BarleyNY Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 http://www.allprofootballsource.com/buffalo-bills-2014-outlook-draft-review-season-projection/ I didn't see this posted. It is a purely physical metrics analysis of the Bills 2014 draft picks and roster. It appears unbiased. It says that Watkins has Pro Bowl potential, but is not high on much else in this Bills draft class. Lots of high to moderately high quality starters, but does not like the right side of the OL or the MLB and FS positions.
MyHorseAteTheKid Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 OK, That made me feel pretty bad about this years draft.. Hope it's totally wrong...
PS 56 Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 The author suffers from analysis paralysis. Alonzo listed as a "starter".
K D Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 i thought we had an analytics dept to look at this kind of stuff? hopefully this is wrong. i wonder how Evans or Beckham graded. or if Moses would have been a better pick for RT
bladiebla Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 Lol we just released Allen, who by his metrics is the best RB we had... The author suffers from analysis paralysis. Alonzo listed as a "starter". That's based on his metrics, obviously Alonzo has great vision and understanding of the game, which isnt measured on that site. It's basicly who has the best body kind of comparision, but says nothing about the minds.
HamSandwhich Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 What a weird article..They had Gilmore as a starter, McKelvin as a probowler, Chris Williams as a pro bowler, and all kinds of weird things going on. This guy seems off his rocker...
B-Man Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 What a weird article..They had Gilmore as a starter, McKelvin as a probowler, Chris Williams as a pro bowler, and all kinds of weird things going on. This guy seems off his rocker... As soon as I saw Aaron Williams listed as "backup" level at SS, I stopped reading.
NoSaint Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 What a weird article..They had Gilmore as a starter, McKelvin as a probowler, Chris Williams as a pro bowler, and all kinds of weird things going on. This guy seems off his rocker... because it is looking purely at physical gifts and fitting prototypes, not past performance.
Juice_32 Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 As soon as I saw Aaron Williams listed as "backup" level at SS, I stopped reading. this ^^^ and this is precisely why metrics alone are not enough to evaluate players with. there are some real oddities on this list even if some of the info is accurate/intriguing.
purple haze Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 (edited) because it is looking purely at physical gifts and fitting prototypes, not past performance. Then it’s worthless. It’s about action not numbers. I guess Barry Sanders and Thurman Thomas and Walter Payton would have been backups or starters. Edited May 13, 2014 by purple haze
Mango Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 http://www.allprofoo...son-projection/ I didn't see this posted. It is a purely physical metrics analysis of the Bills 2014 draft picks and roster. It appears unbiased. It says that Watkins has Pro Bowl potential, but is not high on much else in this Bills draft class. Lots of high to moderately high quality starters, but does not like the right side of the OL or the MLB and FS positions. I am curious. Since you claim to use 15 years of data. Can you calculate the accuracy of your analytic s each draft. Similar to the projection of your front page and projection. So if you have 15 years worth of data, can we see a side by side comparison of pre-draft projection of skill, and actual career. I want to believe in analytics, and these numbers. I just want to see the accuracy of the algorithms you have created, not just cross comparison of athletes, but overall career accuracy of each player you have collected data on. Does this exist? I am not with with others in terms of saying Aaron Williams is our starter and played well this year, so he must be a better player than you project. Only time will tell if that is the truth. The Bills have been playing backups as starters for years. Also, no surprise that McKelvin is tested higher than Gilmore. With any ball skills what so ever he would be better than Gilmore all day. He is the better athlete. Locate the damn ball Leodis!!!
maryland-bills-fan Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 All 3 of our MLB are old-school rock-em guys rather than speedy small guys who can run with a WR. Is there a metric for tackling in his analysis? Is the same metric used regardless of the system used? Didn't thing so.
HamSandwhich Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 because it is looking purely at physical gifts and fitting prototypes, not past performance. Yeah I get that, can't it still be weird to me?
Campy Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 I am curious. Since you claim to use 15 years of data. Can you calculate the accuracy of your analytic s each draft. Similar to the projection of your front page and projection. So if you have 15 years worth of data, can we see a side by side comparison of pre-draft projection of skill, and actual career. I want to believe in analytics, and these numbers. I just want to see the accuracy of the algorithms you have created, not just cross comparison of athletes, but overall career accuracy of each player you have collected data on. Does this exist? I am not with with others in terms of saying Aaron Williams is our starter and played well this year, so he must be a better player than you project. Only time will tell if that is the truth. The Bills have been playing backups as starters for years. Also, no surprise that McKelvin is tested higher than Gilmore. With any ball skills what so ever he would be better than Gilmore all day. He is the better athlete. Locate the damn ball Leodis!!! He didn't create or write it, he just shared the link. My biggest issue with this is that it's scope is so limited. Broad jump, high jump, 40 time, etc play a role in measuring a player's athleticism but I don't think they are the be-all end-all measurements that the author seems to assume. As mentioned upthread, some of the ratings for backup through pro bowler seem far enough off that I think it pretty much renders this particular set of analytics moot.
shibuya Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 i thought we had an analytics dept to look at this kind of stuff? hopefully this is wrong. i wonder how Evans or Beckham graded. or if Moses would have been a better pick for RT we do have a analytic's department. Your not actually going to put more faith in an internet article over a pro scouting department. Might as well just read Mel Kiper's opinion.
NoSaint Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 Then it’s worthless. It’s about action not numbers. I guess Barry Sanders and Thurman Thomas and Walter Payton would have been backups or starters. i wouldnt say COMPLETELY worthless, but its not particularly valuable either. most positions have some key physical metrics that tend to indicate potential for high success or troubles. OLB in the cone drills ive seen discussed as having a stronger correlation to success than most measures (still not huge indicator), QB hand size being a popular one to look at these days, etc.... it doesnt mean that you WILL or WONT be a success but there are some traits that go a long way in that discussion. it wouldve been cool if he got more into the benchmarks and correlations, but i didnt really look around the site much.
Recommended Posts