cuervo72
05-14-2008, 02:35 PM
So, IHOF just got through their draft and training camp, and I decided to take a look at how the results of the camp lined up with what my scouts told me through interviews. I'm not sure what exactly might be gleaned and I don't expect to come to any real conclusions, but I figured it would be an interesting exercise.
To start, this is my scout:
http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/cuervo72/scout_mel_conway.png
Disregard that he is listed as the scout of the "Beaumont (TX) Vigilantes". That's a result of my neglecting to set up a batch file to swap out nickname and city files between FOFL and IHOF. We're really the Frederick Red Menace. Anyway, our scout is basically good across the board - good with YT and everywhere else but DB (VG), RB (F) and K (P). That's ok though, I didn't interview any RB or K anyway. So we'll regard him as "good".
We used all of our 60 interviews, and they came back as follows:
Very Underrated: 9
Underrated: 8
As Scouted: 6
Overrated: 5
Very Overrated: 21
Hard to Read: 11
Well, HtR right off the bat is pretty worthless, and means that immediately 18.3% of what my scout has to say can be thrown out. My guess here is that the best scout will only have a read X% of the time (say 90%), and each step down decreases the hit rate. No real data here, but that's my guess. Anyway, here's how the HTR guys actually ended up faring:
http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/cuervo72/2017_htr.png
Four good, one neutral, and six bad. Nothing much else to say here really, though I really would like Lee Madison right about now, and I am somewhat surprised at Nowlin and Shea's drops.
On to As Scouted.
http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/cuervo72/2017_as.png
I took a late round flyer on Raymond Murphy because we are weak at TE and he REALLY gets along with our position leader (Murphy has a 100 personality). It's interesting that the range here is pretty small, going between -2 and 2. Even the negatives in that range aren't catastrophic as camps go (-3 and you start to worry a lot more), and +2 is ok but not a huge breakout. Mel, you did pretty well here I think.
Working our way up from bad to good, the Very Overrated group.
http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/cuervo72/2017_vo.png
I'd consider the top three to be misses here, as they don't look to be overrated at all (certainly not Schweitzer). If you consider the rest basically accurate, Mel hit 18-21 or 85.7%. That may or may not be argued though, as some of the -1 and -2 guys in that list (who might have qualified as "as scouted", as they overlap that range) look like they'll turn out just fine if they level off quickly. If we only consider those with -3 camps or worse, we're down to a 13-21 or 61.9% success rate. So in general Mel did pretty well, though some of his classifications could be debated.
Now for the overrateds.
http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/cuervo72/2017_o.png
Eh...I'm really not sure what to make of this. Four guys, one of which had a good camp, and three others who weren't great, but aren't really busts either (Weber looks more than ok). Tough to differentiate from the As Scouted group really. (note: there is actually one guy missing here, and that's because he wasn't in SD's change tracker results, as he was still in the FA pool. But he was -2 in his uh, personal camp.)
The Underrateds.
http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/cuervo72/2017_u.png
This list is filled with guys who were on our radar, and many went either just before or just after our first round pick (more on him below). Eight guys, seven who had positive camps. 87.5% success rate, and Hatcher is just a head-scratcher (had VERY solid combines).
And now for the Very Underrateds.
http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/cuervo72/2017_vu.png
That's right baby - nine very underrateds, and we drafted four of them! Um...but as you can see, three of those four had -5 camps. WTF Mel? These results flat-out stink, honestly. Burns was an obvious creeper, and went at 1.8. Herttna was there when we picked in the first, but we took Wickland instead. D'OH! Now, I'll grant that six of nine of these guys had non-negative camps. But that is only a 66.6% "non screw-up" rate, and four of those were no better than +1 in camp. Not anything I'd call Very Underrated. And the guys who were -5, those are just flat-out wrong.
So, overall what do we have? Well, it appears that Mel did ok overall, and steered us out of some bad picks in the VO list (though it could be argued some of those could be obvious by looking at combines) but really failed us where it counted most - trying to identify those diamonds in the rough. Then again, just how many of those diamonds are there? Taking the list as a whole, here is a quick breakdown on camp changes:
+6 and above: 10 (I scouted three of these, one was VO and two VU)*
+3 to +5: 16
+1 or +2: 53
0: 58
-1 or -2: 67
-3 to -5: 96
-6 and below: 67
* of these 10, three are PK, one is an UDFA RB, one is an UDFA DE.
Pretty harsh curve there. Out of sixty interviews, I was able to correctly identify four guys in the +3 to +5 range, though quite a few of the players in this range went undrafted. So I don't know...maybe the main goal of the scout and interviews in this stage is not to identify hidden gems, but to help avoid bad picks? If that's the case, my scout still did a fairly bad job of things, as we had a 1, a 3, and a 6 crap out in camp (we did not have a 2, and a couple of extra 3s escaped ok).
A couple of caveats on those camp casualties though. One, Rufus O'Neal, was a No Workout guy. In previous patches, these guys worked out a good deal of the time (though I did have a couple that did not). In this patch, a guy skipping the combine isn't as big a tell. But, I assume that's why you have interviews, and my scout honked that one. The other two guys are QB, and those guys ALL seem to turn to poo except for a select few. There were 25 QB tracked this stage, and here was the spread:
+3: 2
+1: 1
0: 2
-1: 3
-3: 5
-4/-5: 5
-6: 3
-8/-9: 3
-13: 1
Drafting a QB is just a risky proposition, and it almost doesn't seem worth it beyond franchise types - all of the non-losers of this group here were UDFA with no more than a 33 future before camp, save for one guy...who happened to go 1.3, with an 80 rating. Certainly doesn't seem worth it to scout these bastards, though by chance I *did* scout Pat Levine, who was +3 (all the way to 7/30, whee), only to forget about him after the draft.
