2014 NFL Draft

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Sports Argument Stadium > The Football Funhouse > 2014 NFL Draft

Amy Pole Her: Jun 17, 2002

Im really curious what Miami does with their #2 cb spot as I trust absolutely nobody there right now. 2nd and 3rd rounders from last draft look lovely (although injured) so I'm curious if Patterson comes back or they draft one at #19 if they believe him to be a star

Really think we grab a FS in round 3 or 4. All told I'd be happy with zack martin

# ? Mar 13, 2014 17:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 27, 2024 10:11

Brannock: Feb 9, 2006; by exmarx; Fallen Rib

The Packers will draft someone that most people haven't heard of at all.

# ? Mar 13, 2014 17:54

Doltos: Dec 28, 2005; 🤌🤌🤌

Febreeze posted:

Why not?

Not really a physical jump ball guy. Plays kind of small despite being 6'4. Can't block, although I think that's more of him not asking to do it then him not being able to do it. Wrangles the ball out of the air instead of plucking it which is a bad habit formed by how much faster he is than NCAA linebackers.

He's a tweener. Seems like he'd be better off losing weight and being a WR than putting it on and being a TE. I think he's a second round prospect at best despite the talking heads saying otherwise. I think people are too infatuated with "TEs" that play the majority of their snaps off the line and in the slot.

Giants need a TE that can block and can run seam routes. They need someone taller with better vertical ability. Amaro, ASJ, and Niklas all fit the bill better, and hell, we could wait til the fourth or fifth and grab Fiedorowicz and probably be better off for it.

# ? Mar 13, 2014 18:52

No Butt Stuff: Jun 10, 2004

Mel Kiper's mocks, like all mocks, are loving stupid. There is no way the Texans pick anything but Clowney or a QB.

# ? Mar 13, 2014 19:03

bhsman: Feb 10, 2008; by exmarx

Mack is probably the better all-around LB in terms of coverage (Clowney doesn't look nearly as natural in coverage) but Clowney would probably just be the pure pass-rushing LBer like Tamba Hali is for KC.

EDIT: Intruder mentioned him but Brice McCain is like the Greek tragedy of slot corners. Best in the league in 2011, breaks his foot and thus loses his speed that helps him compensate for short size, then proceeds to allow a shitton of touchdowns in 2013. He's why we had such a terrible RZ defense and why we got scored on by such notable teams as the McGloin-led Raiders.

bhsman fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Mar 13, 2014

# ? Mar 13, 2014 19:12

SlipUp: Sep 30, 2006; stayin c o o l

So with the early results of FA, who are the cowboys going after in the first? I thought it was Dix for sure but with the need to find a pass rush maybe they go another direction?

# ? Mar 13, 2014 19:37

The Puppy Bowl: Jan 31, 2013; A dog, in the house.

*woof*

Doltos posted:

Not really a physical jump ball guy. Plays kind of small despite being 6'4. Can't block, although I think that's more of him not asking to do it then him not being able to do it. Wrangles the ball out of the air instead of plucking it which is a bad habit formed by how much faster he is than NCAA linebackers.

He's a tweener. Seems like he'd be better off losing weight and being a WR than putting it on and being a TE. I think he's a second round prospect at best despite the talking heads saying otherwise. I think people are too infatuated with "TEs" that play the majority of their snaps off the line and in the slot.

Giants need a TE that can block and can run seam routes. They need someone taller with better vertical ability. Amaro, ASJ, and Niklas all fit the bill better, and hell, we could wait til the fourth or fifth and grab Fiedorowicz and probably be better off for it.

Fiedorowicz is absolutely not lasting past the third.

# ? Mar 13, 2014 19:43

The 7th Guest: Dec 17, 2003

Okay then.

Rotoworld posted:

Former San Diego State RB Adam Muema tweeted he is done playing football.

"I will NOT be playing FOOTBALL!" Muema posted, along with a screenshot of a conversation he had with "Angelus Domini." The running back has had a bizarre draft process, including leaving the Combine and living in the airport for a few days after citing religious beliefs as reason. He will not be drafted.

# ? Mar 13, 2014 20:35

Toymachine: Jul 2, 2007; Warning - Posts created under the influence of Codeine and/or Skittles

Quest For Glory II posted:

Okay then.

