Draft "Potential"

[BleedTheClock]

So I'm arguing with people over the meaning of the words "potential" and "ceiling", which are the same term IMO.

 

Argument #1--Your potential comes from what you are physically capable of doing.

Argument #2--Your potential comes from what your are mentally capable of doing.

 

Obviously it's a combination of both, but my argument is that you can't ever fix your physical flaws and turn them into strengths. If you've got a pea shooter arm, you're not going to turn it into a rocket launcher arm. If you're slow, you're not going to become fast. You have certain physical caps on your ability. Nobody has a mental cap--a place where they all of a sudden can't learn any more or improve on the mental aspects of the game. Keep in mind these are 20-23 year old kids that we are evaluating, not grown adults. A ton of players come into the league with questionable work ethic and mental flaws. And a significant amount of these guys flip those weaknesses into strengths. I've never seen a poor athlete become a great athlete. They don't have the "POTENTIAL" to flip their physical flaws.

Thoughts?

[Nick_gb]

This is hard for me really, I agree with you that they're both the "same". However, if I'm forced to chose one then I'm going to go with the mental part of the game. A lot of talent has come in with god given ability and just hasn't been able to mentally put it together and end up flaking out. Then there are those technician players who mentally figure it out and don't have the god given ability making it 2-3 contracts into the league. You know? I'm going to lean mental here but I don't even really want to as I look at Ceiling and potential as exactly that. The same exact thing.

[BleedTheClock]

Here's my thing about it:

I'm taking guys with more brain power over guys with great physical tools most of the time, but my definition of potential is what you can physically become if you get your mind in order. Cardale Jones has insane potential. That being said, he was drafted right about where he should have been, despite being the most physically gifted QB in that draft.

Mason Rudolph vs. Lamar Jackson.    Rudolph is more refined as a passer, but lacks the physical gifts that Lamar Jackson does. At his best, Lamar Jackson is an animal in which the NFL has never seen. At Rudolph's best, he's still limited by his arm and mobility.

Potential is all about what you can become, not who you are right now.

[BleedTheClock]

5 minutes ago, Nick_gb said:

This is hard for me really, I agree with you that they're both the "same". However, if I'm forced to chose one then I'm going to go with the mental part of the game. A lot of talent has come in with god given ability and just hasn't been able to mentally put it together and end up flaking out. Then there are those technician players who mentally figure it out and don't have the god given ability making it 2-3 contracts into the league. You know? I'm going to lean mental here but I don't even really want to as I look at Ceiling and potential as exactly that. The same exact thing.

I'm not arguing which is more important. I'm asking what your definition of someone's ceiling is. I'm taking cerebral players so long as they have enough potential to pass the prerequisite NFL standards. But mental ability is just that--mental ability. You can constantly improve on your mental ability. Mental ability can hold people back for sure, but you can't say things like, "Oh, Mayfield will never understand how to operate under center." You can say things like, "Josh Rosen won't ever be able to run away from any DE's in the NFL." It's pretty cut-and-dry.

Also, it's nearly impossible to predict what someone is mentally capable of for the NFL when evaluating college tape and draft tools like the Wonderlic. Interviews and whatnot can give you a snapshot, but I've seen plenty of players get lambasted for their mentality and then turn it around completely. I've never seen a bad athlete or someone with a bad arm turn that around completely. Potential should define your capabilities. At best, we're guessing what these prospects are mentally capable of. There's more than enough evidence to measure someone's physical capabilities heading into the NFL, which is what potential is all about. It's basically saying, "this dude is a freak. If he can get the mental parts of the game down, he's going to become like _____." The opposite sounds very strange. "This dude is brilliant. If he can fix his arm strength or get faster, he's going to become like ________."

[MWil23]

As a rule of thumb, I tend to prefer guys who have a lot of intangible/mental ability who are good football players, as raw/great athletes who are not good football players rarely translate. 

A "tie" in a prospect would go to a guy with superior athletic potential (I'd take Cardale Jones over Connor Cook, as Cardale had superior tools with a comparable accuracy numbers, but Cook does have a slight edge in college system), but all things equal I'd take the mental/other aspect of the game.

I'd also say that not all flaws are equal. For example, I think that turnovers in the college game can be/are overblown from the QB position (Watson, Big Ben, Peyton Manning, Matt Ryan, Winston, etc.), but accuracy is a huge indicator of inability to overcome in most cases.