To start, this is my scout:
http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/cuervo72/scout_mel_conway.png
Disregard that he is listed as the scout of the "Beaumont (TX) Vigilantes". That's a result of my neglecting to set up a batch file to swap out nickname and city files between FOFL and IHOF. We're really the Frederick Red Menace. Anyway, our scout is basically good across the board - good with YT and everywhere else but DB (VG), RB (F) and K (P). That's ok though, I didn't interview any RB or K anyway. So we'll regard him as "good".
We used all of our 60 interviews, and they came back as follows:
Very Underrated: 9
Underrated: 8
As Scouted: 6
Overrated: 5
Very Overrated: 21
Hard to Read: 11
Well, HtR right off the bat is pretty worthless, and means that immediately 18.3% of what my scout has to say can be thrown out. My guess here is that the best scout will only have a read X% of the time (say 90%), and each step down decreases the hit rate. No real data here, but that's my guess. Anyway, here's how the HTR guys actually ended up faring:
http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/cuervo72/2017_htr.png
Four good, one neutral, and six bad. Nothing much else to say here really, though I really would like Lee Madison right about now, and I am somewhat surprised at Nowlin and Shea's drops.
On to As Scouted.
http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/cuervo72/2017_as.png
I took a late round flyer on Raymond Murphy because we are weak at TE and he REALLY gets along with our position leader (Murphy has a 100 personality). It's interesting that the range here is pretty small, going between -2 and 2. Even the negatives in that range aren't catastrophic as camps go (-3 and you start to worry a lot more), and +2 is ok but not a huge breakout. Mel, you did pretty well here I think.
Working our way up from bad to good, the Very Overrated group.
http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/cuervo72/2017_vo.png
I'd consider the top three to be misses here, as they don't look to be overrated at all (certainly not Schweitzer). If you consider the rest basically accurate, Mel hit 18-21 or 85.7%. That may or may not be argued though, as some of the -1 and -2 guys in that list (who might have qualified as "as scouted", as they overlap that range) look like they'll turn out just fine if they level off quickly. If we only consider those with -3 camps or worse, we're down to a 13-21 or 61.9% success rate. So in general Mel did pretty well, though some of his classifications could be debated.
Now for the overrateds.
http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/cuervo72/2017_o.png
Eh...I'm really not sure what to make of this. Four guys, one of which had a good camp, and three others who weren't great, but aren't really busts either (Weber looks more than ok). Tough to differentiate from the As Scouted group really. (note: there is actually one guy missing here, and that's because he wasn't in SD's change tracker results, as he was still in the FA pool. But he was -2 in his uh, personal camp.)
The Underrateds.
http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/cuervo72/2017_u.png
This list is filled with guys who were on our radar, and many went either just before or just after our first round pick (more on him below). Eight guys, seven who had positive camps. 87.5% success rate, and Hatcher is just a head-scratcher (had VERY solid combines).
And now for the Very Underrateds.
http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/cuervo72/2017_vu.png
That's right baby - nine very underrateds, and we drafted four of them! Um...but as you can see, three of those four had -5 camps. WTF Mel? These results flat-out stink, honestly. Burns was an obvious creeper, and went at 1.8. Herttna was there when we picked in the first, but we took Wickland instead. D'OH! Now, I'll grant that six of nine of these guys had non-negative camps. But that is only a 66.6% "non screw-up" rate, and four of those were no better than +1 in camp. Not anything I'd call Very Underrated. And the guys who were -5, those are just flat-out wrong.
So, overall what do we have? Well, it appears that Mel did ok overall, and steered us out of some bad picks in the VO list (though it could be argued some of those could be obvious by looking at combines) but really failed us where it counted most - trying to identify those diamonds in the rough. Then again, just how many of those diamonds are there? Taking the list as a whole, here is a quick breakdown on camp changes:
+6 and above: 10 (I scouted three of these, one was VO and two VU)*
+3 to +5: 16
+1 or +2: 53
0: 58
-1 or -2: 67
-3 to -5: 96
-6 and below: 67
* of these 10, three are PK, one is an UDFA RB, one is an UDFA DE.
Pretty harsh curve there. Out of sixty interviews, I was able to correctly identify four guys in the +3 to +5 range, though quite a few of the players in this range went undrafted. So I don't know...maybe the main goal of the scout and interviews in this stage is not to identify hidden gems, but to help avoid bad picks? If that's the case, my scout still did a fairly bad job of things, as we had a 1, a 3, and a 6 crap out in camp (we did not have a 2, and a couple of extra 3s escaped ok).
A couple of caveats on those camp casualties though. One, Rufus O'Neal, was a No Workout guy. In previous patches, these guys worked out a good deal of the time (though I did have a couple that did not). In this patch, a guy skipping the combine isn't as big a tell. But, I assume that's why you have interviews, and my scout honked that one. The other two guys are QB, and those guys ALL seem to turn to poo except for a select few. There were 25 QB tracked this stage, and here was the spread:
+3: 2
+1: 1
0: 2
-1: 3
-3: 5
-4/-5: 5
-6: 3
-8/-9: 3
-13: 1
Drafting a QB is just a risky proposition, and it almost doesn't seem worth it beyond franchise types - all of the non-losers of this group here were UDFA with no more than a 33 future before camp, save for one guy...who happened to go 1.3, with an 80 rating. Certainly doesn't seem worth it to scout these bastards, though by chance I *did* scout Pat Levine, who was +3 (all the way to 7/30, whee), only to forget about him after the draft.