So basically some bullshit twitter fake Pastor guy convinced him to give up thousands of dollars so he could love Jesus a little more? Seems legit. What a loon.

# ? Mar 13, 2014 20:39

Intruder: Mar 5, 2003; I got a taste for blown saves

I want to make a joke about how in three days he'll rise up and decide to play but oh yeah it's an internet messiah

# ? Mar 13, 2014 20:40

Doltos: Dec 28, 2005; 🤌🤌🤌

Wait so now I don't even have to leave my home to preach to my disciples? poo poo, I've been using twitter for posting lovely one liners this entire time.

# ? Mar 13, 2014 20:48

a neat cape: Feb 22, 2007; Aw hunny, these came out GREAT!

Quest For Glory II posted:

Okay then.

I don't even

Muema what the heck

# ? Mar 13, 2014 20:56

PrinceRandom: Feb 26, 2013

This is far more interesting than pro days or anything.

# ? Mar 13, 2014 20:57

GOOD TIMES ON METH: Mar 17, 2006; Fun Shoe

Huh apparently getting hit in the head is bad for your brain thats weird

# ? Mar 13, 2014 21:01

a neat cape: Feb 22, 2007; Aw hunny, these came out GREAT!

Goetta posted:

Huh apparently getting hit in the head is bad for your brain thats weird

It's so goddamn odd because the last two years at SDSU he was a model teammate.

I mean yeah he was Jesus-y but nothing like THIS

# ? Mar 13, 2014 21:02

TheChirurgeon: Aug 7, 2002; Remember how good you are; Taco Defender

FO posted their SackSEER ratings today, which project sacks over the first five regular seasons in the NFL for prospects. There's some interesting work behind it, and they continually refine it when guys like JPP outperform their expectation.

The projection for Mack is the highest they've ever seen. Clowney's is also very high, but more a once-a-year type score for the metric. Sam is projected as a 7th-rounder or UDFA. Worth a read:
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2014/sackseer-2014

# ? Mar 13, 2014 21:34

swickles: Aug 21, 2006; I guess that I don't need that though
Now you're just some QB that I used to know

Quest For Glory II posted:

Okay then.

I like the last line. "He will not be drafted." Way to state the obvious.

# ? Mar 13, 2014 21:37

Elotana: Dec 12, 2003; and i'm putting it all on the goddamn expense account

quote:

1. Khalil Mack Houston Texans
Analysis: The Texans are in some ways like Kansas City drafting at No. 1 last year in that they don't fit the profile of a team drafting so high. The personnel situation isn't terrible; the defense can keep them in games; they have a new head coach who has a good track record with quarterbacks and may not be content to wait on a rookie QB to develop when he could be winning.

With who?

# ? Mar 13, 2014 21:46

Doltos: Dec 28, 2005; 🤌🤌🤌

TheChirurgeon posted:

FO posted their SackSEER ratings today, which project sacks over the first five regular seasons in the NFL for prospects. There's some interesting work behind it, and they continually refine it when guys like JPP outperform their expectation.

The projection for Mack is the highest they've ever seen. Clowney's is also very high, but more a once-a-year type score for the metric. Sam is projected as a 7th-rounder or UDFA. Worth a read:
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2014/sackseer-2014

I really like this metric unfortunately Mack played in the MAC. Also season production totals would definitely hurt Clowney who had to face double and triple teams against harder opponents. I do like that they measure the combine drills though, as I think pretty much every drill is better than the 40 yard dash end number.

I'm glad Jeffcoat and Murphy are near the top, they're getting heavily underrated because of how good Mack, Ealy, and Clowney are. Sad to see Marcus Smith so low, I thought he was my super sleeper.

# ? Mar 13, 2014 21:48

Toymachine: Jul 2, 2007; Warning - Posts created under the influence of Codeine and/or Skittles

Elotana posted:

With who?

Matthew McGloin.

quote:

Mack�s stats for the Buffalo Bulls suggest that he is not so much a man, but rather, a vortex where offensive plays go to die. Mack holds the all-time FBS record for forced fumbles (16) and ties the all-time record for tackles for loss (75). To top it off, Mack had four interceptions and 24 passes broken up. The NCAA doesn�t track defeats, but with over one hundred combined tackles for loss and passes defensed, Mack would likely have the all-time record if it did.