EDIT:

Potential to answer the OP, is if all things physical were to work out and all of the flaws were to go away, who would have the most POTENTIAL:

I.E.: If Josh Allen were to be able to iron out his accuracy/footwork and figure out how to read a defense and anticipate every throw with accuracy, he's CLEARLY the best QB prospect available and probably the GOAT QB prospect.

Given that as I stated above about not all flaws being equal (accuracy was my example), he's the least likely to overcome THAT obstacle, meaning I wouldn't draft him.

[reamer]

I'll say this: we split hairs about 40s and jumps and agility tests, but the fact of the matter is that almost all of these guys meet or exceed the threshold for success from a physical standpoint. Even the "poor" testers are still incredibly athletic. I love stats and metrics, but if one guy doesn't know how to use his athletic abilities optimally, and the other does, then I'll always take the guy who can apply his good athleticism over a guy who can't apply his elite athleticism.

I also think it's easier to develop strength, explosion, flexibility, body control, proprioception, etc, than it is to teach someone to be more cerebral if they're not naturally inclined to study and learn. Obviously, information can be acquired. Anyone can improve their understanding of a subject over time. But some people are more inclined to apply themselves than others, and so for me the ceiling is largely mental / attitude as opposed to purely physical abilities.

[onejayhawk]

This is like asking genes or environment. It's both.

J

[Nick_gb]

 

5 hours ago, BleedTheClock said:

I'm not arguing which is more important. I'm asking what your definition of someone's ceiling is. I'm taking cerebral players so long as they have enough potential to pass the prerequisite NFL standards. But mental ability is just that--mental ability. You can constantly improve on your mental ability. Mental ability can hold people back for sure, but you can't say things like, "Oh, Mayfield will never understand how to operate under center." You can say things like, "Josh Rosen won't ever be able to run away from any DE's in the NFL." It's pretty cut-and-dry.

Also, it's nearly impossible to predict what someone is mentally capable of for the NFL when evaluating college tape and draft tools like the Wonderlic. Interviews and whatnot can give you a snapshot, but I've seen plenty of players get lambasted for their mentality and then turn it around completely. I've never seen a bad athlete or someone with a bad arm turn that around completely. Potential should define your capabilities. At best, we're guessing what these prospects are mentally capable of. There's more than enough evidence to measure someone's physical capabilities heading into the NFL, which is what potential is all about. It's basically saying, "this dude is a freak. If he can get the mental parts of the game down, he's going to become like _____." The opposite sounds very strange. "This dude is brilliant. If he can fix his arm strength or get faster, he's going to become like ________."

Okay, maybe I'm misunderstanding your question here? That's pretty much exactly where I was going with the mental part ... Your "this dude is a freak. If he can get the mental parts of the game down, he's going to become ________" bit is exactly why I picked the mental part in the pole. It's why I pointed that there is plenty of people with god given ability (Physical assets) that flake out because they simply can't get the mental aspect of the game down. Know what I mean? 

[Rich7sena]

I think it was Bill Belichick who said an athletes athletic traits define his floor and his mind defines his ceiling. Mindset, namely confidence, goes a long way. Some players feel like being great is a birthright.

But, like others have said, it's really a mixture of both. After all, nobody wills themselves to become big, strong, and fast.

[Iamcanadian]

13 hours ago, BleedTheClock said:

So I'm arguing with people over the meaning of the words "potential" and "ceiling", which are the same term IMO.

 

Argument #1--Your potential comes from what you are physically capable of doing.

Argument #2--Your potential comes from what your are mentally capable of doing.

 

Obviously it's a combination of both, but my argument is that you can't ever fix your physical flaws and turn them into strengths. If you've got a pea shooter arm, you're not going to turn it into a rocket launcher arm. If you're slow, you're not going to become fast. You have certain physical caps on your ability. Nobody has a mental cap--a place where they all of a sudden can't learn any more or improve on the mental aspects of the game. Keep in mind these are 20-23 year old kids that we are evaluating, not grown adults. A ton of players come into the league with questionable work ethic and mental flaws. And a significant amount of these guys flip those weaknesses into strengths. I've never seen a poor athlete become a great athlete. They don't have the "POTENTIAL" to flip their physical flaws.

Thoughts?

