When will Madden get the ratings right?

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by Cleveland Rocks

http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles...g-10-nfl-myths

OK, being a history major back in the day, I know a bit about reliable source material. Ramone Brown of Bleacher Report cites a Redskins forum as the source for this? Does that seem a bit...well...shady or at least odd?

I have a piece of primary source material from Bill Walsh himself stating that Jerry only ran a 4.59. Keep in mind that Bill Walsh wrote this article himself before it was posted to his own website in 1997.

http://www.nfldraftscout.com/members...lsh/walsh3.htm


I really am going to need something with a bit more clout than that. Relying on "what a guy says because he found it on a forum" seems a bit less credible than a published article written by the coach who drafted Rice.

Or am I entirely off-base here?

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by Robcards

I forget where I read it but I read that he tweaked his hammy during some on field drill and that's why he didn't run the 40.

You know what is really odd about that?

Moore started the morning with the bench, skipped the 40 citing a "sore right leg" as Gil Brandt stated, but then ran the 3-cone and shuttle drills thereafter? Then Moore says that he tweaked it on the 3-cone, but continued with position drills. He initially wasn't going to participate at all.

That's what we like to call "suspicious" in the world of scouting. I will personally follow up with Dane Brugler to get this right. Stay tuned...

03/11/13 - 2013 Texas A&M Pro Day: Texas A&M defensive end Damontre Moore put together an uneven pro day performance Friday, hampered by a hamstring injury that limited his ability to rebound from a subpar showing at the Scouting Combine last month. Moore and the other prospects on-hand worked out for representatives from all 32 NFL teams, led by a contingent of five from the New York Jets, including head coach Rex Ryan. Oakland Raiders head coach Dennis Allen, a former Texas A&M Aggie himself, was also in attendance.Moore began the morning with 19 reps on the 225-pound bench press, which was an improvement from only 12 in Indianapolis. However he decided not to run the 40-yard dash due to the hamstring, resting with his 4.94-second result from the combine. Moore did look better in the 3-cone (7.05) and short shuttle (4.31) drills on Friday. Moore said he tweaked his hamstring at the combine and aggravated the injury while performing his 3-cone drill. Despite wincing in obvious pain, he also took part in the positional drills, working out with both the defensive linemen and linebackers. "I fought through it and put my best foot forward," Moore said. "I got my bench press up and ran decent times."
Moore thought about not participating in the drills due to the hamstring injury, but wanted to perform for scouts. "For him, his evaluation will be off video and how he played," said Texas A&M head coach Kevin Sumlin. "He wouldn't be a projected first rounder if he didn't play like it." - Dane Brugler, NFLDraftScout.com

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by Kushmir

In the end we'll agree to disagree as to me eyeball tests allow for too much bias, excuse making and rationalizing. I happen to think CJ could perform with Kellen Moore just as Fitz did with the horrible QBs he had under center....if he didnt it would depend on the time period. One down year for a guy like that isnt going to drop him to a 79. But three straight perhaps? After you see a pattern you have to acknowledge it. One of Maddens #1 issues has been the way formerly elite guys on the downsides of their career keep elite ratings because they're "sacred cows" so to speak. At some point you have to acknowledge the production as the truth. Or you're the guy rating Brandon Jacobs and Brett Favre as elite players because something you saw on tape or because they practiced well. Production on the football field trumps opinions as championships are still won on the field. As an eagles fan I remember scouts universally raving about Mike Mamula (chuckle) not to mention Kyle Boller, Jamarcus Russell, Charles Rogers and guys like Tony Mandarich. More Art than actual Science i'm afraid.

Excuse making? For scouts? Explain that one. Statistics lie a ton, my friend. There are several games where a team with more production offensively, defensively, and even on special teams have lost games. For every Mamula, Boller, Russell, Rogers, and Mandarich, I can cite HUNDREDS of players who were hits.

The hits drastically outweigh the misses. I'm sure that is one statistic we would agree on.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by justud

this post won the thread imo.

Care to explain why? The guys at EA are not trained in using the eye test. They are not scouts. They are not paid to scout NFL talent foremost. They make video games, terribly as I am sure thousands of patrons to OS would agree, so citing the guys who rate players at EA and holding on to the "sacred cows" doesn't make the most convincing of arguments.