Holy moly. I would not be mad at Mack with #5.

Toymachine fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Mar 13, 2014

# ? Mar 13, 2014 21:50

a neat cape: Feb 22, 2007; Aw hunny, these came out GREAT!

Elotana posted:

With who?

Tom Brady

# ? Mar 13, 2014 21:51

Amy Pole Her: Jun 17, 2002

I'm nervous reading anything at work that involves both michael Sam and sack see-er in the same sentence. Usually it's homophobic rants on a dolphins board!

# ? Mar 13, 2014 21:52

Groucho Marxist: Dec 9, 2005; Do you smell what The Mauk is cooking?

Hasn't SackSEER been hilariously wrong every year it's been tried?

# ? Mar 13, 2014 21:55

TheChirurgeon: Aug 7, 2002; Remember how good you are; Taco Defender

Doltos posted:

I really like this metric unfortunately Mack played in the MAC. Also season production totals would definitely hurt Clowney who had to face double and triple teams against harder opponents. I do like that they measure the combine drills though, as I think pretty much every drill is better than the 40 yard dash end number.

I'm glad Jeffcoat and Murphy are near the top, they're getting heavily underrated because of how good Mack, Ealy, and Clowney are. Sad to see Marcus Smith so low, I thought he was my super sleeper.

Actually if you give it a read, their analysis suggests that conference has little to do with NFL production (see also: DeMarcus Ware owning the sun belt). Similarly, Clowney's rating isn't affected by his senior year as much as you might expect.

Also, these just project sack totals, so they suggest that Clowney may also (based on his size) be a better run stopper/overall player.

The actual process for what they use is to look at the statistical correlation between different metrics and combinations of metrics and NFL sack totals (typically accomplished via a regression analysis), and they can add new data to this analysis each season to refine the model. If a metric is included there, such as the 3-cone drill, that's because it actually has a statistically significant likelihood of predicting future success (though different metrics contribute differently to the projection).

Groucho Marxist posted:

Hasn't SackSEER been hilariously wrong every year it's been tried?

Not that I can recall, but I'm sure you've got some examples or something? It's not perfect.

As far as timing goes, they do it every year. There's usually an outlier but "false positives" are less likely than missing sleepers--Jason Pierre Paul was the biggest miss recently and that caused them to go back and re-evaluate the model to figure out why it missed him. It's also based a bit on projected draft round, so guys that make it to starting spots earlier than their draft position would indicate will likely be underprojected.

TheChirurgeon fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Mar 13, 2014

# ? Mar 13, 2014 21:56

Doltos: Dec 28, 2005; 🤌🤌🤌

TheChirurgeon posted:

Actually if you give it a read, their analysis suggests that conference has little to do with NFL production (see also: DeMarcus Ware owning the sun belt). Similarly, Clowney's rating isn't affected by his senior year as much as you might expect.

Also, these just project sack totals, so they suggest that Clowney may also (based on his size) be a better run stopper/overall player.

The actual process for what they use is to look at the statistical correlation between different metrics and combinations of metrics and NFL sack totals (typically accomplished via a regression analysis), and they can add new data to this analysis each season to refine the model. If a metric is included there, such as the 3-cone drill, that's because it actually has a statistically significant likelihood of predicting future success (though different metrics contribute differently to the projection).

Hmm. The way I understood it is that they take every year of production into account. Then they mix it with an ongoing list of different statistical analysis's that make sense when you compare them to the present day sack leaders. Like if Watt, Ware, Wake, or Bennett put up the most sacks in X year and they all had similar 3 cone drills, then SackSeer will weight 3 cone more heavily for the next year. Kind of a moving statistical analysis that takes into account whatever is more valued at the time in the NFL.

They do show that conference doesn't have a lot to do with it and I agree. However, I think it has enough to do with it to make up that percentage difference between Clowney and Mack. I rationalize this by watching the tape of the two and seeing how much faster Clowney and nearly unblockable Clowney is in game. I see similar double teams with Mack who hits faster and harder and smarter than those picking him up. I just wonder what would happen if Mack had to go up against guys SEC offensive lines which are universally made up of the biggest players in the country.

