (QB) Exhibits "pinpoint" accuracy to 35 yards?
• Exhbits "general area" accuracy to 45 yards?
• (WR) Shows a "rocker-step" release?
• Takes the DB's back early in route?
• Uses "active hands" thumbs-together technique to catch balls waist-high and over?

And so forth. A zillion different points of evaluation; but each one "replicable" in the sense that different scouts (with training) would grade them the same. Then a scoring/weighting system on the evaluations, that totes up the yes/no's into a single skills score.

This is pretty much what Waldman does with his RSP. It's doable.

I was always thinking measurable / quantifiable metrics on all the axes.

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

I agree that generally if a guy has exhibited good hands all scouts will agree he has good hands. And you can even try to quantify that (as Waldman does.) But you have no objective way of knowing the exact impact of a scouted trait on the performance of the player, and 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%?)

I don’t see how you get away from subjectivity.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[edromeo]

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

I agree that generally if a guy has exhibited good hands all scouts will agree he has good hands. And you can even try to quantify that (as Waldman does.) But you have no objective way of knowing the exact impact of a scouted trait on the performance of the player, and 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%?)

I don’t see how you get away from subjectivity.

I wouldn't call it subjectivity as much as organizational preference or organizational importance of traits.
Even if scouts grade the exact same that doesn't mean each organization values those traits the same.

One team may have a certain "type" of player they look for at a certain position.
Take the Seahawks for example, they value size at CB, specifically they value height and wingspan.
They're not going to measure height any differently then another team but they are going to value height differently.
A short corner regardless of that prospects other measurables will not rate high for them even though that prospects traits grade out the same for the Seahawks and another team or even IF they used the exact same scouting service the Seahawks organizationally value different traits more then others.

I hope that makes sense.

[NjRavensFan]

Here's for this thread:

Player/Trait	M.Boykin	Duvernay	Prosche
Size	4	2	2
Speed	4	4	1
Agility+Exp	4	1	2
Injury	4	4	4
RAC	2	4	2
Prod+MS	1	2	3
Hands	4	4	4
Contest	2?	3	4
Routes	2	3	3
High Pt	3	2	4
Press	3	2	2
Separation	3	3	1
Total	34	34	32

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