Jump to content

Player Rankings + RAS


deathstar

Recommended Posts

I don’t understand why it’s so hard for some people to understand that, in general, these athletic profiles are a good way to help predict the types of players GB is or isn’t looking for, even if they aren’t an end all be all.

How can anyone want to ignore an obvious trend that GB clearly tries to draft high athletic testers at a rate higher than other teams? Obviously it’s not the only thing that goes into their player evaluation, but it is NOT a coincidence that they have drafted almost exclusively high SPARQ athletes over the last few years.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Isherwood said:

I don’t understand why it’s so hard for some people to understand that, in general, these athletic profiles are a good way to help predict the types of players GB is or isn’t looking for, even if they aren’t an end all be all.

How can anyone want to ignore an obvious trend that GB clearly tries to draft high athletic testers at a rate higher than other teams? Obviously it’s not the only thing that goes into their player evaluation, but it is NOT a coincidence that they have drafted almost exclusively high SPARQ athletes over the last few years.

Maybe someone could cross the info from the big board above with SPARQ. The only player I see sticking out so far is Fant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Packerraymond said:

Why would you ever want to ignore any metric or data provided to you? 

You're right. It shouldn't be ignored, no data should be. I think I am thinking more along the lines of if a player grades out extremely well in RAS it shouldn'tcontribute to a significant chance on your board. 

Edited by SaginawReunion83
grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Joe said:

I soured on him at the combine. I think his testing numbers make him tumble down the board. Possibly 20-25 range rather than the 5-15 range he had been previously pegged. It may not show up on the Joe Schmoe sites, but it HAS to be on teams' boards; especially considering the knock on 'Bama players is that they're topped off when entering the league.

He Doesn't meet Packers agility threshold, necessary for LaFleur's system too.

I have to take him off the board for GB esp in round one.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, deathstar said:

https://www.prideofdetroit.com/2016/5/16/11678686/relative-athletic-scores-what-they-are-and-why-they-work

This goes into more specifics. It takes every 40 run by every player at that position and scores it 1-10. If you score a 9.8 you're in the 98% of 40s run by that position.

Thank you for explaining how standard deviations work. That was not the question asked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SaginawReunion83 said:

 

I don't have the good looking full picture as listed above...but here is his ranking. Makes him the highest rated by the RAS scale for SS in this class.

 

SS Will Harris Boston College 2019COMBINE

9.62

Except he is fs/ slot. They put Savage as SS too but no way he plays that at his size. Harris's combine numbers are good regardless. 

I think we take two safeties, two DL in the draft. Maybe an edge in round 3-5. 

Offense 2 OL for sure.

It's a good draft class for these positions and Gute seems to have set up targeting these spots with what he did in FA and gutting the FS --- we need two guys there since Jones seems to be a SS/lb hybrid now 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, deathstar said:

Ok, gotcha. If you want more information about why or what please take a look at the article.

So we have bench press weighted for the same amount as 3-cone for Corners. 

Perfect. Glad we're all excited for this. 

This is grossly simplified analytics, presented in a way to look more complicated so people can be excited about understanding and using analytics just looking at the few examples shown you're going to have huge flaws in these metrics on the edges of the data samples. Anybody in the 9s and probably even the 8s will get clumped together inappropriately. 

If you want to use it to compare how guys did in certain tests, that could be viable, but there's not even any sort of correction for 40 time and mass on here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

So we have bench press weighted for the same amount as 3-cone for Corners. 

Perfect. Glad we're all excited for this. 

This is grossly simplified analytics, presented in a way to look more complicated so people can be excited about understanding and using analytics just looking at the few examples shown you're going to have huge flaws in these metrics on the edges of the data samples. Anybody in the 9s and probably even the 8s will get clumped together inappropriately. 

If you want to use it to compare how guys did in certain tests, that could be viable, but there's not even any sort of correction for 40 time and mass on here. 

The intent of the score is specifically how to compare how guys performed on tests relative to others at their position. The overall ranking of one over the other doesn't matter. Unless you believe people are being scored as 8s or 9s and aren't extremely good athletes for their position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, deathstar said:

I was listening to the Pack A Day podcast yesterday and the creator of RAS (https://relativeathleticscores.com/) was on. He spoke about how the Packers are one of the most predictive teams in the NFL with regards to selecting athletes. We spoke about it in one of the threads as well: in the last two drafts we've selected two players ranked below 7.7 RAS. So with that in mind I created a spreadsheet this morning that combines rankings of players from different sources (currently only TDN and PFF pre-combine) and their RAS. I averaged the rankings of the big boards then averaged that ranking with their RAS to give players a score. The lower the score the higher they rank on our board. I used TDN's top 100 as a template and threw out anyone with an RAS below 8 to save time. I also have not listed anyone who has not worked out.

Q79120D.jpg

Issues: I need to add more player rankings. PFF's pre-combine big board only went to 50 so anyone not listed I scored a 51. We don't have RAS scores for everyone until after pro days. 

To Do: More rankings. Delete PFF's big board. Update after pro days.

If anyone's interested in a link to the spreadsheet PM me. It's pretty disorganized right now.

I listened to this too. GREAT listen. And I was going to do the same thing! Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

This is going to sound like a stupid question but, why do we care about RAS?

The Packers don't use it internally as far as we know. Is there a published formula.

They may not use it internally. But we rarely draft a player that isn't towards the top of it lately. From the podcast, which was a very interesting listen, Jamal Williams is the only drafted player on the roster that didn't meet (I think they said) Elite RAS thresholds. Which was 8.5 or 9+. Don't quote me on the specifics. 

 

Point being, if we're actually trying to figure out who we might draft, looking at this seems to be an OK tiebreaker when players are similar. Kind of a birdseye view of how they compare athletically at their position. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, 86Capers said:

🙋‍♂️Where’s Ed Oliver?

 

12 minutes ago, Fl0nkerton said:

He is like short and stuff so he sucks obvs.

Ah... or ya know, he didn't run at the combine. So he wouldn't have  a score. 

 

Quote

 

Combine Results
u-unofficial
 
40 Yard Dash
--
SECONDS
Bench Press
32
REPS
Vertical Jump
36.0
INCHES
Broad Jump
120.0
INCHES
3 Cone Drill
--
SECONDS
20 Yd Shuttle
--
SECONDS
60 Yd Shuttle
--
SECONDS

 

Edited by blankman0021
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does Montez Sweat rate so low on this list?    He absolutely crushed the combine tests.  he has been rated top 10 player on just about every published list across the net.

If I am understanding what you are trying to measure it seems he would be toward the top of the board.   Athletically he tested better than Bosa, and he is taller, while being only a little lighter.   Seems he would be toward the top of the chart.

Mind you,  I am not advocating we pick Sweat, just want to understand what we are looking at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...