# ? Mar 13, 2014 22:00

Diva Cupcake: Aug 15, 2005

Groucho Marxist posted:

Hasn't SackSEER been hilariously wrong every year it's been tried?

For their WR Playmaker Score, Stephen Hill had one of the highest ratings they've ever seen.

# ? Mar 13, 2014 22:03

Rasczak: Mar 30, 2005

SlipUp posted:

So with the early results of FA, who are the cowboys going after in the first? I thought it was Dix for sure but with the need to find a pass rush maybe they go another direction?

Let's just say I'm going to be really mad when Chicago drafts Donald ahead of the Cowboys

# ? Mar 13, 2014 22:04

TheChirurgeon: Aug 7, 2002; Remember how good you are; Taco Defender

Ozu posted:

For their WR Playmaker Score, Stephen Hill had one of the highest ratings they've ever seen.

Yeah I'm not as sold on Playmaker Score

Doltos posted:

Hmm. The way I understood it is that they take every year of production into account. Then they mix it with an ongoing list of different statistical analysis's that make sense when you compare them to the present day sack leaders. Like if Watt, Ware, Wake, or Bennett put up the most sacks in X year and they all had similar 3 cone drills, then SackSeer will weight 3 cone more heavily for the next year. Kind of a moving statistical analysis that takes into account whatever is more valued at the time in the NFL.

The benefit of using a regression analysis with this is not only that it is easy to refine with new data, but also that the output allows you to easily construct a linear equation to calculate the total. Basically what you're doing is creating a system of equations in the format Y = a1x1 + a2x2 + ... + anxn, where Y is the number of sacks a player got over his first 5 years and each of x1, x2, ... xn is a variable you are incorporating into the model, such as 3-cone drill time, college sacks, 40 time, etc. You can include binary variables as well, such as a '1' if he graduated, a '0' if he didn't. Then you solve for all of the a1, a2, ..., an coefficients, and that tells you which variables mattered and which ones didn't. These are the 'weights' you're talking about, and they'll change dynamically as you re-run the model with more data. You can kind of picture how this would happen if you consider data that looks like this:

code:

player name     num sacks    40 time   3-cone time
Donkey Teeth       24          4.81       6.62
Benedict Smith     12          4.81       7.71

If this were your data set, it's easy to see how you'd solve and see that 40 time doesn't affect sack values, but 3-cone drill does. The analysis they're doing is the same, only with dozens of variables at the outset (many of which are removed), and hundreds of rows of player data.

TheChirurgeon fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Mar 13, 2014

# ? Mar 13, 2014 22:15

swickles: Aug 21, 2006; I guess that I don't need that though
Now you're just some QB that I used to know

Ozu posted:

For their WR Playmaker Score, Stephen Hill had one of the highest ratings they've ever seen.

Apparently "ability to catch a football" somehow isn't in their WR metrics.

# ? Mar 13, 2014 22:19

The 7th Guest: Dec 17, 2003

Even if they sign Jones and have a tandem of Decker and Jones, the Jets would be best served moving on from Stephen Hill, as we've established, so this was interesting to see.

quote:

The Jets may add another wideout in free agency, but general manager John Idzik�s best hope of landing a cornerstone player at the position will be in the draft in May. To that end, the organization has shown significant interest in USC receiver Marqise Lee.

The Daily News has learned that Lee, the 2012 Biletnikoff Award winner, met privately with some high-level Jets personnel before and after his Pro Day in Los Angeles Wednesday, a good indication that the team will seriously consider him with the No. 18 overall pick.

# ? Mar 13, 2014 22:22

smuggler: Apr 23, 2007; INSULTING THE PACKERS IS NOT AGAINST FORUM RULES, MORON

SackSEER was at least somewhat correct about Mike Daniels. It's never going to be perfect, but hey, it's something. :v:

# ? Mar 13, 2014 22:42

Relentlessboredomm: Oct 15, 2006; It's Sic Semper Tyrannis. You said, "Ever faithful terrible lizard."

Ozu posted:

For their WR Playmaker Score, Stephen Hill had one of the highest ratings they've ever seen.