[Kushmir]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

Excuse making? For scouts? Explain that one. Statistics lie a ton, my friend. There are several games where a team with more production offensively, defensively, and even on special teams have lost games. For every Mamula, Boller, Russell, Rogers, and Mandarich, I can cite HUNDREDS of players who were hits. The hits drastically outweigh the misses. I'm sure that is one statistic we would agree on.

Yes...because getting picks "right" is their job. They're unemployed if they can't pick winners/studs. So they accentuate when they do well and provide excuses (injuries, scheme, work ethic, background) when they're flat out wrong and a guy just can't make it in the NFL or isn't an exceptional player. Production does lie...but you can find the truth if you know where to look.

We're all entitled to our opinions but I disagree that the hits drastically outweigh the misses as well. I guess i'm just cursed with a good memory and can recall scouts calling Charles Rogers and JJ Stokes (from my hometown) the next jerry rice and once-in-a-decade talents. The list goes on and on...Alex Smith, Ronnie Brown, Braylon Edwards, Vince Young, Ernie Sims, Reggie Bush, Russell, Gaines Adams, Levi Brown, McFadden, Glen Dorsey, Gholston (chuckle) Jason Smith (lol) Tyson Jackson, Aaron Curry (sigh..) Brandon Graham, Rolando McClain (umm..) Derrick Morgan, Jake Locker, Blaine Gabbert (lol) Marcel Dareus all seen as elite level talents....except they weren't. And thats just from 06' to current at the top of the draft.

I'd call it a wash. They bat about .500...Look at the guys universally regarded as elite level talents for the last 10 years. Its hit or miss for all intents and purposes. SCARY. I prefer production as its not a prediction or if-then "bet" but instead data from an event that actually took place. Potential/Scouting will have you rating Ahmad Carroll and Jamaal Anderson (don't blame you if you dont remember either of them...neither did anything of note) much higher than they should be. Because their ability was nowhere close to their production on sundays.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by Kushmir

Yes...because getting picks "right" is their job. They're unemployed if they can't pick winners/studs. So they accentuate when they do well and provide excuses (injuries, scheme, work ethic, background) when they're flat out wrong and a guy just can't make it in the NFL or isn't an exceptional player. Production does lie...but you can find the truth if you know where to look. We're all entitled to our opinions but I disagree that the hits drastically outweigh the misses as well. I guess i'm just cursed with a good memory and can recall scouts calling Charles Rogers and JJ Stokes (from my hometown) the next jerry rice and once-in-a-decade talents. The list goes on and on...Alex Smith, Ronnie Brown, Braylon Edwards, Vince Young, Ernie Sims, Reggie Bush, Russell, Gaines Adams, Levi Brown, McFadden, Glen Dorsey, Gholston (chuckle) Jason Smith (lol) Tyson Jackson, Aaron Curry (sigh..) Brandon Graham, Rolando McClain (umm..) Derrick Morgan, Jake Locker, Blaine Gabbert (lol) Marcel Dareus all seen as elite level talents....except they weren't. And thats just from 06' to current at the top of the draft. I'd call it a wash. They bat about .500...Look at the guys universally regarded as elite level talents for the last 10 years. Its hit or miss for all intents and purposes. SCARY. I prefer production as its not a prediction or if-then "bet" but instead data from an event that actually took place. Potential/Scouting will have you rating Ahmad Carroll and Jamaal Anderson (don't blame you if you dont remember either of them) much higher than they should be. Because their ability was nowhere close to their production on sundays.

First of all, of course I remember Anderson and Carroll....I help run a draft website with a player database of over 70,000 players...plus, I'm a Packer fan who hasn't missed watching or listening to a game since 1995, so Ahmad Carroll is still a recent memory to me.

The thing that many fans fail to understand is that you draft players based on potential, not production. The same goes for signing undrafted free agents. You draft a player to do x, y, z in your system and hope that he can fulfill those expectations with coaching. However, it takes the individual player to want to meet those goals and put in the proper work to do so. You are basically betting on a future outcome that is uncertain.

Chad Reuter, formerly of NFLDS, wrote a great article in 2008 about the expectations for NFL players drafted in each round of the draft. He did some great analysis and provided some awesome data regarding what positions are typically busts and where they can be found.

http://www.falcfans.com/forums/viewt...t=6267&p=49857

This was a copied post of that article sans the graphs. The original article is off of NFLDS, but I will ask our webmaster to see if he can find it so I can re-post the entire article. It's a pretty interesting read. Scouts take all of information available into account, including college production, but that is primarily for the draft. The other thing you need to consider is that often times the GM and coaches make the picks, not the scouts. I live in the DFW and analysts constantly complain about Jerry Jones' pull on making the picks, contrary to what his scouts may tell him he should do. Blaming the picks on the scouts is a pretty unfair statement. Their job is to evaluate the talent, not make the picks.

