Good Article on Overrating Rookies

[justud]

check it out: http://spgmg.blogspot.com/2012/03/hi...g-rookies.html

[Big FN Deal]

L-O-V-E-D, loved it! lol

Somebody tweet that link to Donny Moore and the EA football ratings "team".

[tiloj]

Eh, honestly in the last few years offensive rookies have accelerated their learning curve substantially.

Rookie quarterbacks, wide receivers, and linemen have improved their play via coaching techniques by leaps and bounds over the past 5-10 years.

Simply put, coaches have figured out how to harness potential and physical ability far better than they did only a decade ago. A player like Andy Dalton or Cam Newton might have flopped in 1990, but today? They are stars in the making.

This coupled with rules changes that ease these rookies into the game, and you are seeing monster seasons more often than ever from young players.

It is a different world, and that makes this article less accurate by the day.

[xblake16x]

Its still accurate though. And its not just rookies, everyone needs to be rerated

[CpectorBon]

honestly in the last few years offensive rookies have accelerated their learning curve substantially

[Big FN Deal]

Quote: Originally Posted by tiloj

Eh, honestly in the last few years offensive rookies have accelerated their learning curve substantially. Rookie quarterbacks, wide receivers, and linemen have improved their play via coaching techniques by leaps and bounds over the past 5-10 years. Simply put, coaches have figured out how to harness potential and physical ability far better than they did only a decade ago. A player like Andy Dalton or Cam Newton might have flopped in 1990, but today? They are stars in the making. This coupled with rules changes that ease these rookies into the game, and you are seeing monster seasons more often than ever from young players. It is a different world, and that makes this article less accurate by the day.

Maybe I am becoming too full of myself when it comes to what is or is not NFL realistic but this post right here and the "likes" it has accrued, is baffling to me.

Essentially this post is stating that Dalton and Cam were nothing special but just a product of the current NFL environment for rookies and we should expect to see more rookies shine like this going forward. I completely disagree because the NFL will always be relative meaning things in the NFL change together. So if Dalton and Cam's rookie performances become the norm for rookie QB's then elite QB's will be having far greater performances meaning the "norm" should still be rated lower.

I am not understanding how the NFL has or will become a league where the vast majority of highly touted rookie players pan out their first year and become worthy of high initial Madden rookie ratings. In the article, the writer gave examples of a nice list of high rated rookies in Madden and the vast majority didn't turn out to deserve it.

Someone please explain to me what about today's NFL "makes this article less accurate by the day."

Also let me add, it is very difficult to have a clear discussion about ratings in Madden for any player because the OVR is alleged to be a value rating but a players OVR is universal for all teams.

[xblake16x]

Not to mention two top 15 QB's who actually seemed to play worse as the season went on, Christian Ponder and Blaine Gabbert... so one of three first round QB's who saw significant playing time actually had a little bit of success? And all of a sudden the norm is to have success?

[DCEBB2001]

First of all, I am not a big believer in what EA did regarding setting player overalls because of where they are drafted. Scouts often disagree with management on player skill, potential, and value. How else could a guy like Tebow have been selected in the 1st round with a near consensus mid-round grade? How is it that a guy like Aaron Rodgers with a top 5 grade falls into the mid 20s?

It seems to me that when EA comes out with their "live" player ratings during the draft, they simply take where they are selected and assign a value. If that was the case then Gabbert (2011), Alualu (2010), Crabtree (2009), and McKelvin (2008), would have had the same draft grades, which was not the case.

EA just doesn't use quality data to interpolate ratings. Teams miss on players, draft them too high, or allow other talents to fall. It is not an exact science, but I tend to trust the scouts over The Czar's ratings.

Now, as for inflated rookie ratings, in the FBG system rookies are not capped or kept above a minimum. They are simply rated based upon the data. Here is how the top 10 players for each class graded out in recent years:

2010:
1 BRADFORD Sam 74
2 SUH Ndamukong 73
3 OKUNG Russell 73
4 McCOY Gerald 73
5 PIERRE-PAUL Jason 70
6 BERRY Eric 69
7 WILLIAMS Trent 69
8 MORGAN Derrick 68
9 BULAGA Bryan 68
10 SPILLER C.J. 67
250 MINOR Brandon 54

2009:
1 STAFFORD Matthew 70
2 SMITH Jason 70
3 CURRY Aaron 70
4 SANCHEZ Mark 69
5 CRABTREE Michael 69
6 SMITH Andre 69
7 RAJI B.J. 68
8 ORAKPO Brian 68
9 MAUALUGA Rey 68
10 MacLIN Jeremy 68
250 WILLIAMS Jaison 54

2008:
1 LONG Jake 74
2 LONG Chris 74
3 GHOLSTON Vernon 73
4 DORSEY Glen 72
5 ELLIS Sedric 71
6 HARVEY Derrick 71
7 RYAN Matt 70
8 MENDENHALL Rashad 70
9 McFADDEN Darren 70
10 BROHM Brian 70
250 LISTIRTI Brad 54

2007:
1 JOHNSON Calvin 79
2 THOMAS Joe 75
3 PETERSON Adrian 73
4 QUINN Brady 73
5 HALL Leon 72
6 LANDRY LaRon 72
7 CARRIKER Adam 71
8 RUSSELL Jamarcus 71
9 WILLIS Patrick 71
10 OKOYE Amobi 71
250 BISHOP Desmond 53

2006:
1 BUSH Reggie 76
2 LEINHART Matt 75
3 DAVIS Vernon 74
4 HAWK A.J. 72
5 FERGUSON D'Brickashw 71
6 WILLIAMS Mario 71
7 HUFF Mike 71
8 CUTLER Jay 71
9 YOUNG Vincent 71
10 BUNKLEY Broderick68
250 PINEGAR Paul 53

As you can see, some drafts are top heavy. Some have large drop offs even by the 10th pick. Some drafts are very, very deep. I give the 250th (near the back end of the draft) to illustrate how far the talent drops off in my system based on scouting data. The difference is quite large. To me, it is not that players come into the league rated as an "86", and drop like Reggie Bush did, but rather, it is that they come in much lower and either ADVANCE to a higher grade (rating), or simply stay stagnant. It is unlikely that players actually get worse from playing in the NFL. Instead, I posit that they actually just fail to meet lofty expectations and/or potential.

Now here is a look at this year's class.

2012:
1 LUCK Andrew 84
2 GRIFFIN Robert 82
3 KALIL Matt 78
4 POE Dontari 76
5 BLACKMON Justin 75
6 KIRKPATRICK Dre 73
7 KUECHLY Luke 72
8 CLAIBORNE Morris 72
9 COX Fletcher 72
10 DeCASTRO David72
250 PANNEL Deon'tae 58

All of the measurements are the same for each class. As we can see, the two prospects at the top are the highest I have had since Calvin Johnson in 2007. Their potential ability is high. I can see why EA has them rated as high as they are claiming, but it is not like every other player in the top 10 is in the 80s. In fact, the top 10 talent is only slightly better than that of 2007 and 2006. However, the depth this year is the highest it has every been for the top 250 players.

This system seems to me to allow for growth of rookie prospects, while also utilizing real comparable data from one to another, both in college and in the pros. Just my 2 cents.