I'll give it a go, first Brady has shown that you can improve your physical traits at least somewhat. His arm strength did improve with hard work and many a pro has worked on increasing their strength through similar efforts, but putting that aside, when talking about potential and ceiling, it is the physical traits that really are what you are talking about from a scouting or GM point of view. For scouts and GM's, physical traits are measurable, at least to a degree that the combine and pro days can show, and when you add game film to these physical traits, you can in a fashion at least, measure how a prospect uses these physical abilities.

Mental traits are far more difficult to quantify, they are so subjective that each scout and GM may perceive them totally different for each prospect. Prospects spend months preparing for their interviews and learning how to hide their weaknesses. Measuring a prospects heart, determination and character is a very tricky job and accounts for why the draft is a crapshoot at best.

Of course, scouts and GM's will talk about potential and ceiling like they really know about a prospects heart, determination and character, but in reality, it is their physical traits which really in the end, sets their potential and ceiling. Their mental or intangibles will likely decide whether or not they reach their potential or ceiling, but quantitatively speaking, it is their physical abilities that set that potential or ceiling!!!

Take a Mayfield for example, some scouts and GM's will love his physical abilities, might also say his is a great leader and has no fear and they like his competitiveness, while another pro scout or GM, might say they like his physical abilities but find him way too immature and downgrade his potential or ceiling! that way! The only consistent thing is his physical talent. How each views him or his intangibles can be totally different. 

So in conclusion, it is your physical abilities that set your ceiling and potential, while it is your mental capabilities which will decide whether or not you ever reach them, injuries aside.

[BleedTheClock]

1 minute ago, Iamcanadian said:

So in conclusion, it is your physical abilities that set your ceiling and potential, while it is your mental capabilities which will decide whether or not you ever reach them, injuries aside.

Exactly this. I don't think it's fair to look at a 20-23 year old kid and say "he can't learn how to do something". You have to give kids the benefit of the doubt when it comes to mental processing. Someone can be extremely far behind the curve in terms of mental capacity, but it shouldn't disqualify them from being labeled a "high ceiling prospect."

[Iamcanadian]

7 minutes ago, BleedTheClock said:

Exactly this. I don't think it's fair to look at a 20-23 year old kid and say "he can't learn how to do something". You have to give kids the benefit of the doubt when it comes to mental processing. Someone can be extremely far behind the curve in terms of mental capacity, but it shouldn't disqualify them from being labeled a "high ceiling prospect."

I agree, although in my own subjective way, I certainly add in my feelings through previous experience, about their mental capabilities when assessing their ceiling, but the draft is certainly a crapshoot at best and we all know, some will do a lot better than we ever thought possible while others just seem to fade away. 

[Tugboat]

This is a total cop-out answer, but i really don't think either one thing solely defines a prospects "ceiling".  It's all a sliding scale, with some room to push/pull from either end.  You have the physically elite players who dominate on that, even at the next level.  You also have the smart savvy players who carve out long, productive elite careers on that as well.

I'm more of a believer in thresholds and instincts.  There are certain athletic thresholds for specific positions that very few if any, ever overcome.  These are "barriers to entry".  A guy doesn't hit those athletic thresholds, and they're going to be lacking critical tools to succeed against the athleticism of the NFL level.  The same goes for especially toolsy players who just never muster the brainpower to amount to anything.  There are certain football smarts thresholds that some guys just don't rise above, and they end up forever better athletes than football players.

It varies a lot by position too.  I'm a lot more inclined to believe you can simplify the game for a LBer than a QB for example.  But at the end of the day, you can only tip the scale so far either way before you start getting useless players who don't have the on-field combination of traits to make an impact.

 

Ultimately, it comes down to "football instincts" for me, more than testing smarts though.  Football isn't Chess.  It's not a slow, intellectual game.  More than "smarts", i care about a players' ability to make smart decisions quickly and instinctively.  And the ability to trust those instincts.  Combine that with physical abilities to exceed the thresholds for the position and actually make plays on their reads...and you've got a winner.

 

You're never going to "smart" your way into throwing a good ball.  You're never going to "athlete" your way into a deep understanding of the game.  Real "upside" comes in the guys who carry a good dose of both, and have truly special traits in at least one or the other column.

[Danger]

Physical ability is what determines how far you're able to go, mental ability determines if you will go as far as your physical ability is capable of.