NFL Scouts do not just scout draftable talent, however. They also scout current players to keep tabs in case they become available. This also needs to be taken into account. When I talk about scouting, I speak of the data complied by scouting departments for all NFL and non-NFL players.

I encourage you to do a long-term analysis of the expectations of drafted players for each round. If you expect a 7th rounder to be a Pro Bowler, you will always be disappointed. You have to weigh each pick properly based on his expectations. I think that if you scaled each draft this way, you would find that the players drafted and their production in games played/started and pro bowls accrued would outweigh that of players who were not drafted. Wouldn't that prove that the proper talent was at least selected properly? Let us all know what you find.

[Kushmir]

"If you expect a 7th rounder to be a Pro Bowler, you will always be disappointed."

Agreed 100% I think you stated...scouts attempt to chart a players potential, similarly in free agency you "dont pay for the past..you pay for the future." rating players in a videogame is something different altogether, however. Potential ratings in franchise for proper progression is just fine, but when it comes to rating current players ability and how they should perform/are represented in Madden IMHO the fastest most accurate and objective data to use is production. I would hate to see Blaine Gabbert with high stats because a scouting report said his potential was Favre-like and the coaching staff/scheme was holding him back. Defies logic and goes against everything ratings should be.

Again...thats just me. its certainly not according-to-hoyle accurate but you can back it up with facts. IMO its the best of the current options.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by Kushmir

"If you expect a 7th rounder to be a Pro Bowler, you will always be disappointed." Agreed 100% I think you stated...scouts attempt to chart a player potential, similarly in free agency you "dont pay for the past..you pay for the future." rating players in a videogame is something different altogether, however. Potential ratings in franchise for proper progression is just fine, but when it comes to rating current players ability and how they should perform/are represented in Madden IMHO the fastest most accurate and objective data to use is production. I would hate to see Blaine Gabbert with high stats because a scouting report said his potential was Favre-like and the coaching staff/scheme was holding him back. Defies logic and goes against everything rating should be. Again...thats just me. its certainly not according-to-hoyle accurate but you can back it up with facts. IMO its the best of the current options.

Scouting data can be just as objective though. Taking qualifiable data and interpolating it into something that is quantifiable is what scouting departments do. How else do you think they compare prospects?

Let me ask you this: how can you determine a WRs blocking ability based off of the stats? That is a Madden attribute is it not? How about rating a FBs ELU rating? Is there a stat for that? A SPM rating for a CB? Where is that stat? Can you rate a QBs arm strength on a stat like yds/completion or attempt? If you can then I guess Mohamed Sanu has the strongest arm in the league because his yds/att was 73.0 last year...and I suppose that Brock Osweiler has the weakest arm because his yds/att was only 3.0 (something that "scouts" would wholeheartedly diagree with, I'm sure). What about accuracy! Completion percentage perhaps? Well in that case Derek Anderson is the most accurate QB in the league with his awesome 100% pass completion percentage. How on earth is he a backup with accuracy like that?

The real "fact" here is that simple statistics do not tell the whole story and can be extremely misleading. At least a scout can tell you how well a player blocks at the second level, how well a runner evades arm tackles, and how well a CB moves in space with the ball in his hands as a runner (off of an INT, fumble recovery, or kick/punt return). Those same scouts can use their trained eyes and methods of analysis to compare a player's arm strength with another player's and can tell you how accurate a QB is at throwing different throws at different levels.

The other issue I have is that statistics do not ISOLATE talent. A QBs completion percentage, for example, is not only based on the ability to throw an accurate, catchable ball, but it is also dependent upon the WR actually hauling the thing in! If he doesn't do his job, does that mean that the QB did not do his as well? Even Joe Montana wouldn't have had all those Super Bowl titles if it were not for having guys block for him and catch his passes. But "statistically speaking", he is one of the most accurate passers in the game. Would we have thought of him differently if his receivers dropped 80% of the balls he threw? I bet people looking at statistics would think so...even though the scouts would disagree.