That one's definitely sketchy. I like their sackseer and QB projections although for all of them they have a ton of trouble handling 1 year wonder type guys. If the athlete has played 2+ years I think their metrics are relatively decent.

# ? Mar 13, 2014 23:02

Nawid: Mar 27, 2011

Players I would be okay with the Raiders drafting at #5:
Clowney
Mack
Watkins
Robinson
Bridgewater

# ? Mar 13, 2014 23:31

Blitz of 404 Error: Sep 19, 2007; Joe Biden is a top 15 president

Nawid posted:

Players I would be okay with the Raiders drafting at #5:
Clowney
Mack
Watkins
Robinson
Bridgewater

Yup basically

# ? Mar 14, 2014 00:10

The Puppy Bowl: Jan 31, 2013; A dog, in the house.

*woof*

Quest For Glory II posted:

Even if they sign Jones and have a tandem of Decker and Jones, the Jets would be best served moving on from Stephen Hill, as we've established, so this was interesting to see.

I really like Lee but any young receiver, especially one with the question marks he has, put into that QB/ offensive coaching situation is going to struggle.

# ? Mar 14, 2014 00:38

Disillusionist: Sep 19, 2007

Blitz7x posted:

Yup basically

So I'm confused about something.

- They signed Saffold to possibly play LT (but he's gone now)
- Drafted Watson last year to play RT
- Signed Austin Howard, an RT

I assume now that the plan is to play Watson at LT and Howard at RT. If that's the case, do they really need Robinson or can either Watson/Howard play guard?

# ? Mar 14, 2014 01:01

Nawid: Mar 27, 2011

Disillusionist posted:

So I'm confused about something.

- They signed Saffold to possibly play LT (but he's gone now)
- Drafted Watson last year to play RT
- Signed Austin Howard, an RT

I assume now that the plan is to play Watson at LT and Howard at RT. If that's the case, do they really need Robinson or can either Watson/Howard play guard?

It's hard to see what we have with Watson considering he's been injured the whole year.

I trust Sparano/Raiders on this. If they think Robinson is the franchise LT at #5, then I am very cool with that.

I feel like someone is going to trade up to our spot anyway.

# ? Mar 14, 2014 01:09

Kurgarra Queen: Jun 11, 2008; GIVE ME MORE
SUPER BOWL
WINS

Once again, the Bills are mocked a tackle under the assumption that we'd hand a dude we just drafted Cordy Glenn's job that he's been doing very well for no reason. Instead of spending the 9th-overall pick on a RT, or, heaven forbid, a more suitable position to address with the 9th-overall pick.
What I'm saying is that I never got over "Fat" Mike Williams I, and I just don't see why it's a good idea when there's plenty of talent to land elsewhere that we could use.

# ? Mar 14, 2014 01:20

Coldforge: Oct 29, 2002; I knew it would be bad.
I didn't know it would be so stupid.

Nawid posted:

It's hard to see what we have with Watson considering he's been injured the whole year.

I trust Sparano/Raiders on this. If they think Robinson is the franchise LT at #5, then I am very cool with that.

I feel like someone is going to trade up to our spot anyway.

I would not be surprised to see the 49ers make a play for that #5 spot. They could offer quite a few picks in a very deep draft to a team that has several holes to fill.

# ? Mar 14, 2014 01:46

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 27, 2024 10:11

Grittybeard: Mar 29, 2010; Bad, very bad!

Lance of Llanwyln posted:

Once again, the Bills are mocked a tackle under the assumption that we'd hand a dude we just drafted Cordy Glenn's job that he's been doing very well for no reason. Instead of spending the 9th-overall pick on a RT, or, heaven forbid, a more suitable position to address with the 9th-overall pick.
What I'm saying is that I never got over "Fat" Mike Williams I, and I just don't see why it's a good idea when there's plenty of talent to land elsewhere that we could use.

Well, you could cut your productive player for no obvious reason (who went on to be productive the next year too) and slot in the draft pick there. Or you could quite obviously decide your perfectly acceptable LT is damaged goods and play your draft pick at RT for a year before you get rid of him. Also you could be doing this at #1 overall.

# ? Mar 14, 2014 01:54

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Sports Argument Stadium > The Football Funhouse > 2014 NFL Draft

«‹›278 »